Germany's taken a pretty good crack at going sugar free
I am not sure if irony is the right word, but it is something that Germany has so fully embraced its past atrocities while literally thousands (tens of?) Americans insist it never happened.
There are a depressingly large number of people with their feathers all in a fluff because there was one black guy in that.
if people are gonna get uptight about that kind of thing then why are celts all running around with very pale skin and blonde / red hair. That kind of thing didn't become common until the migrations / invasions after the Roman period.
There are a depressingly large number of people with their feathers all in a fluff because there was one black guy in that.
if people are gonna get uptight about that kind of thing then why are celts all running around with very pale skin and blonde / red hair. That kind of thing didn't become common until the migrations / invasions after the Roman period.
Do you really want the answer, or are you just being sarcastic?
There are a depressingly large number of people with their feathers all in a fluff because there was one black guy in that.
if people are gonna get uptight about that kind of thing then why are celts all running around with very pale skin and blonde / red hair. That kind of thing didn't become common until the migrations / invasions after the Roman period.
Eh? There definitely was a (relatively)darker skinned, darker haired, shorter group of people living on the British isles that was subsumed into an immigrating group of taller, fairer Indo-European Celts, and the remnants of whom still exist in some irish and Scottish populations today, but that was all occuring pretty well before the Romans entered the picture.
There are a depressingly large number of people with their feathers all in a fluff because there was one black guy in that.
if people are gonna get uptight about that kind of thing then why are celts all running around with very pale skin and blonde / red hair. That kind of thing didn't become common until the migrations / invasions after the Roman period.
Eh? There definitely was a (relatively)darker skinned, darker haired, shorter group of people living on the British isles that was subsumed into an immigrating group of taller, fairer Indo-European Celts, and the remnants of whom still exist in some irish and Scottish populations today, but that was all occuring pretty well before the Romans entered the picture.
During the post-roman era there were the Angles and Saxons during 5th and 6th century and then the vikings between the 8th-11th century. The Angles and Saxons made a stronger impression on the main brittish island from Northumbria and southwards, while the Vikings had a stronger genetic influence on Ireland and Scotland (particularily on the islands and around Dublin). For example, if your last name is MacAlister, MacDougall or MacDonald there is a more than fair chance that one of your ancestors was a norwegian viking.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
There are a depressingly large number of people with their feathers all in a fluff because there was one black guy in that.
if people are gonna get uptight about that kind of thing then why are celts all running around with very pale skin and blonde / red hair. That kind of thing didn't become common until the migrations / invasions after the Roman period.
Eh? There definitely was a (relatively)darker skinned, darker haired, shorter group of people living on the British isles that was subsumed into an immigrating group of taller, fairer Indo-European Celts, and the remnants of whom still exist in some irish and Scottish populations today, but that was all occuring pretty well before the Romans entered the picture.
Nah the Gael and Germanic invasions made Britain a lot paler, but the Brythonic speaking people's at the time of the Roman invasions were like the archetypical Welsh are today: dark haired and short.
The Celts from Iberia were in Ireland by this time but not great Britain.
There are a depressingly large number of people with their feathers all in a fluff because there was one black guy in that.
if people are gonna get uptight about that kind of thing then why are celts all running around with very pale skin and blonde / red hair. That kind of thing didn't become common until the migrations / invasions after the Roman period.
Eh? There definitely was a (relatively)darker skinned, darker haired, shorter group of people living on the British isles that was subsumed into an immigrating group of taller, fairer Indo-European Celts, and the remnants of whom still exist in some irish and Scottish populations today, but that was all occuring pretty well before the Romans entered the picture.
Nah the Gael and Germanic invasions made Britain a lot paler, but the Brythonic speaking people's at the time of the Roman invasions were like the archetypical Welsh are today: dark haired and short.
The Celts from Iberia were in Ireland by this time but not great Britain.
I guess you are right looking it up.
So I guess there were three big influences.
