http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/02/why-russia-should-fear-the-year-of-the-snake/273012/
Year of the Snake has a record of shit going down in Russia.
Astrology Jake? :(
Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2013, 04:55:23 PM
Astrology Jake? :(
A slow pitch for talking about history, about Russia, and/or about current events.
... or about astrology, if you prefer.
I think the default assumption, since the end of the Soviet Union, should be that it's always in trouble.
But that occasionally things go reasonably well or at least apparent economic/political progress acts as a veneer over the systemic corruption ?
Stalin died eh? Well the death of Putin wouldn't be bad :cool:
Snake, snake, oh it's a snake!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIyixC9NsLI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIyixC9NsLI)
Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2013, 04:55:23 PM
Astrology Jake? :(
Xiacob went native a while ago. Probably spent all last week looking for little red envelopes at Walgreen's.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 06:17:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2013, 04:55:23 PM
Astrology Jake? :(
Xiacob went native a while ago. Probably spent all last week looking for little red envelopes at Walgreen's.
Walgreens? Why would I get my red envelopes there?
The party demands an end to extravagance.
Quote from: Jacob on February 12, 2013, 06:55:51 PM
Walgreens? Why would I get my red envelopes there?
You're right. Knowing you, you're fruity enough to buy them online straight from the homeland, made from authentic endangered animal flesh.
Quote from: Valmy on February 12, 2013, 05:34:38 PM
Stalin died eh? Well the death of Putin wouldn't be bad :cool:
Who knows? They don't always handle transitions well over there.
1929: The Great Depression
1941: Pearl Harbor
1953: Coup in Iran
1965: Operation Rolling Thunder
1977: New York City blackout
1989: Exxon Valdez spill, Hurricane Hugo, Loma Prieta earthquake
2001: 9/11
Not looking so great for the US either... :unsure:
Lotta stretching there. New Yorkers going without electricity for a while hardly makes for a bad year for the country. And the really bad coup in Iran was much later.
rolling thunder = dead gooks. POSITIVE.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 12, 2013, 07:02:24 PMYou're right. Knowing you, you're fruity enough to buy them online straight from the homeland, made from authentic endangered animal flesh.
You're over thinking it. There are plenty of stores selling red envelopes. No need to search Wahlgreen or buying them online. I just go to one of the many stores or malls that sell them.
That said, I don't have many friends or family with kids in the right age range, so I'm not paying out red envelope money... yet.
WTF is the significance of a red envelope?
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 12:39:17 PM
WTF is the significance of a red envelope?
Red is good luck for the new year and it has money in it usually. I think that is about it right Jake?
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 12:39:17 PM
WTF is the significance of a red envelope?
It's stuffed with powered rhinoceros horn and a shark fin.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 12:39:17 PM
WTF is the significance of a red envelope?
On special occasions - the Lunar New Year, Birthdays, Weddings - older relatives/guests give red envelopes containing cash to younger relatives/the people being celebrated.
It's basically a formalized way for grandpa to hand out the change in his pockets to the grand kids. I expect you to approve, as it's a transfer of wealth from older, richer people to younger, less affluent ones.
Businesses often give out red envelopes with bonuses for their employees on Chinese New Year as well...or so I hear.
Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2013, 12:51:30 PM
Businesses often give out red envelopes with bonuses for their employees on Chinese New Year as well...or so I hear.
I wouldn't be surprised, but I've never worked in an environment like that.
Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2013, 12:51:30 PM
Businesses often give out red envelopes with bonuses for their employees on Chinese New Year as well...or so I hear.
My pink slip wasn't even pink. :(
Quote from: Jacob on February 13, 2013, 12:49:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 12:39:17 PM
WTF is the significance of a red envelope?
On special occasions - the Lunar New Year, Birthdays, Weddings - older relatives/guests give red envelopes containing cash to younger relatives/the people being celebrated.
It's basically a formalized way for grandpa to hand out the change in his pockets to the grand kids. I expect you to approve, as it's a transfer of wealth from older, richer people to younger, less affluent ones.
They do it out of a sense of noblesse oblige. I only approve when they are forced by the power of the state.
:P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 13, 2013, 09:12:23 AM
Lotta stretching there. New Yorkers going without electricity for a while hardly makes for a bad year for the country. And the really bad coup in Iran was much later.
You are thinking of the wrong coup.
The Americans really screwed up with the first one, which ultimately led to the second one.
Have a look at this book which sets it all out fairly well.
http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/047018549X
Pretty much all years in history have been bad for Russia. The entire Chinese zodiac is bad for Russia.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 13, 2013, 05:23:55 PM
The Americans really screwed up with the first one, which ultimately led to the second one.
I hardly think the Islamic revolution was inevitable in 1954. As such, it's hardly evident that that revolution made 1953 a "bad year" for America. Even if it had been inevitable, Iran is still a pretty minor concern in the grand scheme of things. The Korean War ended, Stalin died, a vaccine for polio was found, Ian Fleming published first Bond movie, double helix published on, etc.
Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2013, 12:42:37 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 12:39:17 PM
WTF is the significance of a red envelope?
Red is good luck for the new year and it has money in it usually. I think that is about it right Jake?
What is the one where they light fake money on fire?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2013, 06:28:57 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 13, 2013, 12:42:37 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 12:39:17 PM
WTF is the significance of a red envelope?
