Baku, or the Map Game

[Sheilbh]

How, by fostering a myth of national resistance?  Other occupied countries managed to do quite well without one.

Exactly by fostering a myth of national resistance.  That is that France never really surrendered.  That was hugely important I think in the post-war relative weakness of the Communists.  Given that they did most of the heavy lifting, of the resistance, I think it would have been very easy for them to have become the dominant party, as in Italy, or to have forced a civil war, as in Greece.

France, unlike most other occupied countries, didn't have a monarch as the embodiment of the nation.  Monarchs are like a permanent national myth, Republics have to creat their own.  De Gaulle did.

Other republics that were occupied tend not to come out of the war very well and I think de Gaulle managed to save France from that sort of turmoil by creating the useful myth that, though the Communists were useful, and so were the allies, France didn't need them because France had never failed.

'No! We will not hide this deep and sacred emotion. These are minutes which go beyond each of our poor lives. Paris! Outraged Paris! Broken Paris! Martyred Paris! But liberated Paris! Liberated by itself, liberated by its people with the help of the French armies, with the support and the help of all France, of the France that fights, of the only France, of the real France, of the eternal France! Well! Since the enemy which held Paris has capitulated into our hands, France returns to Paris, to her home. She returns bloody, but quite resolute.'

[Queequeg]

Trust the French to construct myths where they are courageous liberal anti-Fascist partisans instead of disinterested, ashamed intellectuals, totalitarian partisans or supplicant Vichy German-lovers while the Greeks, Yugos and Soviets do the actual work.

[The Brain]

The East German resistance was superior. Especially Chocolate Mousse and Latrine.

[Neil]

Trust the French to construct myths where they are courageous liberal anti-Fascist partisans instead of disinterested, ashamed intellectuals, totalitarian partisans or supplicant Vichy German-lovers while the Greeks, Yugos and Soviets do the actual work.

To be fair, the Germans were better than the assorted Easterners.  If Hitler could have been counted on to countain his aggression to those lands, the world would have been a better place.

[Queequeg]

Trust the French to construct myths where they are courageous liberal anti-Fascist partisans instead of disinterested, ashamed intellectuals, totalitarian partisans or supplicant Vichy German-lovers while the Greeks, Yugos and Soviets do the actual work.

To be fair, the Germans were better than the assorted Easterners.  If Hitler could have been counted on to countain his aggression to those lands, the world would have been a better place.

Eastern Jews? 

[Neil]

Trust the French to construct myths where they are courageous liberal anti-Fascist partisans instead of disinterested, ashamed intellectuals, totalitarian partisans or supplicant Vichy German-lovers while the Greeks, Yugos and Soviets do the actual work.

To be fair, the Germans were better than the assorted Easterners.  If Hitler could have been counted on to countain his aggression to those lands, the world would have been a better place.

Eastern Jews?

The majority of them ended up being liquidated anyways.  It wouldn't make that much of a difference.  Besides, sometimes sacrifices have to be made for the good of all mankind.

[grumbler]

Pre ww2 scales were just so weirdly different...
Strange period. The technology and so much was modern yet the thinking...still very 19th century. This is a very Napoleonic way of thinking only with bombers replacing warships.

Actually, in the case of the bomber pre-WW2, the thinking was very post-war.  Read about what the politicians and military types thought would happen when bombers started raining destruction on the cities, and you will see very strong similarities to the "balance of terror" of the nuclear age.  What gave Chamberlain pause at Munich was not that the BEF could only be two divisions, but that Britain's air defenses were thought too weak to prevent the utter destruction of British cities from the air.

So strong was the ingrained "knowledge" that "the bomber will always get through" that plans like the bombing of Baku with a dozen or so float bombers were not laughed off, but rather taken seriously.  Even experience didn't demolish this faith.

It is ironic that, despite the evidence, the faith in strategic bombing didn't die out until the technology that justified it came along! 

[The Brain]

Trust the French to construct myths where they are courageous liberal anti-Fascist partisans instead of disinterested, ashamed intellectuals, totalitarian partisans or supplicant Vichy German-lovers while the Greeks, Yugos and Soviets do the actual work.

