Announcement

Larssen
Member
+93|1265
If you want to find historical reasons for contemporary cultural  behaviours you can draw a line all the way back to martin luther in the case of Germany.
coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6086|England. Stoke

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

The war might indeed have been shortened if they hadn't redirected supplies to Montgomery's failed Operation Market Garden instead of to his charging tanks. The Germans were on the run and the delay allowed them to regroup.
Takes a deep breath

The people who think that the war would have ended quicker if Patton, a fool only good at one thing, was allowed to do what he wanted to do completely overlaps with the people who think America singlehandedly won the war. World War 2 was decided on the Eastern Front. By the time D-Day happened, it was clear that the Red Army was going to overrun Germany. D-Day and the western front's main contribution was tying up troops that would have been killed failing to defend Berlin. The biggest success of D-Day wasn't defeating the Germans in Normandy. It was liberating France before the Red Army got there.

Secondly, the Germans Patton led against weren't the best Germany had to offer. The German army was depleted on the Eastern Front while the U.S. were the best supplied army in the world. Let's not exaggerate his accomplishments as a general.

Third, Patton was a meathead and history proved his idea about launching a war on the Soviet Union was ridiculous. Multiple times his poor judgement almost lost him his command. And considering the outcome of the Cold War, patience proved to have been the best course of action. What would have happened if we declared war on the Soviet Union? Nuclear war, millions of more dead (a lot of them Americans) and unstable democracies across the Eastern Europe that would have elected comedians and little Putins just like they did in our timeline when they got democracy without having to nuke them repeatedly. The only person who would have been happy with this result? Gunslinger in our timeline once he saw the demographic death toll.

And finally, if you are going to study World War 2, the Eastern Front is the good stuff. Oh and the Pacific War was lame compared to the Sino-Japanese war.
Yes, the Soviets did the majority of the fighting and dying. The British and Americans got their butt kicked by Rommel and his numerically inferior forces in North Africa, and they took forever to defeat a numerically inferior opponent in Italy. Both our weapons and our tactics were inferior to the Germans. We, like the Soviets, simply overwhelmed German troops with artillery and air support, and interdicted their supply lines, thus refusing them resupply. The Germans we fought at Normandy were crippled, lame, or conscripts from conquered Eastern European countries. They still caused tens of thousands of casualties. The Germans we fought at The Bulge had a large number of teenagers.

A lot of the issue that American forces had was the stubbornness of the procurement bureaucracy. They didn't like new weapons or tactics. General McNair refused to upgrade the Sherman tank, stating that he felt it was adequate. He also insisted on having separate tank destroyer units rather than building heavier tanks. The Sherman tank was a piece of shit and was responsible for tens of thousands of American and British deaths.

Because the Sherman was such a piece of shit and a liability, it's only use was in exploiting breakouts and in movement. Once the Western Front bogged down in order to feed Montgomery supplies, the German forces were allowed to regroup and bring up Panther and Tiger tanks, and the American forces were once again forced to rely on the Sherman tank as they had in Normandy, slogging it out in attrition battles in which the Sherman crews took a beating. Pausing for Market Garden was a political decision made to stop the V-2 rockets. It extended the war and cost many lives. Patton should've been released to keep going.
So much History Channel...
All the stuff you said about the Sherman is debunked rubbish from coffee table books and shite TV. The "slogging it out in attrition battles" thing is a tactical issue vs doctirnal issue, the whole point Shermans supported infantry tank destroyers fight the tanks...
Check the survival rates of Sherman crews and tanks and how quickly they would be back in action after taking hits compared to virtually anything else.
Again we run into the "im good at maths, but post bullshit numbers" problem 10,000s of deaths because the Sherman really???

Market Garden really wasn't anything to do with V2's either...

Last edited by coke (2020-05-08 09:55:01)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+575|3097

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

I have never, ever read anything that was in any way shape or form lamenting the fact that we had to fight the Germans. WWI? Sure. Mencken was a big anti-war guy back then and was hoping we'd fight with with the Germans, not against them. But WWII? No. I've never read anything that wasn't flag wavingly pro the European war.
I have read in National Review how "the Nazi hijacked the most advanced civilization in mainland Europe", as if German militarism wasn't already a thing.
“Where some states possess an army, the Prussian Army possesses a state.”