Red is good luck for the new year and it has money in it usually. I think that is about it right Jake?
What is the one where they light fake money on fire?
Raz, you're a little ahead of yourself, that's investors in dollars and sterling in 5 years time. :bowler:
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2013, 06:28:57 PMWhat is the one where they light fake money on fire?
That's at funerals, anniversaries of deaths, and I expect there are local holidays/festivals as well.
You're sending money (and other goods - you can get fake houses, suits, watches, and all kinds of other things too) to your friends and relatives in the afterlife.
Quote from: Viking on February 13, 2013, 06:04:15 PM
Pretty much all years in history have been bad for Russia. The entire Chinese zodiac is bad for Russia.
Russia spent a plurality of the last century as one of the two most powerful nations on earth, and all of it as one of the preeminent global powers.
I doubt it would be this year, but Kremlinology is anything but an exact science. I don't expect the Olympics to go very well, and frankly I think the Putin administration is starting to really stink.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 13, 2013, 07:54:13 PM
Russia spent a plurality of the last century as one of the two most powerful nations on earth, and all of it as one of the preeminent global powers.
Nope. They weren't a global power after 1991, nor were they immediately after the revolution. And preeminent? They certainly lost a lot of power and prestige both after the Russo-Japanese War and throughout the 20s and 30s.
Quote from: Queequeg on February 13, 2013, 07:54:13 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 13, 2013, 06:04:15 PM
Pretty much all years in history have been bad for Russia. The entire Chinese zodiac is bad for Russia.
Russia spent a plurality of the last century as one of the two most powerful nations on earth, and all of it as one of the preeminent global powers.
I doubt it would be this year, but Kremlinology is anything but an exact science. I don't expect the Olympics to go very well, and frankly I think the Putin administration is starting to really stink.
Russia being a Superpower is bad for Russia and bad for the World :contract:
Quote from: Neil on February 13, 2013, 08:13:37 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on February 13, 2013, 07:54:13 PM
Russia spent a plurality of the last century as one of the two most powerful nations on earth, and all of it as one of the preeminent global powers.
Nope. They weren't a global power after 1991, nor were they immediately after the revolution. And preeminent? They certainly lost a lot of power and prestige both after the Russo-Japanese War and throughout the 20s and 30s.
They certainly weaken post-1991, but then it's not like there are many other major powers.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2013, 08:45:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 13, 2013, 08:13:37 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on February 13, 2013, 07:54:13 PM
Russia spent a plurality of the last century as one of the two most powerful nations on earth, and all of it as one of the preeminent global powers.
Nope. They weren't a global power after 1991, nor were they immediately after the revolution. And preeminent? They certainly lost a lot of power and prestige both after the Russo-Japanese War and throughout the 20s and 30s.
They certainly weaken post-1991, but then it's not like there are many other major powers.
Remember how badly they were doing after the collapse of the Soviet Union? Russia's ability to project power outside her borders was pretty much nil.
Quote from: Jacob on February 13, 2013, 07:44:53 PM
You're sending money (and other goods - you can get fake houses, suits, watches, and all kinds of other things too) to your friends and relatives in the afterlife.
:hmm: So, the moment the relatives become unable to raise a fuss, you send them the fake stuff? Those Chinese sure are enterprising.
Quote from: Neil on February 13, 2013, 09:10:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2013, 08:45:57 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 13, 2013, 08:13:37 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on February 13, 2013, 07:54:13 PM
Russia spent a plurality of the last century as one of the two most powerful nations on earth, and all of it as one of the preeminent global powers.
Nope. They weren't a global power after 1991, nor were they immediately after the revolution. And preeminent? They certainly lost a lot of power and prestige both after the Russo-Japanese War and throughout the 20s and 30s.
They certainly weaken post-1991, but then it's not like there are many other major powers.
Remember how badly they were doing after the collapse of the Soviet Union? Russia's ability to project power outside her borders was pretty much nil.
Yeah, and what were the other countries with the ability to project power across the world? You have maybe three who can reliably do it. The US, the UK, and France. Even a crippled man stands tall amongst a world of dwarfs.
Quote from: Viking on February 13, 2013, 08:14:25 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on February 13, 2013, 07:54:13 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 13, 2013, 06:04:15 PM
Pretty much all years in history have been bad for Russia. The entire Chinese zodiac is bad for Russia.
Russia spent a plurality of the last century as one of the two most powerful nations on earth, and all of it as one of the preeminent global powers.
I doubt it would be this year, but Kremlinology is anything but an exact science. I don't expect the Olympics to go very well, and frankly I think the Putin administration is starting to really stink.
Russia being a Superpower is bad for Russia and bad for the World :contract:
:yes:
Being a power is over-rated.
I'd much rather be born in piddly little Norway (for a random example) than in supposed world number 2 China. Or hell. The US.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2013, 10:12:30 PM
Yeah, and what were the other countries with the ability to project power across the world? You have maybe three who can reliably do it. The US, the UK, and France. Even a crippled man stands tall amongst a world of dwarfs.
A crippled man isn't a 'preeminent power'.
Quote from: Jacob on February 13, 2013, 07:44:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2013, 06:28:57 PMWhat is the one where they light fake money on fire?
That's at funerals, anniversaries of deaths, and I expect there are local holidays/festivals as well.
