General History Questions thread

Jhessail

Panzervixen
Master Knight
Best answers
0
I'll assume you're one of those people who pretend that insinuated things do not exist in human communication. In other words, you're lying about your message. That's nothing new.
Let's review the evidence.

My first post:
"Any and every newsreel showing combat from WW2 is staged. It simply was not possible to bring the extremely bulky cameras of the era to the battlefield. Even photography was very limited and many of the most famous WW2 pictures are actually staged."
This is a generalisation of the situation, that isn't a 100% correct, but conveys the correct message - that there isn't much of actually real combat footage from ground battles.
I continued with:
"If we want to be pedantic, then there are many photographs and newsreel ""action"" bits that are re-staged or re-enactments of actual events. Others are staged in the "spirit of things". Yet others are completely made up. But whether that makes a difference is another matter."
This further clarifies my argument. However, you chose not to engage my actual argument, instead, you went with this claim:

"The De Vry Standard 35mm film camera used by the British in WW2 was 10 inches long."

You did not address anything in my post. You linked a propaganda picture of a British cameraman with De Vry Standard and made the comment that it was 10 inches long. Since you're not making any clarifications or giving any additional information, it seems pretty clear that you're challenging my entire post - that WW2 combat films are NOT staged, that they all REAL, and that cameras WERE NOT cumbersome for the battlefield.

I made a post about how that is not logically possible, with support about various cameras being cumbersome, and you complete ignored that.

So, you did not argue with me at all - you merely made a post that INSINUATED that everything I wrote was bull**** and you knew better, except you had nothing to back up your claims. Thus the current situation, where you're now pretending that you didn't post things that you actually posted even when everyone can see how things developed. Now that's sad.
 

matmohair1

Marquis
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
I fully agree with Jhessail,
here's an interesting case study...

The Life of General Villa - Lost 1914 Film, produced by D. W. Griffith
said to contain both staged scenes and authentic live footage...

:arrow: https://truewestmagazine.com/panchos-lost-film/

:arrow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Life_of_General_Villa

:arrow: https://lostmediawiki.com/The_Life_of_General_Villa_(partially_found_silent_film;_1914)

Scenes from, & Starring Pancho Villa as Himself - 2003
Dramatization of the filming of "The Life of General Villa"


Documentary: The lost reels of Pancho Villa
A Hollywood Hero and Villain (Spanish and English)

16:38 - Same battlefield location and horses, used for filming both
"The Life of General Villa" & "Birth of a Nation", shot in California!

 

Roccoflipside

Master Knight
Best answers
0
I could be wrong, but wasn't there a big movie about te battle of the Somme, where they had great shots of wide angles and lots of little men running, but if they wanted to get close up they had to re-shoot with staged footage? Which would be pretty much exactly what Jhess is describing.

I also know the "iconic" Iwo Jima picture of US Marines raising the flag is re-staged, although they did get plenty o pics of the original moment. Those were heady, patriotic days and people actually wanted their country to look good rather than like a ****hole country, so they re-did a bunch o stuff to make it bigger, shinier, and powerfuller.
 

Captured Joe

Marquis
Best answers
0
Roccoflipside said:
Those were heady, patriotic days and people actually wanted their country to look good rather than like a ****hole country, so they re-did a bunch o stuff to make it bigger, shinier, and powerfuller.
The US certainly were succesful in making their country look like not a ****hole. Propaganda footage from, say, the Serbian Government of National Salvation though... not so much :mrgreen:
 

Sans

Recruit
Best answers
0
If WW1 was indeed inevitable, then what would've kickstarted it had the assasination of the archduke never happened/didn't succeed? I understand that the German General Staff wanted to have a war with Russia before their railway infrastructure caught up with Germany and would be too overwhelming an enemy to take down, so perhaps it would go down that route?
 

Roccoflipside

Master Knight
Best answers
0
Sans said:
If WW1 was indeed inevitable, then what would've kickstarted it had the assasination of the archduke never happened/didn't succeed? I understand that the German General Staff wanted to have a war with Russia before their railway infrastructure caught up with Germany and would be too overwhelming an enemy to take down, so perhaps it would go down that route?
2 important things to remember about WWI kicking off;
  1) they didn't think about war the same way we do. WWI was really the war that got people around the world to consider war bad. A good illustration of this is the story that, when WWI was declared in London, there was celebrating and dancing in the streets, while when WWII was declared people were weeping. I'm not sure how accurate the story is, but it does a good job illustrating the difference in sentiment between the wars. WWI was so horrible it changed people's idea of war. Look how hard the English tried to stay out of WWII, Neville Chamberlain's famous "peace in our time" speech and all.
    2) the buildup of alliances, military technology, and nationalist sentiment was so high in Europe everyone was itching to go at it to a) knock the other alliance down a few pegs, b) play with and prove that they had the best "toys", and c) prove that their people/culture were superior to all others.