The Germans were militarized when Prussia completed their consolidation of Germany under Bismarck. All the desire for order, and uniformity, and the trains running on time etc. is due to this militarization of their society, not some inherent genetic trait that came paired with a love for beer and potatoes. This is why I've never understood why Progressive types, the types that would never in a million years serve in the military, are so willing to militarize society as a whole. I don't think they understand the tradeoffs.
https://i.imgur.com/GhyVUli.gif
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|4735|London, England

coke wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:


Takes a deep breath

The people who think that the war would have ended quicker if Patton, a fool only good at one thing, was allowed to do what he wanted to do completely overlaps with the people who think America singlehandedly won the war. World War 2 was decided on the Eastern Front. By the time D-Day happened, it was clear that the Red Army was going to overrun Germany. D-Day and the western front's main contribution was tying up troops that would have been killed failing to defend Berlin. The biggest success of D-Day wasn't defeating the Germans in Normandy. It was liberating France before the Red Army got there.

Secondly, the Germans Patton led against weren't the best Germany had to offer. The German army was depleted on the Eastern Front while the U.S. were the best supplied army in the world. Let's not exaggerate his accomplishments as a general.

Third, Patton was a meathead and history proved his idea about launching a war on the Soviet Union was ridiculous. Multiple times his poor judgement almost lost him his command. And considering the outcome of the Cold War, patience proved to have been the best course of action. What would have happened if we declared war on the Soviet Union? Nuclear war, millions of more dead (a lot of them Americans) and unstable democracies across the Eastern Europe that would have elected comedians and little Putins just like they did in our timeline when they got democracy without having to nuke them repeatedly. The only person who would have been happy with this result? Gunslinger in our timeline once he saw the demographic death toll.

And finally, if you are going to study World War 2, the Eastern Front is the good stuff. Oh and the Pacific War was lame compared to the Sino-Japanese war.
Yes, the Soviets did the majority of the fighting and dying. The British and Americans got their butt kicked by Rommel and his numerically inferior forces in North Africa, and they took forever to defeat a numerically inferior opponent in Italy. Both our weapons and our tactics were inferior to the Germans. We, like the Soviets, simply overwhelmed German troops with artillery and air support, and interdicted their supply lines, thus refusing them resupply. The Germans we fought at Normandy were crippled, lame, or conscripts from conquered Eastern European countries. They still caused tens of thousands of casualties. The Germans we fought at The Bulge had a large number of teenagers.

A lot of the issue that American forces had was the stubbornness of the procurement bureaucracy. They didn't like new weapons or tactics. General McNair refused to upgrade the Sherman tank, stating that he felt it was adequate. He also insisted on having separate tank destroyer units rather than building heavier tanks. The Sherman tank was a piece of shit and was responsible for tens of thousands of American and British deaths.

Because the Sherman was such a piece of shit and a liability, it's only use was in exploiting breakouts and in movement. Once the Western Front bogged down in order to feed Montgomery supplies, the German forces were allowed to regroup and bring up Panther and Tiger tanks, and the American forces were once again forced to rely on the Sherman tank as they had in Normandy, slogging it out in attrition battles in which the Sherman crews took a beating. Pausing for Market Garden was a political decision made to stop the V-2 rockets. It extended the war and cost many lives. Patton should've been released to keep going.
So much History Channel...
All the stuff you said about the Sherman is debunked rubbish from coffee table books and shite TV. The "slogging it out in attrition battles" thing is a tactical issue vs doctirnal issue, the whole point Shermans supported infantry tank destroyers fight the tanks...
Check the survival rates of Sherman crews and tanks and how quickly they would be back in action after taking hits compared to virtually anything else.
Again we run into the "im good at maths, but post bullshit numbers" problem 10,000s of deaths because the Sherman really???

Market Garden really wasn't anything to do with V2's either...
Read Death Traps
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6086|England. Stoke

Jay wrote:

coke wrote:

Jay wrote:

Yes, the Soviets did the majority of the fighting and dying. The British and Americans got their butt kicked by Rommel and his numerically inferior forces in North Africa, and they took forever to defeat a numerically inferior opponent in Italy. Both our weapons and our tactics were inferior to the Germans. We, like the Soviets, simply overwhelmed German troops with artillery and air support, and interdicted their supply lines, thus refusing them resupply. The Germans we fought at Normandy were crippled, lame, or conscripts from conquered Eastern European countries. They still caused tens of thousands of casualties. The Germans we fought at The Bulge had a large number of teenagers.

A lot of the issue that American forces had was the stubbornness of the procurement bureaucracy. They didn't like new weapons or tactics. General McNair refused to upgrade the Sherman tank, stating that he felt it was adequate. He also insisted on having separate tank destroyer units rather than building heavier tanks. The Sherman tank was a piece of shit and was responsible for tens of thousands of American and British deaths.

