Discussion:
Rebels in SF
Add Reply
a***@gmail.com
2019-05-12 13:06:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Having been detained for nearly three months in India without due process, I have now begun to understand the plight of revolutionary thinkers everywhere. The government wants to keep things the way they are, changing things only slowly, so as to keep themselves and their backers in power.

Democracies can be authoritarian and limit freedom and suppress the truth. Absolute freedom is impossible, but some countries are more free than others. I care for India, but don't have the power to protect my rights.

I can't think of any SF that I read recently about rebel forces trying to bring a new order of more freedom and truth to the people. Can you give me an example from this decade?

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

"The truth shall set you free"
m***@sky.com
2019-05-12 15:31:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Having been detained for nearly three months in India without due process, I have now begun to understand the plight of revolutionary thinkers everywhere. The government wants to keep things the way they are, changing things only slowly, so as to keep themselves and their backers in power.
Democracies can be authoritarian and limit freedom and suppress the truth. Absolute freedom is impossible, but some countries are more free than others. I care for India, but don't have the power to protect my rights.
I can't think of any SF that I read recently about rebel forces trying to bring a new order of more freedom and truth to the people. Can you give me an example from this decade?
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
I can give you examples, but not successful examples. In "Through Fire", by David Drake, the background is a revolution that has converted an occupied planet into a failed state. "Through Fire" by Sarah Hoyt is based on the French Revolution, including the chaos. Personally, I don't think this is unreasonable: the only really successful revolution I can think of is the American one (Unless you count the Glorious Revolution, which isn't a typical revolution, by any stretch of the imagination). Most revolutions involve handing automatic weapons to people who shouldn't be given metal cutlery, and things go downhill from there.
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-05-12 16:33:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Having been detained for nearly three months in India without due
process, I have now begun to understand the plight of revolutionary
thinkers everywhere. The government wants to keep things the way they
are, changing things only slowly, so as to keep themselves and their
backers in power.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Democracies can be authoritarian and limit freedom and suppress the
truth. Absolute freedom is impossible, but some countries are more free
than others. I care for India, but don't have the power to protect my
rights.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I can't think of any SF that I read recently about rebel forces trying
to bring a new order of more freedom and truth to the people. Can you
give me an example from this decade?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
I can give you examples, but not successful examples. In "Through Fire",
by David Drake, the background is a revolution that has converted an
occupied planet into a failed state. "Through Fire" by Sarah Hoyt is
based on the French Revolution, including the chaos. Personally, I don't
think this is unreasonable: the only really successful revolution I can
think of is the American one (Unless you count the Glorious Revolution,
which isn't a typical revolution, by any stretch of the imagination).
Most revolutions involve handing automatic weapons to people who
shouldn't be given metal cutlery, and things go downhill from there.
As many have pointed out, the American Revolution had two
important advantages: England was (a) on the other side of the
Atlantic, three to four weeks away by sailing ship, and (b) up to
her earlobes fighting France. She had neither time nor resources
to give the American rebellion a proper putting-down.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
m***@sky.com
2019-05-12 17:05:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Having been detained for nearly three months in India without due
process, I have now begun to understand the plight of revolutionary
thinkers everywhere. The government wants to keep things the way they
are, changing things only slowly, so as to keep themselves and their
backers in power.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Democracies can be authoritarian and limit freedom and suppress the
truth. Absolute freedom is impossible, but some countries are more free
than others. I care for India, but don't have the power to protect my
rights.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I can't think of any SF that I read recently about rebel forces trying
to bring a new order of more freedom and truth to the people. Can you
give me an example from this decade?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
I can give you examples, but not successful examples. In "Through Fire",
by David Drake, the background is a revolution that has converted an
occupied planet into a failed state. "Through Fire" by Sarah Hoyt is
based on the French Revolution, including the chaos. Personally, I don't
think this is unreasonable: the only really successful revolution I can
think of is the American one (Unless you count the Glorious Revolution,
which isn't a typical revolution, by any stretch of the imagination).
Most revolutions involve handing automatic weapons to people who
shouldn't be given metal cutlery, and things go downhill from there.
As many have pointed out, the American Revolution had two
important advantages: England was (a) on the other side of the
Atlantic, three to four weeks away by sailing ship, and (b) up to
her earlobes fighting France. She had neither time nor resources
to give the American rebellion a proper putting-down.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Oops - the Drake book is "The Road of Danger". To mostly agree with Dorothy I'll point out that the Royal Navy failed to sweep all before it, which for about the next century was going to be a pretty rare situation.
Wolffan
2019-05-12 18:01:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Having been detained for nearly three months in India without due
process, I have now begun to understand the plight of revolutionary
thinkers everywhere. The government wants to keep things the way they
are, changing things only slowly, so as to keep themselves and their
backers in power.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Democracies can be authoritarian and limit freedom and suppress the
truth. Absolute freedom is impossible, but some countries are more free
than others. I care for India, but don't have the power to protect my
rights.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I can't think of any SF that I read recently about rebel forces trying
to bring a new order of more freedom and truth to the people. Can you
give me an example from this decade?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
I can give you examples, but not successful examples. In "Through Fire",
by David Drake, the background is a revolution that has converted an
occupied planet into a failed state. "Through Fire" by Sarah Hoyt is
based on the French Revolution, including the chaos. Personally, I don't
think this is unreasonable: the only really successful revolution I can
think of is the American one (Unless you count the Glorious Revolution,
which isn't a typical revolution, by any stretch of the imagination).
Most revolutions involve handing automatic weapons to people who
shouldn't be given metal cutlery, and things go downhill from there.
As many have pointed out, the American Revolution had two
important advantages: England was (a) on the other side of the
Atlantic, three to four weeks away by sailing ship, and (b) up to
her earlobes fighting France. She had neither time nor resources
to give the American rebellion a proper putting-down.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Oops - the Drake book is "The Road of Danger". To mostly agree with Dorothy
I'll point out that the Royal Navy failed to sweep all before it, which for
about the next century was going to be a pretty rare situation.
It’s fair to say that the American Revolution succeeded in large part
because at the Battle of the Virginia Capes Comte de Grasse managed to do
something very few French admirals achieved during the 18th and early 19th
centuries: he did NOT lose to a British fleet. (Later on, first Hood would
catch him off St. Kitts and then Rodney would catch him in the Saintes
Passage and administer the traditional drubbings, but by then it was too
late.) If de Grasse had lost, Graves would have been able to relieve
Cornwallis and things would have become messy. Well, messier than they
already were. The RN didn’t win _all_ the fleet actions during the American
Revolution, and the ones they lost were critical. The RN wouldn’t lose a
major battle after losing at the Virginia Capes until Coronel, in 1914, and
revenge for _that_ was gained at the Falklands a short time later. And
Coronel wasn’t lost to the French.
Kevrob
2019-05-12 18:58:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Wolffan
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Having been detained for nearly three months in India without due
process, I have now begun to understand the plight of revolutionary
thinkers everywhere. The government wants to keep things the way they
are, changing things only slowly, so as to keep themselves and their
backers in power.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Democracies can be authoritarian and limit freedom and suppress the
truth. Absolute freedom is impossible, but some countries are more free
than others. I care for India, but don't have the power to protect my
rights.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I can't think of any SF that I read recently about rebel forces trying
to bring a new order of more freedom and truth to the people. Can you
give me an example from this decade?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
I can give you examples, but not successful examples. In "Through Fire",
by David Drake, the background is a revolution that has converted an
occupied planet into a failed state. "Through Fire" by Sarah Hoyt is
based on the French Revolution, including the chaos. Personally, I don't
think this is unreasonable: the only really successful revolution I can
think of is the American one (Unless you count the Glorious Revolution,
which isn't a typical revolution, by any stretch of the imagination).
Most revolutions involve handing automatic weapons to people who
shouldn't be given metal cutlery, and things go downhill from there.
As many have pointed out, the American Revolution had two
important advantages: England was (a) on the other side of the
Atlantic, three to four weeks away by sailing ship, and (b) up to
her earlobes fighting France. She had neither time nor resources
to give the American rebellion a proper putting-down.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Oops - the Drake book is "The Road of Danger". To mostly agree with Dorothy
I'll point out that the Royal Navy failed to sweep all before it, which for
about the next century was going to be a pretty rare situation.
It’s fair to say that the American Revolution succeeded in large part
because at the Battle of the Virginia Capes Comte de Grasse managed to do
something very few French admirals achieved during the 18th and early 19th
centuries: he did NOT lose to a British fleet. (Later on, first Hood would
catch him off St. Kitts and then Rodney would catch him in the Saintes
Passage and administer the traditional drubbings, but by then it was too
late.) If de Grasse had lost, Graves would have been able to relieve
Cornwallis and things would have become messy. Well, messier than they
already were.
A draw at sea, perhaps, but a tactical victory for the Franco-
American forces besieging Yorktown.
Post by Wolffan
The RN didn’t win _all_ the fleet actions during the American
Revolution, and the ones they lost were critical. The RN wouldn’t lose a
major battle after losing at the Virginia Capes until Coronel, in 1914, and
revenge for _that_ was gained at the Falklands a short time later. And
Coronel wasn’t lost to the French.
I take it that, not being on the high seas, Lake Champlain/
Plattsburgh doesn't count? Not enough or big enough vessels?

