I’m not interested in WWI and you have so much knowledge most of it went over my head, but as a masterclass in rubbing a troll’s nose in shit, 10/10, much appreciated.
Add my voice to the chorus. I found your posts fascinating.
Yeah, your contributions to the other thread were much appreciated here! I’m a history buff so I appreciate the level of detail you brought in your cites.
Back in the spring we had a thread on the origins of the Second World War, which DD ended my contributions to by claiming that a general work by an acknowledged expert on German diplomatic history should not cite his own more specific work on that subject, despite the citation being right there for anyone to follow up after. You managed to push all the way through to “books, we don’t need no steenking books!” so I salute you for that level of persistence.
I also want to add my thanks to DETXL for the excellent posts they made in the other thread.
“Wait, you are taking quotes out of books?”
Understandable, if not unexpected. Again, caveat, I didn’t read that particular thread, but your posts in here have been well written, informative, and appreciated. The only reason I don’t just have him on ignore is because, like you, I actually care about history.
That thread in particular was spawned by DrDeez needling to have it created for him to troll and shit in. It was doomed from the start; it was a show for him to fling feces around. Over the years it’s become painfully obvious that nobody trusts him on anything he says on any subject. I tend to just correct his idiocy without actually directly addressing him nowadays. He’s really not worth the time or effort to directly interact with, and he has no credibility whatsoever, so I’ve long since stopped worrying that people will take anything he says seriously.
Another virtuoso post today by that eminent historian, DrDeth.
I had a brief exchange with another poster in the thread about phony and annoying stuff in movies and TV that take you out of the plot. We were discussing whether it was realistic in Raiders of the Lost Ark for Indiana Jones to hitch a ride atop a U-boat for a long journey and not expect it would submerge at some point. DD decided on a snappy response to my post:
Congratulations, DD! Thanks for enlightening us that WWII didn’t start for another few years (after Poland instigated it by refusing to cede territory to the Nazis, as he has informed us).
I tell you, we’ll learn that boy some history yet.
And that’s the nitpick? That there was no global war? Not that the German military was apparently operating at will in British controlled Egypt?
Or that Indy could survive on the deck of a submarine that doesn’t even once submerges, but without fresh water, food and shelter?
I don’t think Indy was supposed to be on that sub long enough to die of thirst, let alone starvation.
Probably should have drowned, though.
Agreed. The movie wasn’t even two hours long, and that scene took place toward the end of the runtime. By contrast, it takes days to die of thirst and weeks to die of starvation.
To the substantive matter, there are two possibilities. Either the sub submerged… or it didn’t (you’re welcome!). If it didn’t, then that spared Indy from drowning, but creates another problem: a submarine on the surface would have a lookout set from the conning tower (and also probably a conning officer—hence the name). So they would have seen him easily.
For my part, I always interpreted him climbing into the conning tower (if I remember the scene correctly) to imply he didn’t just hangout topside, but actually snuck into the submarine through the conning tower. Which is even more ridiculous.
Submariners are always used to seeing unfamiliar people onboard, partway through a mission 
You couldn’t make that movie today.
Is that why they call it the “Friendly Samaritan Service”?
Especially if many more of their friends live next door.
Because it already exists, or because Harrison Ford has aged out of the role and no amount of CGI can change that?
According to the original script, it submerged and Indy lashed himself to the periscope, which evidently was kept raised the entire way. I posted a picture from filming in the original thread.
Huh…
Anyway, of the two possibilities, setting aside the theatrics (pretending for a moment that were are trying to imagine how a real world operation would have been carried out) I actually think a surface transit is more likely. Subs of that era were faster on the surface, had much greater range surfaced than submerged, and the sub had no reason to submerge in peacetime.
You might not have known this, but WWII didn’t start in Europe until 1939.
I always thought it was a gag as in “We don’t want to waste time in scenes describing how Indy got to the island so let’s go with ‘he hitched a ride in a submarine’ and play it for laughs”.