You're sending money (and other goods - you can get fake houses, suits, watches, and all kinds of other things too) to your friends and relatives in the afterlife.
I wonder what the exchange rates are. Also, can the dead send money back, or is it just one way?
Quote from: Tyr on February 13, 2013, 10:19:19 PM
:yes:
Being a power is over-rated.
I'd much rather be born in piddly little Norway (for a random example) than in supposed world number 2 China. Or hell. The US.
I wouldn't know, being born in England and all that....
Quote from: Viking on February 13, 2013, 10:24:03 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 13, 2013, 10:19:19 PM
:yes:
Being a power is over-rated.
I'd much rather be born in piddly little Norway (for a random example) than in supposed world number 2 China. Or hell. The US.
I wouldn't know, being born in England and all that....
We're in the middle somewhere.
Quote from: Tyr on February 13, 2013, 10:24:47 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 13, 2013, 10:24:03 PM
Quote from: Tyr on February 13, 2013, 10:19:19 PM
:yes:
Being a power is over-rated.
I'd much rather be born in piddly little Norway (for a random example) than in supposed world number 2 China. Or hell. The US.
I wouldn't know, being born in England and all that....
We're in the middle somewhere.
Britain was then and still is in the top 7 of world powers.
Quote from: Neil on February 13, 2013, 10:19:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2013, 10:12:30 PM
Yeah, and what were the other countries with the ability to project power across the world? You have maybe three who can reliably do it. The US, the UK, and France. Even a crippled man stands tall amongst a world of dwarfs.
A crippled man isn't a 'preeminent power'.
He is when nobody else has legs!
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2013, 10:29:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 13, 2013, 10:19:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 13, 2013, 10:12:30 PM
Yeah, and what were the other countries with the ability to project power across the world? You have maybe three who can reliably do it. The US, the UK, and France. Even a crippled man stands tall amongst a world of dwarfs.
A crippled man isn't a 'preeminent power'.
He is when nobody else has legs!
His legs fell off due to mismanagement.
Sorry, but Russia remained a military power compared to the rest of the world. Power is relative and 1990's (and now) are fairly demilitarized. Look at it's closest competitors. Europe was completely incapable of even intervening in Yugoslav wars without US leadership. And really, who else is there? Brazil? China? Japan? Russia remains a major power almost by default.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2013, 12:06:56 AM
Sorry, but Russia remained a military power compared to the rest of the world. Power is relative and 1990's (and now) are fairly demilitarized. Look at it's closest competitors. Europe was completely incapable of even intervening in Yugoslav wars without US leadership. And really, who else is there? Brazil? China? Japan? Russia remains a major power almost by default.
It took Putin weeks to scrape together the best echelon units for the Georgian invasion, and while they won the war, they got seriously bloodied. If that's the best they can do, it's not much to go on.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 14, 2013, 12:21:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 14, 2013, 12:06:56 AM
Sorry, but Russia remained a military power compared to the rest of the world. Power is relative and 1990's (and now) are fairly demilitarized. Look at it's closest competitors. Europe was completely incapable of even intervening in Yugoslav wars without US leadership. And really, who else is there? Brazil? China? Japan? Russia remains a major power almost by default.
It took Putin weeks to scrape together the best echelon units for the Georgian invasion, and while they won the war, they got seriously bloodied. If that's the best they can do, it's not much to go on.
They got bloodied? :yeahright: The Georgian war was a complete rout for the Georgians. As soon as Russians became involved, the Georgian strategy switched to continuous retreat and pleading for mercy.
You were probably too young to remember just how weak Russia was in the 90s.
Quote from: Tyr on February 13, 2013, 10:19:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 13, 2013, 08:14:25 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on February 13, 2013, 07:54:13 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 13, 2013, 06:04:15 PM
Pretty much all years in history have been bad for Russia. The entire Chinese zodiac is bad for Russia.
Russia spent a plurality of the last century as one of the two most powerful nations on earth, and all of it as one of the preeminent global powers.
I doubt it would be this year, but Kremlinology is anything but an exact science. I don't expect the Olympics to go very well, and frankly I think the Putin administration is starting to really stink.
Russia being a Superpower is bad for Russia and bad for the World :contract:
:yes:
Being a power is over-rated.
I'd much rather be born in piddly little Norway (for a random example) than in supposed world number 2 China. Or hell. The US.
It must be nice, yes. Norway's safety was purchased by American power.
Every country in NATO that does not possess its own native deterrent, i.e. all but the UK and France, need to pony up the fair share of America's 1945-1991 defense budget for each citizen who's been alive since the beginning of that period, and transmit it directly to the U.S. Treasury. HEY ZANZA YOU OWE ME AND BOB MCNAMARA MONEY
Quote from: DGuller on February 14, 2013, 12:35:26 AM
They got bloodied? :yeahright: The Georgian war was a complete rout for the Georgians. As soon as Russians became involved, the Georgian strategy switched to continuous retreat and pleading for mercy.
I know it offends your Cossack sensibilities, but Russia's performance in that war was wholly underwhelming; their ramp up took far too long for front-line units that are supposed to fight "as is", their air support operation was atrocious by NATO standards, and the Georgians performed very well on the tactical level considering their lack of air and offensive capability. Just ask the HQ battalion of 58th Army, which got almost all of its vehicles brewed when they were royally buttfucked by a smaller group of Georgians.