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plattsburgh#Naval_battle

Kevin R
Wolffan
2019-05-13 00:02:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Wolffan
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Having been detained for nearly three months in India without due
process, I have now begun to understand the plight of revolutionary
thinkers everywhere. The government wants to keep things the way they
are, changing things only slowly, so as to keep themselves and their
backers in power.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Democracies can be authoritarian and limit freedom and suppress the
truth. Absolute freedom is impossible, but some countries are more free
than others. I care for India, but don't have the power to protect my
rights.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I can't think of any SF that I read recently about rebel forces trying
to bring a new order of more freedom and truth to the people. Can you
give me an example from this decade?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
I can give you examples, but not successful examples. In "Through Fire",
by David Drake, the background is a revolution that has converted an
occupied planet into a failed state. "Through Fire" by Sarah Hoyt is
based on the French Revolution, including the chaos. Personally, I don't
think this is unreasonable: the only really successful revolution I can
think of is the American one (Unless you count the Glorious Revolution,
which isn't a typical revolution, by any stretch of the imagination).
Most revolutions involve handing automatic weapons to people who
shouldn't be given metal cutlery, and things go downhill from there.
As many have pointed out, the American Revolution had two
important advantages: England was (a) on the other side of the
Atlantic, three to four weeks away by sailing ship, and (b) up to
her earlobes fighting France. She had neither time nor resources
to give the American rebellion a proper putting-down.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Oops - the Drake book is "The Road of Danger". To mostly agree with Dorothy
I'll point out that the Royal Navy failed to sweep all before it, which for
about the next century was going to be a pretty rare situation.
It’s fair to say that the American Revolution succeeded in large part
because at the Battle of the Virginia Capes Comte de Grasse managed to do
something very few French admirals achieved during the 18th and early 19th
centuries: he did NOT lose to a British fleet. (Later on, first Hood would
catch him off St. Kitts and then Rodney would catch him in the Saintes
Passage and administer the traditional drubbings, but by then it was too
late.) If de Grasse had lost, Graves would have been able to relieve
Cornwallis and things would have become messy. Well, messier than they
already were.
A draw at sea, perhaps, but a tactical victory for the Franco-
American forces besieging Yorktown.
Post by Wolffan
The RN didn’t win _all_ the fleet actions during the American
Revolution, and the ones they lost were critical. The RN wouldn’t lose a
major battle after losing at the Virginia Capes until Coronel, in 1914, and
revenge for _that_ was gained at the Falklands a short time later. And
Coronel wasn’t lost to the French.
I take it that, not being on the high seas, Lake Champlain/
Plattsburgh doesn't count? Not enough or big enough vessels?
That wasn’t a fleet action. The RN lost a number of smaller actions,
notably single-ship actions vs American superfrigates, but no major actions.
For well over a hundred years Britannia really did rule the waves.

At Plattsburgh they weren’t serious, the entire North American war was a
sideshow to the main action in Europe. If they lost, no big deal, after
victory in Europe any problems could be dealt with. If they won, well
that’s nice, no-one in London particularly cared.

And now you know a major reason why they lost. The British troops, and
commanders, on station weren’t putting out max effort in a sideshow.

The Americans, now, they didn’t think that this was a sideshow, and neither
did the Canadians.
Post by Kevrob
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plattsburgh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plattsburgh#Naval_battle
Kevin R
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-05-12 20:24:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Having been detained for nearly three months in India without due
process, I have now begun to understand the plight of revolutionary
thinkers everywhere. The government wants to keep things the way they
are, changing things only slowly, so as to keep themselves and their
backers in power.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Democracies can be authoritarian and limit freedom and suppress the
truth. Absolute freedom is impossible, but some countries are more free
than others. I care for India, but don't have the power to protect my
rights.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I can't think of any SF that I read recently about rebel forces trying
to bring a new order of more freedom and truth to the people. Can you
give me an example from this decade?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
I can give you examples, but not successful examples. In "Through Fire",
by David Drake, the background is a revolution that has converted an
occupied planet into a failed state. "Through Fire" by Sarah Hoyt is
based on the French Revolution, including the chaos. Personally, I don't
think this is unreasonable: the only really successful revolution I can
think of is the American one (Unless you count the Glorious Revolution,
which isn't a typical revolution, by any stretch of the imagination).
Most revolutions involve handing automatic weapons to people who
shouldn't be given metal cutlery, and things go downhill from there.
As many have pointed out, the American Revolution had two
important advantages: England was (a) on the other side of the
Atlantic, three to four weeks away by sailing ship, and (b) up to
her earlobes fighting France. She had neither time nor resources
to give the American rebellion a proper putting-down.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Oops - the Drake book is "The Road of Danger". To mostly agree with
Dorothy I'll point out that the Royal Navy failed to sweep all before
it, which for about the next century was going to be a pretty rare
situation.
Which could be compared, for historical or science-fictional
purposes, with the German Blitzkrieg over Europe, which was very
successful until they reached the Channel. They assumed that
crossing the Channel would be just like crossing rivers, which
they'd done all the time. When finally (at least partially)
convinced that they could never get across the Channel without
command of the air, they set the Luftwaffe to take out the RAF,
which they ... never succeeded in doing. "Oh, well, let's go
take Russia instead." Which ... didn't succeed so well either.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Thomas Koenig
2019-05-13 07:35:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Which could be compared, for historical or science-fictional
purposes, with the German Blitzkrieg over Europe, which was very
successful until they reached the Channel.
Correct.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
They assumed that
crossing the Channel would be just like crossing rivers, which
they'd done all the time.
That is ridiculous, they were not that stupid.

The problem was that Hitler never envisioned that Britain would
fight on after the fall of France. Hence his peace offer to
Britain in 1940. (That offer was foolish. Any sane statesman
would have realized that a peace offer to _France_ on generious
terms would have left the British with nothing to fight for in the
medium term. But then again, any sane statesman would have realized
that Germany had, in effect, won World War I by the mid-1930's.
France and Britain had just shown that they could not withstand
Germany without help from other great powers, and post-WW I
Europe had none left. But "sane statesman" is probably as
wrong as you an get when describing Hitler.)

So, the German army at the time had no plans for a war against
Britain, and no suitable resources either.

They tried to improvise, and failed.
Wolffan
2019-05-13 12:54:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Which could be compared, for historical or science-fictional
purposes, with the German Blitzkrieg over Europe, which was very
successful until they reached the Channel.
Correct.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
They assumed that
crossing the Channel would be just like crossing rivers, which
they'd done all the time.
That is ridiculous, they were not that stupid.
Yes, they were. They had, after all _just done_ something quite similar when
they attacked Norway. It worked. Britain was not Norway.
Post by Thomas Koenig
The problem was that Hitler never envisioned that Britain would
fight on after the fall of France. Hence his peace offer to
Britain in 1940. (That offer was foolish. Any sane statesman
would have realized that a peace offer to _France_ on generious
terms would have left the British with nothing to fight for in the
medium term. But then again, any sane statesman would have realized
that Germany had, in effect, won World War I by the mid-1930's.
France and Britain had just shown that they could not withstand
Germany without help from other great powers, and post-WW I
Europe had none left. But "sane statesman" is probably as
wrong as you an get when describing Hitler.)
The problems were that

1 the war started before they were ready. The blitzkrieg depended on. among
other things, plentiful artillery and substitutes for artillery in the way of
air assault, notably Ju-87s. The Ju-87 was relative short-ranged and slow and
vulnerable to fighters; even bloody useless deathtraps like Boulton-Paul
Defiants could shoot them down. This meant that they needed fighter support,
which was a problem; Bf-109s were short-ranged, too, and Bf-110s quickly
proved to have been overrated. (The _concept_ of the ‘heavy fighter’ was
sound; Britain would use Bristol Beaufighters and De Havilland Mosquitos and
the US would use Lockheed P-38s to great effect. It was the _design_ of the
Bf-110 which was at fault.) There were plans for better attack aircraft and
fighters (the Fw-190 could do both) but they weren’t available, the war
started too soon. Land-based artillery had a problem reaching over the
Channel. The V-1, -2, and -3 projects would solve that problem, but too
little too late. They didn’t have sufficient naval artillery to
compensate; one of three panzerschiffs was sunk in Montevideo harbor, one of
two battlecruisers was in dockyard hands after the fight with Acasta and
Ardent, one cruiser was sunk in Oslo harbor, another cruiser was in dockyard
hands after being rammed by Glowworm, half of the Kriegsmarine’s destroyers
were sunk in Narvik fjord, victims of the ‘H’ class destroyers and
Warspite. They had no battleships, the war had started before Bismarck was
ready. Even if they didn’t lose a single ship they lacked the floating
artillery to take on Britain’s coast defenses, particularly as the best
coast defence artillery in Britain was at Dover, and the plan called for
taking Dover to serve as a port to bring in fuel, one of the other things the
blitzkrieg depended on.