Everyone thought the war would be over in a matter of months, that with the strength of the forces arrayed against each other, neither side would be able to last long. There was almost no one considering the possibility of what was to come.

All that being said, I'm still not sure WWI, as it was, was inevitable, but some form of war definitely was. As for what would have set it off, my guess would be the Germans attacking France across Belgium, as that plan was in place since the end of the Franco-Prussian wars where Germany had defeated France. Thinking at the time held that a defeated enemy is likely to declare war on their old adversary (France on Germany), and the army that strikes first usually wins, so the German standing plan, well before the buildup of WWI, was to push across Belgium into France in a quick march that would knock France out before a real war started, so I think Germany would have gone for broke. Of course, if they had waited they may have been able o fight that war without all the alliances coming into play, meaning it wouldn't have been WWI, but that's just speculation.
 

Sans

Recruit
Best answers
0
Roccoflipside said:
2 important things to remember about WWI kicking off;
  1) they didn't think about war the same way we do. WWI was really the war that got people around the world to consider war bad. A good illustration of this is the story that, when WWI was declared in London, there was celebrating and dancing in the streets, while when WWII was declared people were weeping. I'm not sure how accurate the story is, but it does a good job illustrating the difference in sentiment between the wars. WWI was so horrible it changed people's idea of war. Look how hard the English tried to stay out of WWII, Neville Chamberlain's famous "peace in our time" speech and all.
    2) the buildup of alliances, military technology, and nationalist sentiment was so high in Europe everyone was itching to go at it to a) knock the other alliance down a few pegs, b) play with and prove that they had the best "toys", and c) prove that their people/culture were superior to all others.
That much I know, it's just that there's always been a lot of debate whether or not the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand really accounted for much in the grand scheme of things, as it was just the spark that ignited the inevitable dynamite; replace it with any other equally controversial event and it probably wouldn't change very much in terms of the imminent war that would've followed. Which is why I was curious about what kind of event at that time that was likely going to happen that would've been the alternative spark to a great European and later world war, had the assasination of the archduke never happened.

Roccoflipside said:
All that being said, I'm still not sure WWI, as it was, was inevitable, but some form of war definitely was. As for what would have set it off, my guess would be the Germans attacking France across Belgium, as that plan was in place since the end of the Franco-Prussian wars where Germany had defeated France. Thinking at the time held that a defeated enemy is likely to declare war on their old adversary (France on Germany), and the army that strikes first usually wins, so the German standing plan, well before the buildup of WWI, was to push across Belgium into France in a quick march that would knock France out before a real war started, so I think Germany would have gone for broke. Of course, if they had waited they may have been able o fight that war without all the alliances coming into play, meaning it wouldn't have been WWI, but that's just speculation.
Ah, the Schlieffen Plan :grin:, was reading about that the other day in school. But as far as I'm concerned the French had already secured an alliance with Russia quite a few years prior to the war, so a two front war would've been inevitable for the Germans in a war against France.
 

Captured Joe

Marquis
Best answers
0
Sans said:
That much I know, it's just that there's always been a lot of debate whether or not the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand really accounted for much in the grand scheme of things, as it was just the spark that ignited the inevitable dynamite; replace it with any other equally controversial event and it probably wouldn't change very much in terms of the imminent war that would've followed. Which is why I was curious about what kind of event at that time that was likely going to happen that would've been the alternative spark to a great European and later world war, had the assasination of the archduke never happened.
Well, WW1 was almost kicked off early at several point during the First Balkan War of 1912-13, when Serbia and Montenegro captured cities which Austria-Hungary regarded of laying in their sphere of influence (Dürres and Skutari, respectively); Austria-Hungary threatened with war against the Balkan states, who in turn looked for support from Russia, which could not afford another hit to their international standing and prestige after the Russo-Japanese War and Austria-Hungary's annexation of Bosnia in 1908. The situation was defused (for the time being) by a British-led diplomatic effort.

So, another clash between the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires in the Balkans would've been likely to start WW1 at some point. The Austro-Hungarian army wanted war with Serbia anyway, since they had increasing troubles with their Slav minorities and thought Serbia was the core of the problem. And Russia could not stand by and lose their ally in the Balkans, of course.
 