The time it took 40K troops to deal with 15K Georgians with no air power was no great feat. Iraq 2003 it wasn't.
So save the :yeahright: pan-slavism pride, your boy Putin's conventional capabilities are at best a good third world country. Lucky for him, Georgia was a poor third world country.
Quote from: Solmyr on February 13, 2013, 09:09:06 AM
1929: The Great Depression
1941: Pearl Harbor
1953: Coup in Iran
1965: Operation Rolling Thunder
1977: New York City blackout
1989: Exxon Valdez spill, Hurricane Hugo, Loma Prieta earthquake
2001: 9/11
Not looking so great for the US either... :unsure:
I was born in a year of the snake. How's that for a calamity?
Quote from: Jacob on February 13, 2013, 12:49:41 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 13, 2013, 12:39:17 PM
WTF is the significance of a red envelope?
On special occasions - the Lunar New Year, Birthdays, Weddings - older relatives/guests give red envelopes containing cash to younger relatives/the people being celebrated.
It's basically a formalized way for grandpa to hand out the change in his pockets to the grand kids. I expect you to approve, as it's a transfer of wealth from older, richer people to younger, less affluent ones.
Not really. Transfer of wealth along blood lines is the anathema to socialist thinking. That's why there should be a 100% estate tax.
It's not just along blood lines. It's also about noblesse oblige along traditional Confucian lines, as generally higher-ups will give to those subordinate to them, such as employees. Thus I've received red envelopes from employers and other benefactors and have also given them to certain domestics I employ, such as my driver and my cleaning lady.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 14, 2013, 01:23:30 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 14, 2013, 12:35:26 AM
They got bloodied? :yeahright: The Georgian war was a complete rout for the Georgians. As soon as Russians became involved, the Georgian strategy switched to continuous retreat and pleading for mercy.
I know it offends your Cossack sensibilities, but Russia's performance in that war was wholly underwhelming; their ramp up took far too long for front-line units that are supposed to fight "as is", their air support operation was atrocious by NATO standards, and the Georgians performed very well on the tactical level considering their lack of air and offensive capability. Just ask the HQ battalion of 58th Army, which got almost all of its vehicles brewed when they were royally buttfucked by a smaller group of Georgians.
The time it took 40K troops to deal with 15K Georgians with no air power was no great feat. Iraq 2003 it wasn't.
So save the :yeahright: pan-slavism pride, your boy Putin's conventional capabilities are at best a good third world country. Lucky for him, Georgia was a poor third world country.
Believe me, nothing would please me more than seeing Putin's ass get kicked by Georgia. However, the whole war took 10 days, and Georgians were pleading for mercy long before it ended. Yes, Russians got into one ambush, but one ambush generally doesn't define a war.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 13, 2013, 09:12:23 AM
Lotta stretching there. New Yorkers going without electricity for a while hardly makes for a bad year for the country. And the really bad coup in Iran was much later.
About as much stretching as for Russia. I mean, 1905 was overall a nice idea as it started a process of democratization, and even 1917 started out as a good idea, only going to shit later. And Stalin's death was the opposite of a bad thing for Russia, considering it was followed by Khruschev's liberalization. Then there's a rather long period where nothing special happened, in 1965 or 1977. Nothing in 2001 either.
Quote from: Solmyr on February 14, 2013, 10:55:42 AM
I mean, 1905 was overall a nice idea as it started a process of democratization, and even 1917 started out as a good idea, only going to shit later.
They were bloody and violent and generally bad.
Besides, Tsushima happened in 1905, and that was the most devastating naval defeat in history.
Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 11:28:45 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on February 14, 2013, 10:55:42 AM
I mean, 1905 was overall a nice idea as it started a process of democratization, and even 1917 started out as a good idea, only going to shit later.
They were bloody and violent and generally bad.
Besides, Tsushima happened in 1905, and that was the most devastating naval defeat in history.
Unpossible, neither side had Dreadnoughts :contract:
Quote from: Martinus on February 14, 2013, 04:21:02 AM
Not really. Transfer of wealth along blood lines is the anathema to socialist thinking. That's why there should be a 100% estate tax.
Socialist thinking is obviously based on the strategy of getting as much capital to flee to country as possible
Quote from: Valmy on February 14, 2013, 12:16:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 14, 2013, 04:21:02 AM
Not really. Transfer of wealth along blood lines is the anathema to socialist thinking. That's why there should be a 100% estate tax.
Socialist thinking is obviously based on the strategy of getting as much capital to flee to country as possible
While you're wrong, in fairness, this oft-accepted critique of socialism does predate the advent of drones.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 12:19:57 PM
While you're wrong, in fairness, this oft-accepted critique of socialism does predate the advent of drones.
:ph34r:
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 12:54:09 AM
Every country in NATO that does not possess its own native deterrent, i.e. all but the UK and France, need to pony up the fair share of America's 1945-1991 defense budget for each citizen who's been alive since the beginning of that period, and transmit it directly to the U.S. Treasury. HEY ZANZA YOU OWE ME AND BOB MCNAMARA MONEY
West Germany paid for the Allied troops stationed here. That was agreed as part of the termination of the occupation in 1954.
Quote from: Zanza on February 14, 2013, 12:51:01 PM
West Germany paid for the Allied troops stationed here. That was agreed as part of the termination of the occupation in 1954.