2 as noted above, losses in the Norwegian campaign crippled the naval forces.
Far worse were the losses to airlanding troops in the Netherlands; in one
assault, 11 of the first 12 Ju-52 assault transports attempting a
coup-de-main at The Hague were destroyed _prior_ to offloading troops of 22.
Luftlande-Division, with a total of 18 of 24 committed destroyed or severely
damaged and most of the troops killed. A second assault also had heavy
losses; 22. Luftlande-Division was combat-ineffective as the result of those
casualties and would have to be rebuilt, which took time. 7.Flieger-Division
was also badly shot up in the Netherlands, at The Hague and attempting to
take various bridges (the Allies would try the same idiocy going the other
way in 1944) and was also combat-ineffective. Even if the two air assault
divisions could fight, the losses in Ju-52 transports was catastrophic, there
simply weren’t enough to lift even the combat-ineffective troops! And the
Ju-52 was a poor choice for an assault transport, used mostly because, well,
there was nothing else available or even seriously being worked on! The
British were (officially) scared of air assault; because by this time British
Intelligence had Ultra and were reading German communications faster than the
Germans, they _knew_ that there would not be paratroops and gliders coming
down in Kent because there weren’t any available! Hell, there were over a
thousand prisoners from the airlanding divisions in Britain, sent over from
the Netherlands prior to the final defeat of the Dutch forces!

3 as noted above, British Intelligence had Ultra, which meant that they
_knew_ what the Germans were planning... and the Germans didn’t know that
the British were reading their mail. Worse, _every single German agent sent
to Britain_, all of them, were captured or killed, and British Intelligence
would send back false information allegedly from the dead or taken agents.
German Intelligence thought that British Intelligence was incompetent to
allow all those agents to operate freely, not realizing that _everything they
were being told was faked_.

4 the Germans were preparing for an enlarged river assault, using lots of
barges. The British had a simple defence planned. Don’t shoot at the
barges, send destroyers and other fast ships in at 30 or more knots. The
wakes would swamp or capsize the barges; the British would lose ships, but
they had plenty. The Germans would lose their invasion force. The barges were
of two types: with their on motors and towed. Neither type could exceed 3
knots. That meant the the British would have 7 to 10 hours to run destroyers
past the barge fleet. The plan called for a dawn attack, so the British
destroyers would be operating at night. Ju-87s don’t fly at night, and are
even more useless against air opposition at night if they do. Dover was a
major destroyer base. The barge fleet would be sailing straight into the
heaviest defences in Britain! If the Kriegsmarine came out to defend the
barges, the Home Fleet would come south from Scapa Flow and the above-noted
already depleted naval strength would find itself looking at half a dozen
battleships and battlecruisers and numerous cruisers and destroyers.
There’d be a really big fight off the south of England, at night when the
Luftwaffe can’t do much, and when it was over Britain would have lost some
ships and Germany would have lost its navy. And British submarines would have
been active, against German submarines; Ultra was based, in part on
intelligence obtained when a British sub captured a German sub before the
Enigma machine and associated papers showing rotor settings etc. could be
tossed overboard (the USN did something similar in 1944; U-505 is displayed
at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. Hollywood made a movie
combining elements from both incidents, removing all trace of British
involvement, and Hollywooding things to an embarrassing even for them
extent.) Since the _First_ World War British subs had gone in for anti-sub
operations; they’d have gone south with the fleet to engage German subs.
There would have been losses, but Britain had lots of ships.
Post by Thomas Koenig
So, the German army at the time had no plans for a war against
Britain, and no suitable resources either.
They had plans, just not good plans.
Post by Thomas Koenig
They tried to improvise, and failed.
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-05-13 17:15:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
In article <***@news.supernews.com>,
Wolffan <***@zoho.com> wrote:
[lots of interesting WW2 data snipped, but saved to disk
Post by Wolffan
They had plans, just not good plans.
Post by Thomas Koenig
They tried to improvise, and failed.
And yet, when they succeeded (which they did, for quite a while),
it was in part because of having prepared (in secret) armaments,
trained troops, and battle plans.

Actually, the bit about improvising reminds me of a feature we
see sometimes in SCA wars, particularly the annual West (northern
California) and Caid (southern California) War. The Caidans
train in groups; they have books full of battle plans and study
them intensively. At the beginning of a battle, they're darned
near invincible. But as soon as some of their troops get taken
out*, particularly if they lose their commander, they no longer
have an appropriate plan and have to improvise. At this point
the Western fighters, who also train in groups (sometimes) but
frequently fight as individuals, put together ad hoc groups under
whoever puts them together, and wipe the field with the
disorganized Caidans.

From a filk I wrote a longish time ago:

Maythen called a convocation at the Resurrection station,
Where they'd driven us in orderly retreat;
"Hats on, gentlemen!" she cried; and when everyone had died
She was lying there with twenty at her feet.

We're the warriors of the West, woman for woman we're the best,
If you give us half a chance, the same we'll take,
And if Bellona and the gods would only give us even odds,
We could sweep the field from here to Cooper's Lake.**