Roccoflipside

Master Knight
Best answers
0
Sans said:
Roccoflipside said:
2 important things to remember about WWI kicking off;
  1) they didn't think about war the same way we do. WWI was really the war that got people around the world to consider war bad. A good illustration of this is the story that, when WWI was declared in London, there was celebrating and dancing in the streets, while when WWII was declared people were weeping. I'm not sure how accurate the story is, but it does a good job illustrating the difference in sentiment between the wars. WWI was so horrible it changed people's idea of war. Look how hard the English tried to stay out of WWII, Neville Chamberlain's famous "peace in our time" speech and all.
    2) the buildup of alliances, military technology, and nationalist sentiment was so high in Europe everyone was itching to go at it to a) knock the other alliance down a few pegs, b) play with and prove that they had the best "toys", and c) prove that their people/culture were superior to all others.
That much I know, it's just that there's always been a lot of debate whether or not the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand really accounted for much in the grand scheme of things, as it was just the spark that ignited the inevitable dynamite; replace it with any other equally controversial event and it probably wouldn't change very much in terms of the imminent war that would've followed. Which is why I was curious about what kind of event at that time that was likely going to happen that would've been the alternative spark to a great European and later world war, had the assasination of the archduke never happened.
Cool, wasn't sure from your post how much background info you had.  :party:
Roccoflipside said:
All that being said, I'm still not sure WWI, as it was, was inevitable, but some form of war definitely was. As for what would have set it off, my guess would be the Germans attacking France across Belgium, as that plan was in place since the end of the Franco-Prussian wars where Germany had defeated France. Thinking at the time held that a defeated enemy is likely to declare war on their old adversary (France on Germany), and the army that strikes first usually wins, so the German standing plan, well before the buildup of WWI, was to push across Belgium into France in a quick march that would knock France out before a real war started, so I think Germany would have gone for broke. Of course, if they had waited they may have been able o fight that war without all the alliances coming into play, meaning it wouldn't have been WWI, but that's just speculation.
Ah, the Schlieffen Plan :grin:, was reading about that the other day in school. But as far as I'm concerned the French had already secured an alliance with Russia quite a few years prior to the war, so a two front war would've been inevitable for the Germans in a war against France.
I could be wrong, but I think the German/Russian animosity was mostly covert, similar to the "Great Game" GB and Russia played in the Middle East at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century. Plus, I think France was the only major European power whose ruling monarch wasn't related to German royalty, which could have, without a spark like Austria declaring war on the Serbs, which led to Russia's involvement, the war could have been relatively contained between France and Germnay.

Just my thoughts as an amateur historian though.
 

Sans

Recruit
Best answers
0
Captured Joe said:
Sans said:
That much I know, it's just that there's always been a lot of debate whether or not the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand really accounted for much in the grand scheme of things, as it was just the spark that ignited the inevitable dynamite; replace it with any other equally controversial event and it probably wouldn't change very much in terms of the imminent war that would've followed. Which is why I was curious about what kind of event at that time that was likely going to happen that would've been the alternative spark to a great European and later world war, had the assasination of the archduke never happened.
Well, WW1 was almost kicked off early at several point during the First Balkan War of 1912-13, when Serbia and Montenegro captured cities which Austria-Hungary regarded of laying in their sphere of influence (Dürres and Skutari, respectively); Austria-Hungary threatened with war against the Balkan states, who in turn looked for support from Russia, which could not afford another hit to their international standing and prestige after the Russo-Japanese War and Austria-Hungary's annexation of Bosnia in 1908. The situation was defused (for the time being) by a British-led diplomatic effort.

So, another clash between the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires in the Balkans would've been likely to start WW1 at some point. The Austro-Hungarian army wanted war with Serbia anyway, since they had increasing troubles with their Slav minorities and thought Serbia was the core of the problem. And Russia could not stand by and lose their ally in the Balkans, of course.
Ah, I see. That really adds to how much of a cluster**** the AH Empire was, atleast the other multi-ethnic empires had a dominant majority that represented most of their respective histories. They were basically just a ticking time bomb.
I'm still salty that they ****ed up Germany big time

Roccoflipside said:
I could be wrong, but I think the German/Russian animosity was mostly covert, similar to the "Great Game" GB and Russia played in the Middle East at the end of the 19th/beginning of the 20th century. Plus, I think France was the only major European power whose ruling monarch wasn't related to German royalty, which could have, without a spark like Austria declaring war on the Serbs, which led to Russia's involvement, the war could have been relatively contained between France and Germnay.