Yeah both South Korea and Germany give us money for our troops hanging around IIRC.
Quote from: Zanza on February 14, 2013, 12:51:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 12:54:09 AM
Every country in NATO that does not possess its own native deterrent, i.e. all but the UK and France, need to pony up the fair share of America's 1945-1991 defense budget for each citizen who's been alive since the beginning of that period, and transmit it directly to the U.S. Treasury. HEY ZANZA YOU OWE ME AND BOB MCNAMARA MONEY
West Germany paid for the Allied troops stationed here. That was agreed as part of the termination of the occupation in 1954.
Did you pay for the nuclear weapons stationed in Montana?
Actually, I did not know that. That's cool, thanks, Germans. :)
I've talked to a number of (ex-)G.I.s that were stationed in Germany. The most common comment, "Man, I miss the food/beer." :P
Quote from: Valmy on February 14, 2013, 12:57:06 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 14, 2013, 12:51:01 PM
West Germany paid for the Allied troops stationed here. That was agreed as part of the termination of the occupation in 1954.
Yeah both South Korea and Germany give us money for our troops hanging around IIRC.
How much?
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 01:12:04 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 14, 2013, 12:51:01 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 12:54:09 AM
Every country in NATO that does not possess its own native deterrent, i.e. all but the UK and France, need to pony up the fair share of America's 1945-1991 defense budget for each citizen who's been alive since the beginning of that period, and transmit it directly to the U.S. Treasury. HEY ZANZA YOU OWE ME AND BOB MCNAMARA MONEY
West Germany paid for the Allied troops stationed here. That was agreed as part of the termination of the occupation in 1954.
Did you pay for the nuclear weapons stationed in Montana?
Actually, I did not know that. That's cool, thanks, Germans. :)
Iceland didn't pay for it's occupation troops btw.
As for the Silos in Kansas, Germany paid for them by not building their own nukes.
A Leopard Tank - Millions
A Nuclear Deterrent - Billions
The peace of mind you get from knowing the germans don't have nukes - Priceless
Quote from: Syt on February 14, 2013, 01:33:24 PM
I've talked to a number of (ex-)G.I.s that were stationed in Germany. The most common comment, "Man, I miss the food/beer." :P
Yep. And women IIRC. Funny thing is many of them go back to drinking crappy beer back here without realizing we have options as good as Germany these days.
Quote from: Viking on February 14, 2013, 12:12:18 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 11:28:45 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on February 14, 2013, 10:55:42 AM
I mean, 1905 was overall a nice idea as it started a process of democratization, and even 1917 started out as a good idea, only going to shit later.
They were bloody and violent and generally bad.
Besides, Tsushima happened in 1905, and that was the most devastating naval defeat in history.
Unpossible, neither side had Dreadnoughts :contract:
No battle of dreadnoughts was ever so decisive. Come to think of it, no sea battle in the modern era was so decisive.
Yep, plenty of NATO mattresses. Some even became legit wives! :lol:
It bears to remember, though, that during the time the bulk of the soldiers were stationed here (esp. in the 80s) the $ was very strong vs. the DM, so soldiers could live very comfortably.
Quote from: Viking on February 14, 2013, 01:37:42 PM
Iceland didn't pay for it's occupation troops btw.
Iceland couldn't have afforded them.
Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 01:41:26 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 14, 2013, 12:12:18 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 11:28:45 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on February 14, 2013, 10:55:42 AM
I mean, 1905 was overall a nice idea as it started a process of democratization, and even 1917 started out as a good idea, only going to shit later.
They were bloody and violent and generally bad.
Besides, Tsushima happened in 1905, and that was the most devastating naval defeat in history.
Unpossible, neither side had Dreadnoughts :contract:
No battle of dreadnoughts was ever so decisive. Come to think of it, no sea battle in the modern era was so decisive.
Midway arguably. There was not even an unrealistic hope of victory after that, even if Japan could pretend. But only arguably.
Quote from: derspiess on February 14, 2013, 01:36:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 14, 2013, 12:57:06 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 14, 2013, 12:51:01 PM
West Germany paid for the Allied troops stationed here. That was agreed as part of the termination of the occupation in 1954.
Yeah both South Korea and Germany give us money for our troops hanging around IIRC.
How much?
The original 1954 treaty gives a sum of 600 million Deutsche Mark per month (i.e. 4.7% of West Germany's monthly GDP in 1954) shared between the Americans, British and French. I have no idea how much it was later, but I assume that it was adjusted for inflation somehow.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 02:09:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 01:41:26 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 14, 2013, 12:12:18 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 11:28:45 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on February 14, 2013, 10:55:42 AM
I mean, 1905 was overall a nice idea as it started a process of democratization, and even 1917 started out as a good idea, only going to shit later.
They were bloody and violent and generally bad.
Besides, Tsushima happened in 1905, and that was the most devastating naval defeat in history.
Unpossible, neither side had Dreadnoughts :contract:
No battle of dreadnoughts was ever so decisive. Come to think of it, no sea battle in the modern era was so decisive.
Midway arguably. There was not even an unrealistic hope of victory after that, even if Japan could pretend. But only arguably.
Leyte Gulf?
Quote from: Viking on February 14, 2013, 02:27:56 PM
Leyte Gulf?