_____
* SCA fighting convention: if you take a blow from a rattan sword
that would've killed you if it had been steel, you're officially
dead and must leave the battle and come back some minutes later.
** Site of the annual Pennsic War, attendance over 10,000.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
J. Clarke
2019-05-14 00:20:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
[lots of interesting WW2 data snipped, but saved to disk
Post by Wolffan
They had plans, just not good plans.
Post by Thomas Koenig
They tried to improvise, and failed.
And yet, when they succeeded (which they did, for quite a while),
it was in part because of having prepared (in secret) armaments,
trained troops, and battle plans.
Actually, the bit about improvising reminds me of a feature we
see sometimes in SCA wars, particularly the annual West (northern
California) and Caid (southern California) War. The Caidans
train in groups; they have books full of battle plans and study
them intensively. At the beginning of a battle, they're darned
near invincible. But as soon as some of their troops get taken
out*, particularly if they lose their commander, they no longer
have an appropriate plan and have to improvise. At this point
the Western fighters, who also train in groups (sometimes) but
frequently fight as individuals, put together ad hoc groups under
whoever puts them together, and wipe the field with the
disorganized Caidans.
Maythen called a convocation at the Resurrection station,
Where they'd driven us in orderly retreat;
"Hats on, gentlemen!" she cried; and when everyone had died
She was lying there with twenty at her feet.
We're the warriors of the West, woman for woman we're the best,
If you give us half a chance, the same we'll take,
And if Bellona and the gods would only give us even odds,
We could sweep the field from here to Cooper's Lake.**
_____
* SCA fighting convention: if you take a blow from a rattan sword
that would've killed you if it had been steel, you're officially
dead and must leave the battle and come back some minutes later.
** Site of the annual Pennsic War, attendance over 10,000.
Just a note, I have a slight acquaintance with a couple--he's a
retired Navy SEAL, she's a SCAdian warrior. He freely admits that she
can kick his butt.
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-05-14 01:24:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
[lots of interesting WW2 data snipped, but saved to disk
Post by Wolffan
They had plans, just not good plans.
Post by Thomas Koenig
They tried to improvise, and failed.
And yet, when they succeeded (which they did, for quite a while),
it was in part because of having prepared (in secret) armaments,
trained troops, and battle plans.
Actually, the bit about improvising reminds me of a feature we
see sometimes in SCA wars, particularly the annual West (northern
California) and Caid (southern California) War. The Caidans
train in groups; they have books full of battle plans and study
them intensively. At the beginning of a battle, they're darned
near invincible. But as soon as some of their troops get taken
out*, particularly if they lose their commander, they no longer
have an appropriate plan and have to improvise. At this point
the Western fighters, who also train in groups (sometimes) but
frequently fight as individuals, put together ad hoc groups under
whoever puts them together, and wipe the field with the
disorganized Caidans.
Maythen called a convocation at the Resurrection station,
Where they'd driven us in orderly retreat;
"Hats on, gentlemen!" she cried; and when everyone had died
She was lying there with twenty at her feet.
We're the warriors of the West, woman for woman we're the best,
If you give us half a chance, the same we'll take,
And if Bellona and the gods would only give us even odds,
We could sweep the field from here to Cooper's Lake.**
_____
* SCA fighting convention: if you take a blow from a rattan sword
that would've killed you if it had been steel, you're officially
dead and must leave the battle and come back some minutes later.
** Site of the annual Pennsic War, attendance over 10,000.
Just a note, I have a slight acquaintance with a couple--he's a
retired Navy SEAL, she's a SCAdian warrior. He freely admits that she
can kick his butt.
Maythen's retired now, but she was an estimable butt-kicker in
her day. About five-foot-five and solid muscle.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
m***@sky.com
2019-05-13 18:21:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Wolffan
Post by Thomas Koenig
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Which could be compared, for historical or science-fictional
purposes, with the German Blitzkrieg over Europe, which was very
successful until they reached the Channel.
Correct.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
They assumed that
crossing the Channel would be just like crossing rivers, which
they'd done all the time.
That is ridiculous, they were not that stupid.
Yes, they were. They had, after all _just done_ something quite similar when
they attacked Norway. It worked. Britain was not Norway.
Post by Thomas Koenig
The problem was that Hitler never envisioned that Britain would
fight on after the fall of France. Hence his peace offer to
Britain in 1940. (That offer was foolish. Any sane statesman
would have realized that a peace offer to _France_ on generious
terms would have left the British with nothing to fight for in the
medium term. But then again, any sane statesman would have realized
that Germany had, in effect, won World War I by the mid-1930's.
France and Britain had just shown that they could not withstand
Germany without help from other great powers, and post-WW I
Europe had none left. But "sane statesman" is probably as
wrong as you an get when describing Hitler.)
The problems were that
1 the war started before they were ready. The blitzkrieg depended on. among
other things, plentiful artillery and substitutes for artillery in the way of
air assault, notably Ju-87s. The Ju-87 was relative short-ranged and slow and
vulnerable to fighters; even bloody useless deathtraps like Boulton-Paul
Defiants could shoot them down. This meant that they needed fighter support,
which was a problem; Bf-109s were short-ranged, too, and Bf-110s quickly
proved to have been overrated. (The _concept_ of the ‘heavy fighter’ was
sound; Britain would use Bristol Beaufighters and De Havilland Mosquitos and
the US would use Lockheed P-38s to great effect. It was the _design_ of the
Bf-110 which was at fault.) There were plans for better attack aircraft and
fighters (the Fw-190 could do both) but they weren’t available, the war
started too soon. Land-based artillery had a problem reaching over the
Channel. The V-1, -2, and -3 projects would solve that problem, but too
little too late. They didn’t have sufficient naval artillery to
compensate; one of three panzerschiffs was sunk in Montevideo harbor, one of
two battlecruisers was in dockyard hands after the fight with Acasta and
Ardent, one cruiser was sunk in Oslo harbor, another cruiser was in dockyard
hands after being rammed by Glowworm, half of the Kriegsmarine’s destroyers
were sunk in Narvik fjord, victims of the ‘H’ class destroyers and
Warspite. They had no battleships, the war had started before Bismarck was
ready. Even if they didn’t lose a single ship they lacked the floating
artillery to take on Britain’s coast defenses, particularly as the best
coast defence artillery in Britain was at Dover, and the plan called for
taking Dover to serve as a port to bring in fuel, one of the other things the
blitzkrieg depended on.
2 as noted above, losses in the Norwegian campaign crippled the naval forces.
Far worse were the losses to airlanding troops in the Netherlands; in one
assault, 11 of the first 12 Ju-52 assault transports attempting a
coup-de-main at The Hague were destroyed _prior_ to offloading troops of 22.
Luftlande-Division, with a total of 18 of 24 committed destroyed or severely
damaged and most of the troops killed. A second assault also had heavy
losses; 22. Luftlande-Division was combat-ineffective as the result of those
casualties and would have to be rebuilt, which took time. 7.Flieger-Division
was also badly shot up in the Netherlands, at The Hague and attempting to
take various bridges (the Allies would try the same idiocy going the other
way in 1944) and was also combat-ineffective. Even if the two air assault
divisions could fight, the losses in Ju-52 transports was catastrophic, there
simply weren’t enough to lift even the combat-ineffective troops! And the
Ju-52 was a poor choice for an assault transport, used mostly because, well,
there was nothing else available or even seriously being worked on! The
British were (officially) scared of air assault; because by this time British
Intelligence had Ultra and were reading German communications faster than the
Germans, they _knew_ that there would not be paratroops and gliders coming
down in Kent because there weren’t any available! Hell, there were over a
thousand prisoners from the airlanding divisions in Britain, sent over from
the Netherlands prior to the final defeat of the Dutch forces!
3 as noted above, British Intelligence had Ultra, which meant that they
_knew_ what the Germans were planning... and the Germans didn’t know that
the British were reading their mail. Worse, _every single German agent sent
to Britain_, all of them, were captured or killed, and British Intelligence
would send back false information allegedly from the dead or taken agents.
German Intelligence thought that British Intelligence was incompetent to
allow all those agents to operate freely, not realizing that _everything they
were being told was faked_.
4 the Germans were preparing for an enlarged river assault, using lots of
barges. The British had a simple defence planned. Don’t shoot at the
barges, send destroyers and other fast ships in at 30 or more knots. The
wakes would swamp or capsize the barges; the British would lose ships, but
they had plenty. The Germans would lose their invasion force. The barges were
of two types: with their on motors and towed. Neither type could exceed 3
knots. That meant the the British would have 7 to 10 hours to run destroyers
past the barge fleet. The plan called for a dawn attack, so the British
destroyers would be operating at night. Ju-87s don’t fly at night, and are
even more useless against air opposition at night if they do. Dover was a
major destroyer base. The barge fleet would be sailing straight into the
heaviest defences in Britain! If the Kriegsmarine came out to defend the
barges, the Home Fleet would come south from Scapa Flow and the above-noted
already depleted naval strength would find itself looking at half a dozen
battleships and battlecruisers and numerous cruisers and destroyers.
There’d be a really big fight off the south of England, at night when the
Luftwaffe can’t do much, and when it was over Britain would have lost some
ships and Germany would have lost its navy. And British submarines would have
been active, against German submarines; Ultra was based, in part on
intelligence obtained when a British sub captured a German sub before the
Enigma machine and associated papers showing rotor settings etc. could be
tossed overboard (the USN did something similar in 1944; U-505 is displayed
at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago. Hollywood made a movie
combining elements from both incidents, removing all trace of British
involvement, and Hollywooding things to an embarrassing even for them
extent.) Since the _First_ World War British subs had gone in for anti-sub
operations; they’d have gone south with the fleet to engage German subs.
There would have been losses, but Britain had lots of ships.
Post by Thomas Koenig
So, the German army at the time had no plans for a war against
Britain, and no suitable resources either.
They had plans, just not good plans.
Post by Thomas Koenig
They tried to improvise, and failed.
There's a paperback "Sea Lion" by Richard Cox about the German plan. Much of it is a fictionalization of a war game run at Sandhurst based on extensive research, with players who had some relevant experience. The Germans do manage to get ashore, but they cannot sustain their supply train and end up staging a costly withdrawal.
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-05-13 19:30:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
There's a paperback "Sea Lion" by Richard Cox about the German plan.
Much of it is a fictionalization of a war game run at Sandhurst based on
extensive research, with players who had some relevant experience. The
Germans do manage to get ashore, but they cannot sustain their supply
train and end up staging a costly withdrawal.
There's a novella by C. S. Forester, "If Hitler Had Invaded
England," which is worth reading if you can find a copy. (I have
it in an anthology of his fictional WW2-period adventures titled
_Gold From Crete_.) He says in his first paragraph, "So often it
has been said that if Hitler had made the attempt to invade
Britain after the evacuation of Dunkirk, he would have won the
war, that it is worth analyzing his chances. He must be given
every possible chance, but none of the impossible ones. Before
war began, he had made no plans, and certainly no preparations,
for the invasion of Britain; if he had, history would have taken
a different course from that moment. If he had begun to build a
fleet of landing craft in 1938, for instance, the British
attitude at Munich might well have been different, and certainly
British rearmament would have been more rapid. And it must be
remembered that with the German economy at full stretch for war
production, such a fleet could only have been built at the cost
of a diminished output of planes or guns or tanks or submarines."

On that basis, he builds a story of German invasion. N.B.: they
lose.

Somewhere in the tale ... I thumbed through it in a hurry and
couldn't find it, but there's the anecdote of a feeble, halting,
very elderly man who hobbles past a car containing a high German
official, pulls out the handgun he carried in the Boer War, and
shoots him dead. He falls dead with a dozen bullets in him the
next second, but Forester quotes the slogan, "You can always take
one with you."

It's a good read. Having gone to the trouble of finding it in a
near-inaccessible bookcase, I'll put it on the top of my
to-reread stack.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Kevrob
2019-05-13 20:26:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by m***@sky.com
There's a paperback "Sea Lion" by Richard Cox about the German plan.
Much of it is a fictionalization of a war game run at Sandhurst based on
extensive research, with players who had some relevant experience. The
Germans do manage to get ashore, but they cannot sustain their supply
train and end up staging a costly withdrawal.
There's a novella by C. S. Forester, "If Hitler Had Invaded
England," which is worth reading if you can find a copy. (I have
it in an anthology of his fictional WW2-period adventures titled
_Gold From Crete_.) He says in his first paragraph, "So often it
has been said that if Hitler had made the attempt to invade
Britain after the evacuation of Dunkirk, he would have won the
war, that it is worth analyzing his chances. He must be given
every possible chance, but none of the impossible ones. Before
war began, he had made no plans, and certainly no preparations,
for the invasion of Britain; if he had, history would have taken
a different course from that moment. If he had begun to build a
fleet of landing craft in 1938, for instance, the British
attitude at Munich might well have been different, and certainly
British rearmament would have been more rapid. And it must be
remembered that with the German economy at full stretch for war
production, such a fleet could only have been built at the cost
of a diminished output of planes or guns or tanks or submarines."
On that basis, he builds a story of German invasion. N.B.: they
lose.
Somewhere in the tale ... I thumbed through it in a hurry and
couldn't find it, but there's the anecdote of a feeble, halting,
very elderly man who hobbles past a car containing a high German
official, pulls out the handgun he carried in the Boer War, and
shoots him dead. He falls dead with a dozen bullets in him the
next second, but Forester quotes the slogan, "You can always take
one with you."
It's a good read. Having gone to the trouble of finding it in a
near-inaccessible bookcase, I'll put it on the top of my
to-reread stack.
I used to post in soc.history.what-if, and n00bs would regularly
receive scathing ripostes to their Alternate-WWII scenarios that
just _assumed_ Sea Lion would scucceed.

