beschizza at June 6th, 2014 12:35 — #1
prestonsturges at June 6th, 2014 14:16 — #2
There is a good bit of this stuff at Cape Henlopen on the southern bank of the Delaware River
nashrambler at June 6th, 2014 14:35 — #3
It would be really awesome to read about the Nazi's failed fortifications, instead of the links taking me right here to the comments.
dragonfrog at June 6th, 2014 14:41 — #4
This is the Internet. You don't need to read the article to possess an unshakable opinion about it.
awjt at June 6th, 2014 14:58 — #5
Philosophical question: Can a Hitler thread be Godwinned?
nashrambler at June 6th, 2014 16:00 — #6
You know, when you're right, you're right. I just need to move on, and find something else incredibly trivial that'll piss me off. Oooh, look! Political blogs!
cool_catbad at June 6th, 2014 16:51 — #7
Why does Boing Boing hate commenters now?
Why the fuck are we ..I can't even see what I'm writing, what the fuck is wrong with you people?
immutable_mike at June 6th, 2014 17:01 — #8
That's exactly what Hitler would ask.
boundegar at June 6th, 2014 20:52 — #9
simonize at June 7th, 2014 11:17 — #10
On the one hand fortifications are "force multipliers" which allow a small number of men to effectively defend against a much larger number of men. On the other hand, it is the attacker who chooses where to attack, so when there is a very broad front to defend,they can concentrate that much larger number of men and then some where they are attacking. Certainly the huge German anti-invasion efforts near Calais meant that the Allies invaded in Normandy that was more poorly defended. And that in turn meant that all the follow on troops and supplies had to cross a longer distance. The Allies would have had far fewer supply difficulties if the initial lodgement had been in Calais. But the chances of sucessfully creating a lodgement there, in the face of more troops and more fortifications would have been much less. So just as the fact that the Maginot Line forced the Germans to attack France somewhere else means that it's failure to ensure victory must be tempered by it's success at forcing the battle to occur at a location that was less advantageous for the attacker.
The manpower and resources used to construct fortifications can be less "reliable" less well trained and can be used over a long period of time. And time and labor is somthing that the defenders in both cases had more of than fighting men. So spending those resources to save on the men needed to conduct the actual defense made more sense than is commonly recognized.
zieroh at June 7th, 2014 11:55 — #11
Does the BB staff really not grasp that this new format is hostile to readers?
From the main page, there's a brief description and a link to the original story on nybooks.com. Clicking the link to the story does NOT in fact take the user to the story. Instead, clicking the link (or anything in the vicinity of the link) takes the user to this discussion page, where surprise there's NO LINK! At least, not until the user clicks "show full post", and then the link to the story finally appears.
So I have to click three times to see the damn story because BB (for reasons known only to the staff, who are a bit reader hostile themselves) want us to see the discussion page first, and then have to hunt for the hidden link.
willondon at June 8th, 2014 00:32 — #12
Yes, but it's avoidable as long as you don't imply that Hitler was a Nazi.
jsroberts at June 8th, 2014 11:08 — #13
You know who else was hostile to readers?
beschizza at June 8th, 2014 13:08 — #14
Does the BB staff really not grasp that this new format is hostile to readers? ... Clicking the link to the story does NOT in fact take the user to the story.
That's just a weird bug. It'll be fixed soon.
beschizza at June 11th, 2014 12:35 — #15
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.