Biggest naval battle, but sealing what was already decided at Midway. Even the Japanese winning (or even drawing) at Leyte Gulf wouldn't turn the initiative back to the Japanese.
Oh, yeah. I wouldn't put Leyte Gulf in the top ten.
Btw, does the First Battle of the Atlantic count? My gut reaction is no (likewise the naval siege of Germany), but that may be the most decisive if it did. Neil's gonna say no based on the submarining alone.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 14, 2013, 02:09:16 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 01:41:26 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 14, 2013, 12:12:18 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 11:28:45 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on February 14, 2013, 10:55:42 AM
I mean, 1905 was overall a nice idea as it started a process of democratization, and even 1917 started out as a good idea, only going to shit later.
They were bloody and violent and generally bad.
Besides, Tsushima happened in 1905, and that was the most devastating naval defeat in history.
Unpossible, neither side had Dreadnoughts :contract:
No battle of dreadnoughts was ever so decisive. Come to think of it, no sea battle in the modern era was so decisive.
Midway arguably. There was not even an unrealistic hope of victory after that, even if Japan could pretend. But only arguably.
Midway didn't really end all hope for the Japanese though. For one thing, they really didn't have much hope to begin with. For another thing, there was still an extremely effective and dangerous IJN in existence after the battle. Shokaku and Zuikaku were still around, the elite IJN corps of pilots still existed and the battleline was unaffected. Instead of the USN hanging on against a numerically superior IJN, Midway merely evened the odds. Compare that to the state of the Russian Navy after Tsushima.
The real decisive victory in the Pacific was the victory in the shipyards and aircraft factories, although I suppose one could argue that the US submarine campaign was almost as important. What the Germans were trying to do to Britain, the US actually succeeded in doing to Japan.
Quote from: Drakken on February 14, 2013, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 14, 2013, 02:27:56 PM
Leyte Gulf?
Biggest naval battle, but sealing what was already decided at Midway. Even the Japanese winning (or even drawing) at Leyte Gulf wouldn't turn the initiative back to the Japanese.
At Midway the balance was tipped, after Leyte Japan didn't have a fleet anymore. Thats the difference and thats what makes Leyte like Tsushima, it destroyed the fleet.
Quote from: Viking on February 14, 2013, 03:29:30 PM
Quote from: Drakken on February 14, 2013, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 14, 2013, 02:27:56 PM
Leyte Gulf?
Biggest naval battle, but sealing what was already decided at Midway. Even the Japanese winning (or even drawing) at Leyte Gulf wouldn't turn the initiative back to the Japanese.
At Midway the balance was tipped, after Leyte Japan didn't have a fleet anymore. Thats the difference and thats what makes Leyte like Tsushima, it destroyed the fleet.
The Japanese at Tsushima destroyed a superior fleet to win the war. The Americans at Leyte mopped up the remnants of a fleet that they had already mostly destroyed and had certainly made irrelevant.
Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 03:46:08 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 14, 2013, 03:29:30 PM
Quote from: Drakken on February 14, 2013, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 14, 2013, 02:27:56 PM
Leyte Gulf?
Biggest naval battle, but sealing what was already decided at Midway. Even the Japanese winning (or even drawing) at Leyte Gulf wouldn't turn the initiative back to the Japanese.
At Midway the balance was tipped, after Leyte Japan didn't have a fleet anymore. Thats the difference and thats what makes Leyte like Tsushima, it destroyed the fleet.
The Japanese at Tsushima destroyed a superior fleet to win the war. The Americans at Leyte mopped up the remnants of a fleet that they had already mostly destroyed and had certainly made irrelevant.
That's only counting pre-dreadnaughts. 89 ships vs 28 ships doesn't count as an inferior fleet.
Quote from: Viking on February 14, 2013, 03:52:56 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 03:46:08 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 14, 2013, 03:29:30 PM
Quote from: Drakken on February 14, 2013, 02:54:48 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 14, 2013, 02:27:56 PM
Leyte Gulf?
Biggest naval battle, but sealing what was already decided at Midway. Even the Japanese winning (or even drawing) at Leyte Gulf wouldn't turn the initiative back to the Japanese.
At Midway the balance was tipped, after Leyte Japan didn't have a fleet anymore. Thats the difference and thats what makes Leyte like Tsushima, it destroyed the fleet.
The Japanese at Tsushima destroyed a superior fleet to win the war. The Americans at Leyte mopped up the remnants of a fleet that they had already mostly destroyed and had certainly made irrelevant.
That's only counting pre-dreadnaughts. 89 ships vs 28 ships doesn't count as an inferior fleet.
Battleships were the way that strength was counted. Now, the Japanese armoured cruisers were undeniably effective, but you're also counting torpedo boats and destroyers whose usefulness in the decisive firefight was limited (although they were useful in finishing off damaged Russian ships later on).
Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 04:11:44 PM
Battleships were the way that strength was counted. Now, the Japanese armoured cruisers were undeniably effective, but you're also counting torpedo boats and destroyers whose usefulness in the decisive firefight was limited (although they were useful in finishing off damaged Russian ships later on).
So your saying that the Russians had 4 more pre-dreadnoughts and 3 glorified monitors and japan had 20 more armoured cruisers. Not so much superior. Those torpedo boats and destroyers were precisely what turned it from a narrow win (As the undecisive turret warship battles usually were) into a smashing victory.