[quote]

11.a. Could Operation Sealion have succeeded?

Not with the existing situation in 1940: Germany lacked the
necessary resources to force the English Channel, and even transporting
and supplying ground forces of the necessary size would have been
difficult, probably impossible. Alison Brooks and Ian Montgomerie
have posted extended arguments to this effect; see their webpages
(Question 19). A plausible Nazi defeat of Great Britain requires
changing something other than just going ahead with Sealion.

[/quote] FAQ for soc.history.what.if via

http://www.anthonymayer.net/ah/faq.html

Kevin R
Robert Woodward
2019-05-14 04:56:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by m***@sky.com
There's a paperback "Sea Lion" by Richard Cox about the German plan.
Much of it is a fictionalization of a war game run at Sandhurst based on
extensive research, with players who had some relevant experience. The
Germans do manage to get ashore, but they cannot sustain their supply
train and end up staging a costly withdrawal.
There's a novella by C. S. Forester, "If Hitler Had Invaded
England," which is worth reading if you can find a copy. (I have
it in an anthology of his fictional WW2-period adventures titled
_Gold From Crete_.)
There is an e-book edition of this title (I have a copy).

<Snip>
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Somewhere in the tale ... I thumbed through it in a hurry and
couldn't find it, but there's the anecdote of a feeble, halting,
very elderly man who hobbles past a car containing a high German
official, pulls out the handgun he carried in the Boer War, and
shoots him dead. He falls dead with a dozen bullets in him the
next second, but Forester quotes the slogan, "You can always take
one with you."
I have wondered if that German officer (note that he was commanding
tanks) was Rommel.
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-05-14 12:57:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by m***@sky.com
There's a paperback "Sea Lion" by Richard Cox about the German plan.
Much of it is a fictionalization of a war game run at Sandhurst based on
extensive research, with players who had some relevant experience. The
Germans do manage to get ashore, but they cannot sustain their supply
train and end up staging a costly withdrawal.
There's a novella by C. S. Forester, "If Hitler Had Invaded
England," which is worth reading if you can find a copy. (I have
it in an anthology of his fictional WW2-period adventures titled
_Gold From Crete_.)
There is an e-book edition of this title (I have a copy).
<Snip>
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Somewhere in the tale ... I thumbed through it in a hurry and
couldn't find it, but there's the anecdote of a feeble, halting,
very elderly man who hobbles past a car containing a high German
official, pulls out the handgun he carried in the Boer War, and
shoots him dead. He falls dead with a dozen bullets in him the
next second, but Forester quotes the slogan, "You can always take
one with you."
I have wondered if that German officer (note that he was commanding
tanks) was Rommel.
No. I reread it last night and he's described as a young
officer. Rommel was born in 1891 and would've been pushing 50 in
1940. Several fam^H^H^Hnotorious Nazi officials are mentioned by
name in the text, including Hitler, Goering, and von Rundstedt;
but Rommel does not appear. Remember, this piece begins as a
think-piece and then morphs into straight alt-history.

Found the passage; he's describe as follows: "The dashing young
general commanding the armour on the invasion beaches was
already fretting and champing at the bit." He's nobody in
particular, having been invented for the purpose of being killed
by the old veteran of the Boer War and WWI.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Robert Carnegie
2019-05-14 21:02:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by m***@sky.com
There's a paperback "Sea Lion" by Richard Cox about the German plan.
Much of it is a fictionalization of a war game run at Sandhurst based on
extensive research, with players who had some relevant experience. The
Germans do manage to get ashore, but they cannot sustain their supply
train and end up staging a costly withdrawal.
There's a novella by C. S. Forester, "If Hitler Had Invaded
England," which is worth reading if you can find a copy. (I have
it in an anthology of his fictional WW2-period adventures titled
_Gold From Crete_.)
There is an e-book edition of this title (I have a copy).
<Snip>
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Somewhere in the tale ... I thumbed through it in a hurry and
couldn't find it, but there's the anecdote of a feeble, halting,
very elderly man who hobbles past a car containing a high German
official, pulls out the handgun he carried in the Boer War, and
shoots him dead. He falls dead with a dozen bullets in him the
next second, but Forester quotes the slogan, "You can always take
one with you."
I have wondered if that German officer (note that he was commanding
tanks) was Rommel.
No. I reread it last night and he's described as a young
officer. Rommel was born in 1891 and would've been pushing 50 in
1940. Several fam^H^H^Hnotorious Nazi officials are mentioned by
name in the text, including Hitler, Goering, and von Rundstedt;
but Rommel does not appear. Remember, this piece begins as a
think-piece and then morphs into straight alt-history.
Found the passage; he's describe as follows: "The dashing young
general commanding the armour on the invasion beaches was
already fretting and champing at the bit." He's nobody in
particular, having been invented for the purpose of being killed
by the old veteran of the Boer War and WWI.
If he's literally a general, do those come young and
dashing (and in this case Nazi)?

"Hans, are we the baddies?"
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-05-14 21:30:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by m***@sky.com
There's a paperback "Sea Lion" by Richard Cox about the German plan.
Much of it is a fictionalization of a war game run at Sandhurst based on
extensive research, with players who had some relevant experience. The
Germans do manage to get ashore, but they cannot sustain their supply
train and end up staging a costly withdrawal.
There's a novella by C. S. Forester, "If Hitler Had Invaded
England," which is worth reading if you can find a copy. (I have
it in an anthology of his fictional WW2-period adventures titled
_Gold From Crete_.)
There is an e-book edition of this title (I have a copy).
<Snip>
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Somewhere in the tale ... I thumbed through it in a hurry and
couldn't find it, but there's the anecdote of a feeble, halting,
very elderly man who hobbles past a car containing a high German
official, pulls out the handgun he carried in the Boer War, and
shoots him dead. He falls dead with a dozen bullets in him the
next second, but Forester quotes the slogan, "You can always take
one with you."
I have wondered if that German officer (note that he was commanding
tanks) was Rommel.
No. I reread it last night and he's described as a young
officer. Rommel was born in 1891 and would've been pushing 50 in
1940. Several fam^H^H^Hnotorious Nazi officials are mentioned by
name in the text, including Hitler, Goering, and von Rundstedt;
but Rommel does not appear. Remember, this piece begins as a
think-piece and then morphs into straight alt-history.
Found the passage; he's describe as follows: "The dashing young
general commanding the armour on the invasion beaches was
already fretting and champing at the bit." He's nobody in
particular, having been invented for the purpose of being killed
by the old veteran of the Boer War and WWI.
If he's literally a general, do those come young and
dashing (and in this case Nazi)?
"Hans, are we the baddies?"
Forester says he's a general, also young and dashing, and
FORESTER INVENTED HIM so he should know.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Robert Carnegie
2019-05-15 21:20:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by m***@sky.com
There's a paperback "Sea Lion" by Richard Cox about the German plan.
Much of it is a fictionalization of a war game run at Sandhurst based on
extensive research, with players who had some relevant experience. The
Germans do manage to get ashore, but they cannot sustain their supply
train and end up staging a costly withdrawal.
There's a novella by C. S. Forester, "If Hitler Had Invaded
England," which is worth reading if you can find a copy. (I have
it in an anthology of his fictional WW2-period adventures titled
_Gold From Crete_.)
There is an e-book edition of this title (I have a copy).
<Snip>
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Somewhere in the tale ... I thumbed through it in a hurry and
couldn't find it, but there's the anecdote of a feeble, halting,
very elderly man who hobbles past a car containing a high German
official, pulls out the handgun he carried in the Boer War, and
shoots him dead. He falls dead with a dozen bullets in him the
next second, but Forester quotes the slogan, "You can always take
one with you."
I have wondered if that German officer (note that he was commanding
tanks) was Rommel.
No. I reread it last night and he's described as a young
officer. Rommel was born in 1891 and would've been pushing 50 in
1940. Several fam^H^H^Hnotorious Nazi officials are mentioned by
name in the text, including Hitler, Goering, and von Rundstedt;
but Rommel does not appear. Remember, this piece begins as a
think-piece and then morphs into straight alt-history.
Found the passage; he's describe as follows: "The dashing young
general commanding the armour on the invasion beaches was
already fretting and champing at the bit." He's nobody in
particular, having been invented for the purpose of being killed
by the old veteran of the Boer War and WWI.
If he's literally a general, do those come young and
dashing (and in this case Nazi)?
"Hans, are we the baddies?"
Forester says he's a general, also young and dashing, and
FORESTER INVENTED HIM so he should know.
I considered "young and dashing relative to generals
as a class", which might mean forty years old and actually
turning up for a fight.