Because the Sherman was such a piece of shit and a liability, it's only use was in exploiting breakouts and in movement. Once the Western Front bogged down in order to feed Montgomery supplies, the German forces were allowed to regroup and bring up Panther and Tiger tanks, and the American forces were once again forced to rely on the Sherman tank as they had in Normandy, slogging it out in attrition battles in which the Sherman crews took a beating. Pausing for Market Garden was a political decision made to stop the V-2 rockets. It extended the war and cost many lives. Patton should've been released to keep going.
So much History Channel...
All the stuff you said about the Sherman is debunked rubbish from coffee table books and shite TV. The "slogging it out in attrition battles" thing is a tactical issue vs doctirnal issue, the whole point Shermans supported infantry tank destroyers fight the tanks...
Check the survival rates of Sherman crews and tanks and how quickly they would be back in action after taking hits compared to virtually anything else.
Again we run into the "im good at maths, but post bullshit numbers" problem 10,000s of deaths because the Sherman really???

Market Garden really wasn't anything to do with V2's either...
Read Death Traps
that's the exact book I had in mind you dolt, it's completely debunked, using false stats, and anecdotal bullshit.

"As a memoir, it is meandering and repetitive, far too often wandering away from the authors personal experiences into the realm of speculation. As a history it is lacking, containing no end notes, foot notes or bibliography. And finally, as an indictment of the M4 Sherman tank, the book is filled with so many factual errors and outright falsehoods, it cannot be taken seriously on this count either." Highly recommended by Jay though.

"10s of thousands of American and British lives", must have mainly been us poor Brits seen as only about 1,400 US tankers AS A WHOLE were killed in action.

Last edited by coke (2020-05-08 10:12:02)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|4735|London, England

coke wrote:

Jay wrote:

coke wrote:


So much History Channel...
All the stuff you said about the Sherman is debunked rubbish from coffee table books and shite TV. The "slogging it out in attrition battles" thing is a tactical issue vs doctirnal issue, the whole point Shermans supported infantry tank destroyers fight the tanks...
Check the survival rates of Sherman crews and tanks and how quickly they would be back in action after taking hits compared to virtually anything else.
Again we run into the "im good at maths, but post bullshit numbers" problem 10,000s of deaths because the Sherman really???

Market Garden really wasn't anything to do with V2's either...
Read Death Traps
that's the exact book I had in mind you dolt, it's completely debunked, using false stats, and anecdotal bullshit.

"As a memoir, it is meandering and repetitive, far too often wandering away from the authors personal experiences into the realm of speculation. As a history it is lacking, containing no end notes, foot notes or bibliography. And finally, as an indictment of the M4 Sherman tank, the book is filled with so many factual errors and outright falsehoods, it cannot be taken seriously on this count either." Highly recommended by Jay though.

"10s of thousands of American and British lives", must have mainly been us poor Brits seen as only about 1,400 US tankers AS A WHOLE were killed in action.
I'm not calling it gospel, it is one of many books.

1,400 tankers, and thousands of others that were left without cover because their tanks couldn't hold up.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+470|2829

DesertFox- wrote:

uziq wrote:

DesertFox- wrote:

Yeah, fuckin' weirdos with their adoration of Rommel as some strategic genius.
i never said it was weird to admire a man’s military genius. i was talking more about it being a weirdly british trait. that is, what it says about british values and readers. historiography in academia and reading tastes in the public at large say a lot. i used to commission bookstore-level ‘trade’ history nonfiction, so i thought about this sort of stuff quite a bit.

another weird fact is that napoleon is strangely popular with english readers. as well as hitler/stalin/mussolini, of course.
I was more referring to my dumb ass picking a gaming nick in the early 2000s.
lol i completely missed that. d'oh.
coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6086|England. Stoke
"many books" but the first one you mention as though it's undeniable evidence that you know what you're talking about, when in fact it's actually laughable that you mentioned it.
And again Sherman's support the infantry and vice versa, tank destroyers and AT guns fight tanks.
uziq
Member
+470|2829

Jay wrote:

coke wrote:

Jay wrote:

Read Death Traps
that's the exact book I had in mind you dolt, it's completely debunked, using false stats, and anecdotal bullshit.