To be fair, the Germans were better than the assorted Easterners.  If Hitler could have been counted on to countain his aggression to those lands, the world would have been a better place.

Eastern Jews?

And Western Girls?

[Josquius]

Pre ww2 scales were just so weirdly different...
Strange period. The technology and so much was modern yet the thinking...still very 19th century. This is a very Napoleonic way of thinking only with bombers replacing warships.

Actually, in the case of the bomber pre-WW2, the thinking was very post-war.  Read about what the politicians and military types thought would happen when bombers started raining destruction on the cities, and you will see very strong similarities to the "balance of terror" of the nuclear age.  What gave Chamberlain pause at Munich was not that the BEF could only be two divisions, but that Britain's air defenses were thought too weak to prevent the utter destruction of British cities from the air.

So strong was the ingrained "knowledge" that "the bomber will always get through" that plans like the bombing of Baku with a dozen or so float bombers were not laughed off, but rather taken seriously.  Even experience didn't demolish this faith.

It is ironic that, despite the evidence, the faith in strategic bombing didn't die out until the technology that justified it came along! 

Yeah, I know that stuff. The Shape of Things to Come shows this oddly. I think this is a different situation though, not destroying Russia from the air, more of a strategic strike
Just dashing into Russia, destroying a few things then rushing home before tea time...very alien to the modern world (with two decently powerful nations anyway). Seems quite Nelson-esque to me.

[Neil]

Yeah, I know that stuff. The Shape of Things to Come shows this oddly. I think this is a different situation though, not destroying Russia from the air, more of a strategic strike
Just dashing into Russia, destroying a few things then rushing home before tea time...very alien to the modern world (with two decently powerful nations anyway). Seems quite Nelson-esque to me.

Actually, that's exactly what modern warfare is like, except that they're using bombers rather than cruise missiles.

[grumbler]

Yeah, I know that stuff. The Shape of Things to Come shows this oddly. I think this is a different situation though, not destroying Russia from the air, more of a strategic strike
Just dashing into Russia, destroying a few things then rushing home before tea time...very alien to the modern world (with two decently powerful nations anyway). Seems quite Nelson-esque to me.

Seems more like Operation El Dorado Canyon (Libya, 1986), Operation Opera (Iraq, 1981), or Operation Infinite Reach : (Afghanistan and Sudan, 1998) to me.  In other words, very modern indeed.  I don't know of any time Nelson carried out a one-time attack on any nation with whom Britain was not at war, but am willing to be shown otherwise.

[Neil]

Yeah, I know that stuff. The Shape of Things to Come shows this oddly. I think this is a different situation though, not destroying Russia from the air, more of a strategic strike
Just dashing into Russia, destroying a few things then rushing home before tea time...very alien to the modern world (with two decently powerful nations anyway). Seems quite Nelson-esque to me.

Seems more like Operation El Dorado Canyon (Libya, 1986), Operation Opera (Iraq, 1981), or Operation Infinite Reach : (Afghanistan and Sudan, 1998) to me.  In other words, very modern indeed.  I don't know of any time Nelson carried out a one-time attack on any nation with whom Britain was not at war, but am willing to be shown otherwise.

Was Britain at war with Denmark before Nelson took Copenhagen?

[grumbler]

Was Britain at war with Denmark before Nelson took Copenhagen?

You may be thinking of 1807, then Gambier and Wellesley took Copenhagen.  Britain and Denmark were not at war at that point (though, obviously, were so thereafter).

In 1801, Britain and the "League of Armed Neutrality" had exchanged ultimata, so effectively they were at war when Nelson attacked the Danish fleet (but didn't take the city).

[Neil]

Was Britain at war with Denmark before Nelson took Copenhagen?

You may be thinking of 1807, then Gambier and Wellesley took Copenhagen.  Britain and Denmark were not at war at that point (though, obviously, were so thereafter).

In 1801, Britain and the "League of Armed Neutrality" had exchanged ultimata, so effectively they were at war when Nelson attacked the Danish fleet (but didn't take the city).

I was actually thinking of 1801, but was sloppy with my terminology (using 'taken' in place of 'fought a battle at and exerted control over').  In retrospect, given 1807, I should have been more precise.