J. Clarke
2019-05-14 22:56:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by m***@sky.com
There's a paperback "Sea Lion" by Richard Cox about the German plan.
Much of it is a fictionalization of a war game run at Sandhurst based on
extensive research, with players who had some relevant experience. The
Germans do manage to get ashore, but they cannot sustain their supply
train and end up staging a costly withdrawal.
There's a novella by C. S. Forester, "If Hitler Had Invaded
England," which is worth reading if you can find a copy. (I have
it in an anthology of his fictional WW2-period adventures titled
_Gold From Crete_.)
There is an e-book edition of this title (I have a copy).
<Snip>
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Somewhere in the tale ... I thumbed through it in a hurry and
couldn't find it, but there's the anecdote of a feeble, halting,
very elderly man who hobbles past a car containing a high German
official, pulls out the handgun he carried in the Boer War, and
shoots him dead. He falls dead with a dozen bullets in him the
next second, but Forester quotes the slogan, "You can always take
one with you."
I have wondered if that German officer (note that he was commanding
tanks) was Rommel.
No. I reread it last night and he's described as a young
officer. Rommel was born in 1891 and would've been pushing 50 in
1940. Several fam^H^H^Hnotorious Nazi officials are mentioned by
name in the text, including Hitler, Goering, and von Rundstedt;
but Rommel does not appear. Remember, this piece begins as a
think-piece and then morphs into straight alt-history.
Found the passage; he's describe as follows: "The dashing young
general commanding the armour on the invasion beaches was
already fretting and champing at the bit." He's nobody in
particular, having been invented for the purpose of being killed
by the old veteran of the Boer War and WWI.
von Mellinthin would be plausible--he was born in 1904.
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-05-15 00:17:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by m***@sky.com
There's a paperback "Sea Lion" by Richard Cox about the German plan.
Much of it is a fictionalization of a war game run at Sandhurst based on
extensive research, with players who had some relevant experience. The
Germans do manage to get ashore, but they cannot sustain their supply
train and end up staging a costly withdrawal.
There's a novella by C. S. Forester, "If Hitler Had Invaded
England," which is worth reading if you can find a copy. (I have
it in an anthology of his fictional WW2-period adventures titled
_Gold From Crete_.)
There is an e-book edition of this title (I have a copy).
<Snip>
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Somewhere in the tale ... I thumbed through it in a hurry and
couldn't find it, but there's the anecdote of a feeble, halting,
very elderly man who hobbles past a car containing a high German
official, pulls out the handgun he carried in the Boer War, and
shoots him dead. He falls dead with a dozen bullets in him the
next second, but Forester quotes the slogan, "You can always take
one with you."
I have wondered if that German officer (note that he was commanding
tanks) was Rommel.
No. I reread it last night and he's described as a young
officer. Rommel was born in 1891 and would've been pushing 50 in
1940. Several fam^H^H^Hnotorious Nazi officials are mentioned by
name in the text, including Hitler, Goering, and von Rundstedt;
but Rommel does not appear. Remember, this piece begins as a
think-piece and then morphs into straight alt-history.
Found the passage; he's describe as follows: "The dashing young
general commanding the armour on the invasion beaches was
already fretting and champing at the bit." He's nobody in
particular, having been invented for the purpose of being killed
by the old veteran of the Boer War and WWI.
von Mellinthin would be plausible--he was born in 1904.
He's fictional. We don't even get a name for him, just as we
don't get a name for "the fat captain," skipper of the barge
_Fritz Reuter_, whom we follow back and forth across the Channel;
he serves as an example of a whole lot of barge skippers, most of
whom never made it back to France.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Robert Carnegie
2019-05-14 09:27:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by m***@sky.com
There's a paperback "Sea Lion" by Richard Cox about the German plan.
Much of it is a fictionalization of a war game run at Sandhurst based on
extensive research, with players who had some relevant experience. The
Germans do manage to get ashore, but they cannot sustain their supply
train and end up staging a costly withdrawal.
There's a novella by C. S. Forester, "If Hitler Had Invaded
England," which is worth reading if you can find a copy. (I have
it in an anthology of his fictional WW2-period adventures titled
_Gold From Crete_.) He says in his first paragraph, "So often it
has been said that if Hitler had made the attempt to invade
Britain after the evacuation of Dunkirk, he would have won the
war, that it is worth analyzing his chances. He must be given
every possible chance, but none of the impossible ones. Before
war began, he had made no plans, and certainly no preparations,
for the invasion of Britain; if he had, history would have taken
a different course from that moment. If he had begun to build a
fleet of landing craft in 1938, for instance, the British
attitude at Munich might well have been different, and certainly
British rearmament would have been more rapid. And it must be
remembered that with the German economy at full stretch for war
production, such a fleet could only have been built at the cost
of a diminished output of planes or guns or tanks or submarines."
On that basis, he builds a story of German invasion. N.B.: they
lose.
Somewhere in the tale ... I thumbed through it in a hurry and
couldn't find it, but there's the anecdote of a feeble, halting,
very elderly man who hobbles past a car containing a high German
official, pulls out the handgun he carried in the Boer War, and
shoots him dead. He falls dead with a dozen bullets in him the
next second, but Forester quotes the slogan, "You can always take
one with you."
There is the associated trope of the Germans shooting
half of the town population in reprisal (the figure
and demographic varies).

Like we're doing to the Muslims at present for 9/11.
Well, I presume that's why.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
It's a good read. Having gone to the trouble of finding it in a
near-inaccessible bookcase, I'll put it on the top of my
to-reread stack.
Kevrob
2019-05-14 11:19:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
He falls dead with a dozen bullets in him the
next second, but Forester quotes the slogan, "You can always take
one with you."
There is the associated trope of the Germans shooting
half of the town population in reprisal (the figure
and demographic varies).
Like we're doing to the Muslims at present for 9/11.
Well, I presume that's why.
I think Hanlon's Razor applies: alligators, swamp-draining.
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
It's a good read. Having gone to the trouble of finding it in a
near-inaccessible bookcase, I'll put it on the top of my
to-reread stack.
Kevin R
J. Clarke
2019-05-14 22:58:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 14 May 2019 02:27:03 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by m***@sky.com
There's a paperback "Sea Lion" by Richard Cox about the German plan.
Much of it is a fictionalization of a war game run at Sandhurst based on
extensive research, with players who had some relevant experience. The
Germans do manage to get ashore, but they cannot sustain their supply
train and end up staging a costly withdrawal.
There's a novella by C. S. Forester, "If Hitler Had Invaded
England," which is worth reading if you can find a copy. (I have
it in an anthology of his fictional WW2-period adventures titled
_Gold From Crete_.) He says in his first paragraph, "So often it
has been said that if Hitler had made the attempt to invade
Britain after the evacuation of Dunkirk, he would have won the
war, that it is worth analyzing his chances. He must be given
every possible chance, but none of the impossible ones. Before
war began, he had made no plans, and certainly no preparations,
for the invasion of Britain; if he had, history would have taken
a different course from that moment. If he had begun to build a
fleet of landing craft in 1938, for instance, the British
attitude at Munich might well have been different, and certainly
British rearmament would have been more rapid. And it must be
remembered that with the German economy at full stretch for war
production, such a fleet could only have been built at the cost
of a diminished output of planes or guns or tanks or submarines."
On that basis, he builds a story of German invasion. N.B.: they
lose.
Somewhere in the tale ... I thumbed through it in a hurry and
couldn't find it, but there's the anecdote of a feeble, halting,
very elderly man who hobbles past a car containing a high German
official, pulls out the handgun he carried in the Boer War, and
shoots him dead. He falls dead with a dozen bullets in him the
next second, but Forester quotes the slogan, "You can always take
one with you."
There is the associated trope of the Germans shooting
half of the town population in reprisal (the figure
and demographic varies).
Like we're doing to the Muslims at present for 9/11.
Well, I presume that's why.
Nahh, if we wanted to play it that way things in the Middle East would
be a _lot_ worse for the Muslims. Sometimes I wonder if part of the
problem is that the war wasn't made horrible enough that they wanted
it to be over more than anything else.
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
It's a good read. Having gone to the trouble of finding it in a
near-inaccessible bookcase, I'll put it on the top of my
to-reread stack.
f***@gmail.com
2019-05-14 06:38:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
The Germans do manage to get ashore, but they cannot sustain their
supply train and end up staging a costly withdrawal.
If this is the Study / War Game I'm remember reading about then the conclusion was something like : "Yes, some Germans will make it ashore."

Some, a handful, a small percentage, and they would be wading ashore in water and oil soaked clothing, having lost their equipment, vehicles, officers and any hope of seeing Germany again any time soon. Without immediate care from any locals these unfortunate drowned rat Germans would die of exposure and/or injuries.

The Royal Navy was expected to make a complete mess of the naval fleet, the RAF would ensure air superiority, and Coastal Command would help the Navy send as many Germans to the bottom of the Channel as possible, while also making the Germany Navy's one effective force, the U-boats, a non-threat. The British Home Guard, and the local police would round up any survivors who actually made it onto British soil.

The German Navy and Luftwaffe would receive fatal or near fatal blows, and the army would lose a large number of specialist troops, and probably too many regulars as well.