"As a memoir, it is meandering and repetitive, far too often wandering away from the authors personal experiences into the realm of speculation. As a history it is lacking, containing no end notes, foot notes or bibliography. And finally, as an indictment of the M4 Sherman tank, the book is filled with so many factual errors and outright falsehoods, it cannot be taken seriously on this count either." Highly recommended by Jay though.

"10s of thousands of American and British lives", must have mainly been us poor Brits seen as only about 1,400 US tankers AS A WHOLE were killed in action.
I'm not calling it gospel, it is one of many books.
indeed, one of many books like coronavirus is one of many plagues. handy little escape route, that, isn't it?

jay let me give you some advice as an editor, with lots of experience in history and nonfiction: if a book doesn't have any or all of the following: citations, endnotes, references, footnotes, appendices, an index ... then it is not a proper history book and you are reading someone's vague spluttering suppositions. historians 'show their working'. anyone with even moderate familiarity with a field will turn to the bibliography of a book to see where the writer's own thinking and research is coming from.

without this quasi-academic scaffolding, a book is basically worthless. file as coffee table, as coke said, or memoir, or holiday reading. it is not history.

Last edited by uziq (2020-05-08 10:48:08)

coke
Aye up duck!
+440|6086|England. Stoke
It's classic Jay read one book and it's formed his entire holier than thou knowledgeable opinion on something, which with even the smallest scrutiny unravels.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|4735|London, England

coke wrote:

"many books" but the first one you mention as though it's undeniable evidence that you know what you're talking about, when in fact it's actually laughable that you mentioned it.
And again Sherman's support the infantry and vice versa, tank destroyers and AT guns fight tanks.
Yes, that was the setup that was advocated for, but after the initial battles when they had time to reassess, they should've done away with the tank destroyers and developed a more powerful main battle tank. Tank destroyers were only effective in defensive action when they could be dug in. The British went through several iterations of tanks just in the North Africa campaign alone, and they were only going up against German Mk3 and Mk4 tanks. America started with Shermans and ended with Shermans.

The Allies had a poor doctrine from the start when it came to armored units. As you said, they tied them to infantry units and treated them as mobile artillery more than as the breakthrough weapons that the Germans used them as, and as American doctrine uses them now. The American military has a very long history of re-fighting the last war when equipping and training, so there was a lot of legacy thought about static warfare from WWI still entrenched in the general staff. This conservatism cost us a lot of lives unnecessarily.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|4735|London, England

coke wrote:

It's classic Jay read one book and it's formed his entire holier than thou knowledgeable opinion on something, which with even the smallest scrutiny unravels.
One book eh? I guess.

I mean, I've read von Mannstein, Guderian and Rommel's autobiographies. I've read Cornelius Ryan's A Bridge Too Far (great movie as well) and The Longest Day, D-Day, Citizen Soldiers, and Band of Brothers by Ambrose, The Fall of Berlin by Beevor, Enemy at the Gates by Craig... my favorite history was The Foxes of the Desert by Carell which I read multiple times.

Military history was my thing for a long time.

Last edited by Jay (2020-05-08 11:09:25)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,724|6114|Oxferd Ohire
Sounds like a good basis for some Real World Facts
https://i.imgur.com/tMvdWFG.png
uziq
Member
+470|2829
rommel, mannstein and guderian wrote their own biographies?

do you mean you’ve read biographies of them? if so, by whom? any major figure from ww2 will have about 20 biographies at this point, some widely respected and cited, others considered crud or the work of hacks.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+575|3097
I like how we went from hating on West World to World War 2 armor comparisons and reading list.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|4735|London, England

RTHKI wrote:

Sounds like a good basis for some Real World Facts
Nah, I lost interest. Rather difficult to strike up a random conversation about battle tactics used during WWII with your average American. I'm not in the military any longer, and I'm not a teacher, so I'm not going to apply the knowledge, and so it all becomes rather useless... I read a book about the Finns fighting off the Soviets during WWII, which was amazing, but at the end of it I realize I had no one to share my knowledge with, so why did I bother in the first place? Switched to non-military history stuff after that.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|4735|London, England

uziq wrote:

rommel, mannstein and guderian wrote their own biographies?

do you mean you’ve read biographies of them? if so, by whom? any major figure from ww2 will have about 20 biographies at this point, some widely respected and cited, others considered crud or the work of hacks.
Rommel wrote "Attacks" after WWI. He was obviously unable to write after 1944 or so...

Guderian wrote Panzer Leader, and von Mannstein wrote Lost Victories.

All solid books.