Just my thoughts as an amateur historian though.
Though imo a war between Germany and France would be interesting as an alternate historical scenario, as the Germans would've obviously won and would made themselves even stronger after the war, which would lead to the ultimate showdown between them and Russia, I just don't think that any war would've happened between these two that wouldn't've involved the intervention of other great powers in Europe, as they were basically the biggest rivals in the entirety of Europe at that time. Also putting into account the British policy of keeping the balance of power in the region, though I don't have much knowledge on that specific matter. Anyways cheers for the answers :smile:
 

Wulfburk

Grandmaster Knight
Best answers
0
IIRC a couple decades after the franco prussian war, the british outright demonstrated to the germans that a german preemptive strike on france woudnt be accepted by them and they would most likely interfere.

Later, way into the anglo german naval race, and after the french and the british in 1910 or so agreed upon each prioritizing one naval theatre (the french thus left the channel pretty much defensiveless, because the british would focus on it, while the british took out most of their mediterranean naval forces, because the french would focus on that instead), there were debates on the british parliament that no matter the way that a franco-german war starts, the british coudnt accept a german navy heading to the channel and attacking french ports, so there was a urge to intervene if that happened too.

In the end though im not sure at all the british intervention, at least, was going to happen certainly. If it wasnt for all the kaiser's thousands of diplomatic blunders before the war, the anglo naval dreadnought race that literally made britain resolve their issues with Russia, and the german invasion of belgium, there is a big chance britain sits out of it. And even with the first two issues, id say without belgium being attacked, no british intervention was entirely possible, specially with Edward Grey's stance to germany and france (which was, respective to france, of "we are allies but i dont make any contractual commitments about anything, ok?")
 
Best answers
0
'besides a few exceptions like India or South Africa, colonialism had more costs than benefits for colonialists'
is this the common opinion among historians?
 

Almalexia

Her Flamboyance, the Calipha
Duke
M&BWBNW
Best answers
0
Can't speak for all historians, but I'd say at least for the late phase of colonialism, such as in the Scramble for Africa, the main impetus was political competition rather than economic benefit to achieve one's "place in the sun" and deny territories/connections to rival nations.
 

kurczak

Section Moderator
WB
Best answers
0
I'm gift hunting for intermediate to advanced literature about the manorial system, especially in the areas once controlled by the artist formerly known as the Roman Empire. Broad strokes or comparative approach is as good as local history. The giftee is a native French speaker, but anything in English or Italian is acceptable too.

Please and thank you.
 

Wulfburk

Grandmaster Knight
Best answers
0
A completely shameless loaded question:

How can one affirm that the US army in normandy was -better- or more effective than the british army in normandy, if (or, how can one deny that the british army was better than the american in normandy):

1- The british (and poles and canadians ) suffered 85k casualties from 6 june to 30 August.
2- The americans suffered 125k casualties in the same time period.
3- The british lost 1200 tanks
4- The americans lost 1600 tanks.
5- By July 27 the british (and canadians and poles) faced 645 tanks and 92 german infantry battalions. (tanks which included all tiger tanks the germans fielded in normandy)
6- By July 27 the americans faced 200 tanks and 85 infantry battalions. (and note that this is after the panzer lehr had switched to the american sectors already, the division having been on the british sector for the whole of june).
7- The british (and canadians and poles) had 400.000 men by end of June, and 640.000 by 25 of July.
8- The Americans had 450.000 men by end of June, and 812.000 by 25 of July.
 

Kentucky James VII

BioAfrikaner
Duke
Best answers
2
Wulfburk said:
A completely shameless loaded question:

How can one affirm that the US army in normandy was -better- or more effective than the british army in normandy, if (or, how can one deny that the british army was better than the american in normandy):

1- The british (and poles and canadians ) suffered 85k casualties from 6 june to 30 August.
2- The americans suffered 125k casualties in the same time period.
3- The british lost 1200 tanks
4- The americans lost 1600 tanks.
5- By July 27 the british (and canadians and poles) faced 645 tanks and 92 german infantry battalions. (tanks which included all tiger tanks the germans fielded in normandy)
6- By July 27 the americans faced 200 tanks and 85 infantry battalions. (and note that this is after the panzer lehr had switched to the american sectors already, the division having been on the british sector for the whole of june).
7- The british (and canadians and poles) had 400.000 men by end of June, and 640.000 by 25 of July.
8- The Americans had 450.000 men by end of June, and 812.000 by 25 of July.
Maybe Americans just had more responsibilities and had more divisions on more fronts to take casualties? I dunno, this seems impossible to answer given your data and feels like the kind of thing Lindybeige would use to prove the supremacy of the English.