Sea Lion might just have left Hitler's reputation in such tatters that the officer core would have gotten up the courage to get rid of him. Or Stalin might have decided that Central and Western Europe were ready to roll over and play dead for the Red Army.

I'm actually pretty sure Hitler didn't have any military plans beyond October of 1939.The idea that Britain and France would actually go through with their promise to 'protect' Poland (the promise didn't do the Polish any good, after the Germans they got the Red Army until 1989 - hardly much of a guarantee) plan did not occur to Hitler. Why should it? They had let him get away with everything up till then.

Regards
Frank
m***@sky.com
2019-05-14 17:54:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by f***@gmail.com
Post by m***@sky.com
The Germans do manage to get ashore, but they cannot sustain their
supply train and end up staging a costly withdrawal.
If this is the Study / War Game I'm remember reading about then the conclusion was something like : "Yes, some Germans will make it ashore."
Some, a handful, a small percentage, and they would be wading ashore in water and oil soaked clothing, having lost their equipment, vehicles, officers and any hope of seeing Germany again any time soon. Without immediate care from any locals these unfortunate drowned rat Germans would die of exposure and/or injuries.
The Royal Navy was expected to make a complete mess of the naval fleet, the RAF would ensure air superiority, and Coastal Command would help the Navy send as many Germans to the bottom of the Channel as possible, while also making the Germany Navy's one effective force, the U-boats, a non-threat. The British Home Guard, and the local police would round up any survivors who actually made it onto British soil.
The German Navy and Luftwaffe would receive fatal or near fatal blows, and the army would lose a large number of specialist troops, and probably too many regulars as well.
Sea Lion might just have left Hitler's reputation in such tatters that the officer core would have gotten up the courage to get rid of him. Or Stalin might have decided that Central and Western Europe were ready to roll over and play dead for the Red Army.
I'm actually pretty sure Hitler didn't have any military plans beyond October of 1939.The idea that Britain and France would actually go through with their promise to 'protect' Poland (the promise didn't do the Polish any good, after the Germans they got the Red Army until 1989 - hardly much of a guarantee) plan did not occur to Hitler. Why should it? They had let him get away with everything up till then.
Regards
Frank
It's difficult to extract an overall story from a scattering of scenes, but he has the German 34th and 26th Divisions meeting up near Bexhill. There's mention of steamers transferring troops to barges, as well as motor boats and Paratroops. Another section says "the first aim of seizing the bridges on the Royal Military Canal was now achieved. Where the 1st Mountain Division had established itself between Hastings and Winchelsea..." The general impression is that the Germans were pretty much holding their own until they ran out of ammo for want of resupply. Sniping of officers is present here too, but from hastily organised stay-behind volunteers, not Boer War veterans (not that there would be any lack of spirit in those - IMHO the base assumptions in an island that proclaims that it has not been successfully invaded since 1066 are very different from those in Vichy France, or even any part of Ireland).
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2019-05-14 18:42:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
up near Bexhill
What's that word/phrase for when the same thing comes up several times
after decades of not doing so? This is the third instance of Bexhill
I've met in the last 24 hours, last time would have been perhaps 20
years ago.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament],
'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will
the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the
kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
Moriarty
2019-05-14 21:52:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by m***@sky.com
up near Bexhill
What's that word/phrase for when the same thing comes up several times
after decades of not doing so? This is the third instance of Bexhill
I've met in the last 24 hours, last time would have been perhaps 20
years ago.
Take a wartime trip to Bexhill-on-sea and make it a fourth:



-Moriarty
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2019-05-14 22:47:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 14 May 2019 14:52:38 -0700 (PDT), Moriarty
Post by Moriarty
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by m***@sky.com
up near Bexhill
What's that word/phrase for when the same thing comes up several times
after decades of not doing so? This is the third instance of Bexhill
I've met in the last 24 hours, last time would have been perhaps 20
years ago.
http://youtu.be/QMVxRhzV_yg
That was the second one! Love a bit of the Goons.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
The weirder you're going to behave, the more normal you should look. It works
in reverse, too. When I see a kid with three or four rings in his nose, I know
there is absolutely nothing extraordinary about that person. -- P J O'Rourke
David Goldfarb
2019-05-15 05:29:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by m***@sky.com
up near Bexhill
What's that word/phrase for when the same thing comes up several times
after decades of not doing so? This is the third instance of Bexhill
I've met in the last 24 hours, last time would have been perhaps 20
years ago.
I knew what you were talking about but couldn't remember the phrase.
So I entered into Google, "Seeing the same thing several times"
and the very first hit was an article about "the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon".
--
David Goldfarb |"Just once I'd like to battle an alien menace
***@gmail.com | that *wasn't* immune to bullets."
***@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- Brigadier Lethbridge-Stuart
| Doctor Who: "Robot"
Jaimie Vandenbergh
2019-05-15 08:37:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Goldfarb
Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh
Post by m***@sky.com
up near Bexhill
What's that word/phrase for when the same thing comes up several times
after decades of not doing so? This is the third instance of Bexhill
I've met in the last 24 hours, last time would have been perhaps 20
years ago.
I knew what you were talking about but couldn't remember the phrase.
So I entered into Google, "Seeing the same thing several times"
and the very first hit was an article about "the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon".
Ideally, that'll be mentioned another couple of times near me today.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
Sent from my VAX 11/780
Dorothy J Heydt
2019-05-14 18:26:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
It's difficult to extract an overall story from a scattering of scenes,
but he has the German 34th and 26th Divisions meeting up near Bexhill.
There's mention of steamers transferring troops to barges, as well as
motor boats and Paratroops. Another section says "the first aim of
seizing the bridges on the Royal Military Canal was now achieved. Where
the 1st Mountain Division had established itself between Hastings and
Winchelsea..." The general impression is that the Germans were pretty
much holding their own until they ran out of ammo for want of resupply.
Sniping of officers is present here too, but from hastily organised
stay-behind volunteers, not Boer War veterans (not that there would be
any lack of spirit in those - IMHO the base assumptions in an island
that proclaims that it has not been successfully invaded since 1066 are
very different from those in Vichy France, or even any part of Ireland).
There's a scene at the beginning of the film _The Battle of
Britain_ in which the British ambassador to Switzerland is
visited by the German ditto, who has come to persuade him to
persuade his government to surrender and not resist Germany. He
describes the power of the German military, and the British
ambassador says, "Don't forget, the last Little Corporal who
tried to conquer Britain came a cropper." And the German, of
course, stalks out, stony-faced.

It's a good film, with the exception of the female RAF officer
who gets turned on by the sight of bombs falling. Geez Louise.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/
Leif Roar Moldskred
2019-05-14 08:19:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Wolffan
Yes, they were. They had, after all _just done_ something quite similar when
they attacked Norway. It worked. Britain was not Norway.
What? No, they hadn't. Weserübung-Nord, the attack on Norway, was conducted
as an unopposed surprise attack and didn't involve forced landings or
amphibious operations. It was in no way similar to an army crossing a
river or to the German plans for an attack on Great Britain.
--
Leif Roar Moldskred
Kevrob
2019-05-12 17:59:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Having been detained for nearly three months in India without due
process, I have now begun to understand the plight of revolutionary
thinkers everywhere. The government wants to keep things the way they
are, changing things only slowly, so as to keep themselves and their
backers in power.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Democracies can be authoritarian and limit freedom and suppress the
truth. Absolute freedom is impossible, but some countries are more free
than others. I care for India, but don't have the power to protect my
rights.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I can't think of any SF that I read recently about rebel forces trying
to bring a new order of more freedom and truth to the people. Can you
give me an example from this decade?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
I can give you examples, but not successful examples. In "Through Fire",
by David Drake, the background is a revolution that has converted an
occupied planet into a failed state. "Through Fire" by Sarah Hoyt is
based on the French Revolution, including the chaos. Personally, I don't
think this is unreasonable: the only really successful revolution I can
think of is the American one (Unless you count the Glorious Revolution,
which isn't a typical revolution, by any stretch of the imagination).
Most revolutions involve handing automatic weapons to people who
shouldn't be given metal cutlery, and things go downhill from there.
As many have pointed out, the American Revolution had two
important advantages: England was (a) on the other side of the
Atlantic, three to four weeks away by sailing ship, and (b) up to
her earlobes fighting France.
...and eventually Spain, and the Dutch. Britain had 4 wars going at
the same time, or one big war with 4 opponents.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
She had neither time nor resources
to give the American rebellion a proper putting-down.
Either a successful peace negotiation or a better military result
for the UK before Saratoga, and the 13 colonies might have been
kept in the Empire, at least for a while.