But I'm open to being convinced. Did the Russians have more tonnage? How did Russian Pre-Dreadnought armor compared to Nipponese armored cruiser armor? How do the two fleets compare in terms of main gun throw weight of the main battle line?
Quote from: Viking on February 14, 2013, 04:22:01 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 04:11:44 PM
Battleships were the way that strength was counted. Now, the Japanese armoured cruisers were undeniably effective, but you're also counting torpedo boats and destroyers whose usefulness in the decisive firefight was limited (although they were useful in finishing off damaged Russian ships later on).
So your saying that the Russians had 4 more pre-dreadnoughts and 3 glorified monitors and japan had 20 more armoured cruisers. Not so much superior. Those torpedo boats and destroyers were precisely what turned it from a narrow win (As the undecisive turret warship battles usually were) into a smashing victory.
But I'm open to being convinced. Did the Russians have more tonnage? How did Russian Pre-Dreadnought armor compared to Nipponese armored cruiser armor? How do the two fleets compare in terms of main gun throw weight of the main battle line?
I'm saying that at the time the Russian fleet was considered to be equivalent or better than the Japanese one. The superior number of battleships was considered very important.
The Japanese only had 8 armoured cruisers at Tsushima, with the remainder being either protected cruisers or older, unarmoured cruisers.
The Russians would have had a higher throw weight, but that would have been unimportant given the crossing of the T and the fact that secondary, quick-firing guns firing high-explosive shells were probably more important than the main batteries. The Japanese had learned the usefulness of smashing upworks and sweeping ships with fire during the Sino-Japanese War, where the Chinese had a pair of cruisers who armoured so as to be essentially unsinkable to Japanese naval gunfire.
Part of decisiveness is psychological effect, and the unexpected and annihilating Japanese victory certainly had an effect.
Don't forget the Russians had just steamed halfway around the world whilst the Japanese were defending home waters. The better crew condition counted for quite a lot. The thinking of the time was still heavily into rate of fire rather than one or two knock out precision shots.
I really need to learn more about that war. Considering going for a look at Tsushima this spring, as pointless as that is.
Quote from: Syt on February 14, 2013, 01:42:12 PM
Yep, plenty of NATO mattresses. Some even became legit wives! :lol:
It bears to remember, though, that during the time the bulk of the soldiers were stationed here (esp. in the 80s) the $ was very strong vs. the DM, so soldiers could live very comfortably.
Was there any ever popular hostility to these women?
Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 06:22:14 PM
I'm saying that at the time the Russian fleet was considered to be equivalent or better than the Japanese one. The superior number of battleships was considered very important.
The Japanese only had 8 armoured cruisers at Tsushima, with the remainder being either protected cruisers or older, unarmoured cruisers.
The Russians would have had a higher throw weight, but that would have been unimportant given the crossing of the T and the fact that secondary, quick-firing guns firing high-explosive shells were probably more important than the main batteries. The Japanese had learned the usefulness of smashing upworks and sweeping ships with fire during the Sino-Japanese War, where the Chinese had a pair of cruisers who armoured so as to be essentially unsinkable to Japanese naval gunfire.
Part of decisiveness is psychological effect, and the unexpected and annihilating Japanese victory certainly had an effect.
So you are not saying that the Japanese destroyed a superior fleet, but rather a fleet which was perceived to be superior by the racists of the day? (y'know the same schmucks who thought the Brewster Buffalo was good enough to take on Zeros because the Japanese pilots were all near sighted)
Quote from: Viking on February 15, 2013, 11:53:51 AMSo you are not saying that the Japanese destroyed a superior fleet, but rather a fleet which was perceived to be superior by the racists of the day? (y'know the same schmucks who thought the Brewster Buffalo was good enough to take on Zeros because the Japanese pilots were all near sighted)
numerically, the russian fleet was superior. technically, and realistically, i don't know, it's hard to say. i don't think the japanese had an obviously better fleet, though
note: going off mostly what i remember here, and a glance at the tsushima oob and a clarification here or two on ship wikis. i don't have my sources available at the moment
while the borodinos were a bit of a joke, especially with their tumblehome, they did have krupp armor - a significant advantage given that japan had only one ship with krupp. the rest were harvey or worse. the japanese were also restricted with coal, iirc. britain had delivered a large shipment before the war, but the naval engagements prior to tsushima had spent that. any coal the japanese used were of their own inferior quality (i seem to recall it was rather awful). you also have japan placing
armored cruisers on the
battle line, mostly out of desperation because they simply lacked the necessary hardware (pre-dreads)
it doesn't matter how many ships you have if your torpedo boats/destroyers aren't able to launch their load and deliver serious damage. the russian fleet did have cruisers and destroyers on stand by for this, and it's not like the other guns on a pre-dread are useless - they're made for smaller craft such as cruisers and TBs. all the cruisers and destroyers/TBs in the world mean shit if you lack the firepower to remove the main force from the board: the pre-dread/battleship. so looking at pure numbers without breaking it down is sorta pointless
now, the russians did have their faults. their main commander, iirc, commanded a training vessel in 1900-1901 or so on the black sea. he performed so admirably.. in gunnery practice.. during nicky's visit that he rose the ranks until finally the good czar decided that he would command the fleet that would deal the death blow to japan. i've read/heard conflicting reports on his overall competency. either way, he was no makarov (:wub:), not by a long shot and a half