Last edited by Jay (2020-05-08 11:18:16)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+575|3097
Jay, instead of piling on you like everyone else, I am curious about what you think of the following questions. Even if you think you are the most knowledgeable person here about the war, you have to acknowledge I would be a close second.

I think there are wrong and right answers to these questions and I will be willing to discuss these in detail without calling you a cuck/stupid. Please spend as much time on each question as you like. I will closely read whatever response you have.

1. Were the Nazis liberals or conservatives?
2. Could the 6th Army have broken out from Stalingrad?
3. Why did Operation Barbarossa fail?
4. What did international observers think of the invasion?
5. Was Stalin planning to invade Germany beforehand?
6. What was the most significant issue that hurt the German war effort?
7. What effect did the Holocaust have on the war effort?
8. What would have happened if the Germans won at Kursk?
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|4735|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay, instead of piling on you like everyone else, I am curious about what you think of the following questions. Even if you think you are the most knowledgeable person here about the war, you have to acknowledge I would be a close second.

I think there are wrong and right answers to these questions and I will be willing to discuss these in detail without calling you a cuck/stupid. Please spend as much time on each question as you like. I will closely read whatever response you have.

1. Were the Nazis liberals or conservatives?
2. Could the 6th Army have broken out from Stalingrad?
3. Why did Operation Barbarossa fail?
4. What did international observers think of the invasion?
5. Was Stalin planning to invade Germany beforehand?
6. What was the most significant issue that hurt the German war effort?
7. What effect did the Holocaust have on the war effort?
8. What would have happened if the Germans won at Kursk?
1. Liberals
2. No
3. Initial success led to a broadening of the front and the addition of new objectives. The front became too stretched out and it became easier to pierce and envelop sections of the front, as happened at Stalingrad. Too many troops were sent towards the oil fields of the Caucuses, Leningrad didn't fall, poor winter clothing, relentless partisans. Lots of reasons, but i think it mostly had to do with lost focus.
4. I'm not sure.
5. Doubtful. He had just wiped out most of his officer corps and was consolidating power. He was in no position to invade.
6. Lack of oil
7. It was a distraction.
8. Germans would've taken Moscow but the war would've continued. I don't think it was winnable by the Germans. Russia is just too physically big and the manufacturing plants were already safe in the Urals.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Larssen
Member
+93|1265
You are all amateurs

As for the popularity of napoleon in the UK, allow me to add some mayonnaise here because to be fair he's popular all over Europe still. But people pick up these books misunderstanding context so often. What draws them in is the idea of a person who was able to shape history to his wishes, but it's the bizarre circumstances of his time really that made it at all possible. Not discounting Napoleon's intelligence, he was certainly one of the most succesful/smartest statesmen in European history, but I feel we may unduly focus on wartime leaders like him disregarding leaders who were restrained by existing systems and rules they had to respect.

It's generally a strange thing how Napoleon's reputation is nearly universally positive even though he was the face of the some of the worst wars in European history up until that point. His immediate legacy was utterly destructive. Fun fact Goya's black paintings were borne out of the depression he suffered due to the wars. I'm not an expert on napoleonic history but assume his struggle against the landed elite and aristocracy won him the sympathies and admiration not only of the french populace but from the peasantry in almost all of Europe.

Last edited by Larssen (2020-05-08 11:54:30)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+575|3097

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay, instead of piling on you like everyone else, I am curious about what you think of the following questions. Even if you think you are the most knowledgeable person here about the war, you have to acknowledge I would be a close second.

I think there are wrong and right answers to these questions and I will be willing to discuss these in detail without calling you a cuck/stupid. Please spend as much time on each question as you like. I will closely read whatever response you have.