Kevin R
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
2019-05-12 18:31:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Having been detained for nearly three months in India without due
process, I have now begun to understand the plight of revolutionary
thinkers everywhere. The government wants to keep things the way they
are, changing things only slowly, so as to keep themselves and their
backers in power.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Democracies can be authoritarian and limit freedom and suppress the
truth. Absolute freedom is impossible, but some countries are more free
than others. I care for India, but don't have the power to protect my
rights.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I can't think of any SF that I read recently about rebel forces trying
to bring a new order of more freedom and truth to the people. Can you
give me an example from this decade?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
I can give you examples, but not successful examples. In "Through Fire",
by David Drake, the background is a revolution that has converted an
occupied planet into a failed state. "Through Fire" by Sarah Hoyt is
based on the French Revolution, including the chaos. Personally, I don't
think this is unreasonable: the only really successful revolution I can
think of is the American one (Unless you count the Glorious Revolution,
which isn't a typical revolution, by any stretch of the imagination).
Most revolutions involve handing automatic weapons to people who
shouldn't be given metal cutlery, and things go downhill from there.
As many have pointed out, the American Revolution had two
important advantages: England was (a) on the other side of the
Atlantic, three to four weeks away by sailing ship, and (b) up to
her earlobes fighting France.
...and eventually Spain, and the Dutch. Britain had 4 wars going at
the same time, or one big war with 4 opponents.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
She had neither time nor resources
to give the American rebellion a proper putting-down.
Either a successful peace negotiation or a better military result
for the UK before Saratoga, and the 13 colonies might have been
kept in the Empire, at least for a while.
Kevin R
Recent examples?

The book I reviewed a week or so ago:

The Hidden Ship
by Mark Wayne McGinnis
https://amzn.to/2VE9O7L

is an old fashioned rebellion against the evil overlords story.
Unfortunately it is not very good.

Looking at other (but not all) my semi-recent reviews:

A Name Among The Stars
by Mark Henwick
http://amzn.to/2kR0xbH

and its followup:

Goodguy Rebels against a silent takeover on two planets. Book one
is excellent and book two is good.

_Starcruiser Polaris: Blood of Patriots_
by Richard Tongue
http://amzn.to/2qnehNw

Good guy space opera rebels against the evil government. Not very good.

The Powder Mage Trilogy
by Brian McClellan

_Promise of Blood_ (Powder Mage Trilogy 1)
http://amzn.to/2q5iFzR

_The Crimson Campaign_ (Powder Mage Trilogy 2)
http://amzn.to/2q5p3Hh

_The Autumn Republic_ (Powder Mage Trilogy 3)
http://amzn.to/2q5pIbX

Flintlock punk fantasies based on the French Revolution. Excellent.

David Weber: Safehold series.

Good guy rebels against the evil church. Starts well and
then lapses into late Weber decrepitude.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
J. Clarke
2019-05-12 19:28:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Post by Kevrob
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
Post by a***@gmail.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Having been detained for nearly three months in India without due
process, I have now begun to understand the plight of revolutionary
thinkers everywhere. The government wants to keep things the way they
are, changing things only slowly, so as to keep themselves and their
backers in power.
Post by a***@gmail.com
Democracies can be authoritarian and limit freedom and suppress the
truth. Absolute freedom is impossible, but some countries are more free
than others. I care for India, but don't have the power to protect my
rights.
Post by a***@gmail.com
I can't think of any SF that I read recently about rebel forces trying
to bring a new order of more freedom and truth to the people. Can you
give me an example from this decade?
Post by a***@gmail.com
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
I can give you examples, but not successful examples. In "Through Fire",
by David Drake, the background is a revolution that has converted an
occupied planet into a failed state. "Through Fire" by Sarah Hoyt is
based on the French Revolution, including the chaos. Personally, I don't
think this is unreasonable: the only really successful revolution I can
think of is the American one (Unless you count the Glorious Revolution,
which isn't a typical revolution, by any stretch of the imagination).
Most revolutions involve handing automatic weapons to people who
shouldn't be given metal cutlery, and things go downhill from there.
As many have pointed out, the American Revolution had two
important advantages: England was (a) on the other side of the
Atlantic, three to four weeks away by sailing ship, and (b) up to
her earlobes fighting France.
...and eventually Spain, and the Dutch. Britain had 4 wars going at
the same time, or one big war with 4 opponents.
Post by Dorothy J Heydt
She had neither time nor resources
to give the American rebellion a proper putting-down.
Either a successful peace negotiation or a better military result
for the UK before Saratoga, and the 13 colonies might have been
kept in the Empire, at least for a while.
Kevin R
Recent examples?
The Hidden Ship
by Mark Wayne McGinnis
https://amzn.to/2VE9O7L
is an old fashioned rebellion against the evil overlords story.
Unfortunately it is not very good.
A Name Among The Stars
by Mark Henwick
http://amzn.to/2kR0xbH
Goodguy Rebels against a silent takeover on two planets. Book one
is excellent and book two is good.
_Starcruiser Polaris: Blood of Patriots_
by Richard Tongue
http://amzn.to/2qnehNw
Good guy space opera rebels against the evil government. Not very good.
The Powder Mage Trilogy
by Brian McClellan
_Promise of Blood_ (Powder Mage Trilogy 1)
http://amzn.to/2q5iFzR
_The Crimson Campaign_ (Powder Mage Trilogy 2)
http://amzn.to/2q5p3Hh
_The Autumn Republic_ (Powder Mage Trilogy 3)
http://amzn.to/2q5pIbX
Flintlock punk fantasies based on the French Revolution. Excellent.
David Weber: Safehold series.
Good guy rebels against the evil church. Starts well and
then lapses into late Weber decrepitude.
And in movies we have Rogue 1, in which we see what it cost to obtain
the plans that allowed the rebellion to destroy the Death Star.

I believe that it can be argued that this was also a theme in NK
Jemisin's "The Broken Earth", however there was much else going on.
David Johnston
2019-05-12 19:18:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Having been detained for nearly three months in India without due process, I have now begun to understand the plight of revolutionary thinkers everywhere. The government wants to keep things the way they are, changing things only slowly, so as to keep themselves and their backers in power.
Democracies can be authoritarian and limit freedom and suppress the truth. Absolute freedom is impossible, but some countries are more free than others. I care for India, but don't have the power to protect my rights.
I can't think of any SF that I read recently about rebel forces trying to bring a new order of more freedom and truth to the people. Can you give me an example from this decade?
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
I can give you examples, but not successful examples. In "Through Fire", by David Drake, the background is a revolution that has converted an occupied planet into a failed state. "Through Fire" by Sarah Hoyt is based on the French Revolution, including the chaos. Personally, I don't think this is unreasonable: the only really successful revolution I can think of is the American one (Unless you count the Glorious Revolution, which isn't a typical revolution, by any stretch of the imagination). Most revolutions involve handing automatic weapons to people who shouldn't be given metal cutlery, and things go downhill from there.
The American one is a revolution in name only. What it really was, was
a successful secession. Lindsay Buroker's Fallen Empire series is set
in the mess created after an Empire that's sort of like Star Wars
succumbs to a rebellion that's sort of like Star War. It's very
chaotic. The Hunger Games trilogy covers the inception and victory of a
revolution over the course of a couple of years and yeah the ending is a
bit grim although with some hope for the future. The Baru Cormorant
duology is about a woman from an occupied nation who joins the empire to
subvert it and help rebellions from within.
Kevrob
2019-05-12 20:48:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by a***@gmail.com
Having been detained for nearly three months in India without due process, I have now begun to understand the plight of revolutionary thinkers everywhere. The government wants to keep things the way they are, changing things only slowly, so as to keep themselves and their backers in power.
Democracies can be authoritarian and limit freedom and suppress the truth. Absolute freedom is impossible, but some countries are more free than others. I care for India, but don't have the power to protect my rights.
I can't think of any SF that I read recently about rebel forces trying to bring a new order of more freedom and truth to the people. Can you give me an example from this decade?
Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor
"The truth shall set you free"
I can give you examples, but not successful examples. In "Through Fire", by David Drake, the background is a revolution that has converted an occupied planet into a failed state. "Through Fire" by Sarah Hoyt is based on the French Revolution, including the chaos. Personally, I don't think this is unreasonable: the only really successful revolution I can think of is the American one (Unless you count the Glorious Revolution, which isn't a typical revolution, by any stretch of the imagination). Most revolutions involve handing automatic weapons to people who shouldn't be given metal cutlery, and things go downhill from there.
The American one is a revolution in name only. What it really was, was
a successful secession. Lindsay Buroker's Fallen Empire series is set
in the mess created after an Empire that's sort of like Star Wars
succumbs to a rebellion that's sort of like Star War. It's very
chaotic. The Hunger Games trilogy covers the inception and victory of a
revolution over the course of a couple of years and yeah the ending is a
bit grim although with some hope for the future. The Baru Cormorant
duology is about a woman from an occupied nation who joins the empire to
subvert it and help rebellions from within.
Treating the war of Independence as a secession makes sense,
but then the "revolution" is pushed back to the "benign neglect"
London had treated the 13 colonies to prior to the 7 Years War/
French & Indian war. Self-government, with colonial assemblies
far more representative of the white, Protestant populace than
was the case for the House of Commons of that era, had been
transplanted to our shores. The resistance to Parliamentary
acts seeking to direct the colonies to pay for the late war
could actually be seen as a _conservative_ reaction to what
the colonists saw as unjust innovations, especially as seen
through a Whig lens; an attempt at "revolution from above."

In the same wise, the attempts of the Stuart monarchs to
import European absolutism to Britain were a species of
failed revolution.

see: Edmund Burke's "Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies"

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch1s2.html

Kevin R
Loading...