the crew were also all mostly inexperienced, and iirc recently drafted in at least some cases (russian naval service for the sailors was based on conscription, during peace and war). the veterans and trained sailors died or were captured in the pacific thanks to vitgeft's cowardice. so, that hardly helped their case
and the russians had some pretty bad ships. i think the ships of the imperial navy get shit on a bit too much, but they were pretty awkward and certainly weren't great (or even good in a few cases) by anyone's imagination. the entire third division can essentially be written out against the japanese main battle line: coastal defense battleships and a truly awful and ancient battleship. the second division contains a number of battleships which were not as bad as the godforsaken
imperator nikolai, and an armored cruiser packed with firepower, but they couldn't handle it one-on-one. not even close
so, when you add up the various factors, imo it's a bit tough to declare a clear winner if we're assuming the crossing of the russian T never occurred. russian commanders in the war seemed plagued with either utter incompetence, mcclellan attitudes, or in very rare cases.. patches of brilliance before abrupt deaths (keller :weep:). i'm not sure how well rozhestvensky would have done - historically he got knocked out in the beginning and spent the rest of the battle (i think) unconscious. disregarding the clear advantage russia had in simply the number of battleships is simply ridiculous, however. at the end of the day, they all had 12-inch guns (excepting the adorable peresvet-class).. albeit with inferior calibres in the second/third divisions
as for the other question re: most decisive modern naval battle, neil is of course correct. there is no contender. no glorified blockade or a sparring match between slant-eyed david and goliath can compare to tsushima and what it meant for the rest of the war (lol: what war?) or psychological effect it had on an entire nation with its one moment
Quote from: Viking on February 15, 2013, 11:53:51 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 06:22:14 PM
I'm saying that at the time the Russian fleet was considered to be equivalent or better than the Japanese one. The superior number of battleships was considered very important.
The Japanese only had 8 armoured cruisers at Tsushima, with the remainder being either protected cruisers or older, unarmoured cruisers.
The Russians would have had a higher throw weight, but that would have been unimportant given the crossing of the T and the fact that secondary, quick-firing guns firing high-explosive shells were probably more important than the main batteries. The Japanese had learned the usefulness of smashing upworks and sweeping ships with fire during the Sino-Japanese War, where the Chinese had a pair of cruisers who armoured so as to be essentially unsinkable to Japanese naval gunfire.
Part of decisiveness is psychological effect, and the unexpected and annihilating Japanese victory certainly had an effect.
So you are not saying that the Japanese destroyed a superior fleet, but rather a fleet which was perceived to be superior by the racists of the day? (y'know the same schmucks who thought the Brewster Buffalo was good enough to take on Zeros because the Japanese pilots were all near sighted)
Why bring race into it? Ship-for-ship, the Russians matched up well, but the Japanese crews were battle-tested veterans who had refined their tactics in the war against China, whereas the Russian crews were poor quality and had no combat experience whatsoever.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQX3gIsR.jpg&hash=fa8caf3e71a238d3affaeafa3e62fc8c7961d7e2)
Quote from: Zanza on February 15, 2013, 01:52:39 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQX3gIsR.jpg&hash=fa8caf3e71a238d3affaeafa3e62fc8c7961d7e2)
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
One of the Jap advantages is that their ships of each class all had the same speed. The Russians on the other hand had to slow down to match the slowest ship in the fleet.
Quote from: Neil on February 15, 2013, 01:51:37 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 15, 2013, 11:53:51 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 14, 2013, 06:22:14 PM
I'm saying that at the time the Russian fleet was considered to be equivalent or better than the Japanese one. The superior number of battleships was considered very important.
The Japanese only had 8 armoured cruisers at Tsushima, with the remainder being either protected cruisers or older, unarmoured cruisers.
The Russians would have had a higher throw weight, but that would have been unimportant given the crossing of the T and the fact that secondary, quick-firing guns firing high-explosive shells were probably more important than the main batteries. The Japanese had learned the usefulness of smashing upworks and sweeping ships with fire during the Sino-Japanese War, where the Chinese had a pair of cruisers who armoured so as to be essentially unsinkable to Japanese naval gunfire.
Part of decisiveness is psychological effect, and the unexpected and annihilating Japanese victory certainly had an effect.
So you are not saying that the Japanese destroyed a superior fleet, but rather a fleet which was perceived to be superior by the racists of the day? (y'know the same schmucks who thought the Brewster Buffalo was good enough to take on Zeros because the Japanese pilots were all near sighted)
Why bring race into it? Ship-for-ship, the Russians matched up well, but the Japanese crews were battle-tested veterans who had refined their tactics in the war against China, whereas the Russian crews were poor quality and had no combat experience whatsoever.
Because the argument you seem to be making is that the effect/significance of the battle was due to the percieved inferiority of the japanese.
Quote from: Viking on February 15, 2013, 02:14:21 PM
Because the argument you seem to be making is that the effect/significance of the battle was due to the percieved inferiority of the japanese.
That's not necessarily a race thing though.
Quote from: DGuller on February 15, 2013, 01:53:56 PM
Quote from: Zanza on February 15, 2013, 01:52:39 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQX3gIsR.jpg&hash=fa8caf3e71a238d3affaeafa3e62fc8c7961d7e2)
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao:
:lol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vhuzb3WMntc