1. Were the Nazis liberals or conservatives?
2. Could the 6th Army have broken out from Stalingrad?
3. Why did Operation Barbarossa fail?
4. What did international observers think of the invasion?
5. Was Stalin planning to invade Germany beforehand?
6. What was the most significant issue that hurt the German war effort?
7. What effect did the Holocaust have on the war effort?
8. What would have happened if the Germans won at Kursk?
1. Liberals WRONG
2. No CORRECT
3. Initial success led to a broadening of the front and the addition of new objectives. The front became too stretched out and it became easier to pierce and envelop sections of the front, as happened at Stalingrad. Too many troops were sent towards the oil fields of the Caucuses, Leningrad didn't fall, poor winter clothing, relentless partisans. Lots of reasons, but i think it mostly had to do with lost focus. PARTIAL CREDIT
4. I'm not sure. The Germans were universally expected to win., WRONG DO NOT LEAVE ANSWERS BLANK
5. Doubtful. He had just wiped out most of his officer corps and was consolidating power. He was in no position to invade. CORRECT The correct answer is a very hard no.
6. Lack of oil CORRECT
7. It was a distraction. CORRECT
8. Germans would've taken Moscow but the war would've continued. I don't think it was winnable by the Germans. Russia is just too physically big and the manufacturing plants were already safe in the Urals. PARTIAL CREDIT Germans wouldn't have taken Moscow and still had lost the war.
Final Score is a 63.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+575|3097
I could give you my opinion on Napoleon. I read a few books and did a class on France from the Revolution onward at Rutgers. But I wouldn't call myself an expert on this. I wouldn't call any of us experts on any of this. When I think of an expert on history, I think of someone with a narrow formal education in that area on top of writing stuff about it that gets reputably published.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
uziq
Member
+470|2829

Larssen wrote:

You are all amateurs

As for the popularity of napoleon in the UK, allow me to add some mayonnaise here because to be fair he's popular all over Europe still. But people pick up these books misunderstanding context so often. What draws them in is the idea of a person who was able to shape history to his wishes, but it's the bizarre circumstances of his time really that made it at all possible. Not discounting Napoleon's intelligence, he was certainly one of the most succesful/smartest statesmen in European history, but I feel we may unduly focus on wartime leaders like him disregarding leaders who were restrained by existing systems and rules they had to respect.

It's generally a strange thing how Napoleon's reputation is nearly universally positive even though he was the face of the some of the worst wars in European history up until that point. His immediate legacy was utterly destructive. Fun fact Goya's black paintings were borne out of the depression he suffered due to the wars. I'm not an expert on napoleonic history but assume his struggle against the landed elite and aristocracy won him the sympathies and admiration not only of the french populace but from the peasantry in almost all of Europe.
this is of course true, just as 'great man' history is what is popular despite having many sustained attacks from within academic history.

also you can't call people 'amateurs' and then drop high-school arts trivia about goya.
uziq
Member
+470|2829

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay, instead of piling on you like everyone else, I am curious about what you think of the following questions. Even if you think you are the most knowledgeable person here about the war, you have to acknowledge I would be a close second.

I think there are wrong and right answers to these questions and I will be willing to discuss these in detail without calling you a cuck/stupid. Please spend as much time on each question as you like. I will closely read whatever response you have.

1. Were the Nazis liberals or conservatives?
2. Could the 6th Army have broken out from Stalingrad?
3. Why did Operation Barbarossa fail?
4. What did international observers think of the invasion?
5. Was Stalin planning to invade Germany beforehand?
6. What was the most significant issue that hurt the German war effort?
7. What effect did the Holocaust have on the war effort?
8. What would have happened if the Germans won at Kursk?
1. Liberals WRONG
2. No CORRECT
3. Initial success led to a broadening of the front and the addition of new objectives. The front became too stretched out and it became easier to pierce and envelop sections of the front, as happened at Stalingrad. Too many troops were sent towards the oil fields of the Caucuses, Leningrad didn't fall, poor winter clothing, relentless partisans. Lots of reasons, but i think it mostly had to do with lost focus. PARTIAL CREDIT
4. I'm not sure. The Germans were universally expected to win., WRONG DO NOT LEAVE ANSWERS BLANK
5. Doubtful. He had just wiped out most of his officer corps and was consolidating power. He was in no position to invade. CORRECT The correct answer is a very hard no.
6. Lack of oil CORRECT
7. It was a distraction. CORRECT
8. Germans would've taken Moscow but the war would've continued. I don't think it was winnable by the Germans. Russia is just too physically big and the manufacturing plants were already safe in the Urals. PARTIAL CREDIT Germans wouldn't have taken Moscow and still had lost the war.
Final Score is a 63.
of course jay thinks the nazis were liberals. that's because in 'black is white' national review land they tell him to think that.

the democrats are the real fascists.
Larssen
Member
+93|1265

uziq wrote:

this is of course true, just as 'great man' history is what is popular despite having many sustained attacks from within academic history.

also you can't call people 'amateurs' and then drop high-school arts trivia about goya.
I don't know what high school you went to but I'd be a little worried if goya is part of the curriculum. You have this weirdly elitist view of well, anything really, by which the more obscure and more revered in narrow circles of academia the better it is, or something. Are you going to quote that misanthropic poet from the early 1900s again?

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2022 Jeff Minard