1. The original indigenous British people - relatively darker skinned, brown eyes, dark hair, related to the Basques of France and Spain. Eventually were pushed back after Romans into Wales and possibly could have been the Picts, 'black irish', etc. Culturally adopted many Celtic/Gallic elements - Chariots, burials, language - but genetically still largely indegenous.
2. The Gaels - an indo-european Celtic people from gallicia in spain that had invaded and settled Ireland in pre-roman times, displaced most but not all of the native Irish, eventually invaded scotland and largely politcally merged/interbred with the picts there to form Scotland.
3. Various Germanic and Norse post-roman invaders - largely displaced indigenous Britons from England into Wales, migrated into various areas in Ireland and Scotland but not nearly to the same extent and interbred into the local population?
I had assumed the pre-Roman British to be largely like mainland gauls/celts, which were described by Romans as tall and fair, but reading up that does not seem to really be the case.
There are a depressingly large number of people with their feathers all in a fluff because there was one black guy in that.
if people are gonna get uptight about that kind of thing then why are celts all running around with very pale skin and blonde / red hair. That kind of thing didn't become common until the migrations / invasions after the Roman period.
Eh? There definitely was a (relatively)darker skinned, darker haired, shorter group of people living on the British isles that was subsumed into an immigrating group of taller, fairer Indo-European Celts, and the remnants of whom still exist in some irish and Scottish populations today, but that was all occuring pretty well before the Romans entered the picture.
Nah the Gael and Germanic invasions made Britain a lot paler, but the Brythonic speaking people's at the time of the Roman invasions were like the archetypical Welsh are today: dark haired and short.
The Celts from Iberia were in Ireland by this time but not great Britain.
I guess you are right looking it up.
So I guess there were three big influences.
1. The original indigenous British people - relatively darker skinned, brown eyes, dark hair, related to the Basques of France and Spain. Eventually were pushed back after Romans into Wales and possibly could have been the Picts, 'black irish', etc. Culturally adopted many Celtic/Gallic elements - Chariots, burials, language - but genetically still largely indegenous.
2. The Gaels - an indo-european Celtic people from gallicia in spain that had invaded and settled Ireland in pre-roman times, displaced most but not all of the native Irish, eventually invaded scotland and largely politcally merged/interbred with the picts there to form Scotland.
3. Various Germanic and Norse post-roman invaders - largely displaced indigenous Britons from England into Wales, migrated into various areas in Ireland and Scotland but not nearly to the same extent and interbred into the local population?
I had assumed the pre-Roman British to be largely like mainland gauls/celts, which were described by Romans as tall and fair, but reading up that does not seem to really be the case.
was about to reply but yeah you got it. Ancient history is a rapidly changing subject Much moreso than more recent history.
edit: note that even "indigenous" British hadn't been there super long. The place wasn't inhabitable until the climate warmed up enough after the last ice age.
There are a depressingly large number of people with their feathers all in a fluff because there was one black guy in that.
if people are gonna get uptight about that kind of thing then why are celts all running around with very pale skin and blonde / red hair. That kind of thing didn't become common until the migrations / invasions after the Roman period.
Eh? There definitely was a (relatively)darker skinned, darker haired, shorter group of people living on the British isles that was subsumed into an immigrating group of taller, fairer Indo-European Celts, and the remnants of whom still exist in some irish and Scottish populations today, but that was all occuring pretty well before the Romans entered the picture.
Nah the Gael and Germanic invasions made Britain a lot paler, but the Brythonic speaking people's at the time of the Roman invasions were like the archetypical Welsh are today: dark haired and short.
The Celts from Iberia were in Ireland by this time but not great Britain.
I guess you are right looking it up.
So I guess there were three big influences.
1. The original indigenous British people - relatively darker skinned, brown eyes, dark hair, related to the Basques of France and Spain. Eventually were pushed back after Romans into Wales and possibly could have been the Picts, 'black irish', etc. Culturally adopted many Celtic/Gallic elements - Chariots, burials, language - but genetically still largely indegenous.
2. The Gaels - an indo-european Celtic people from gallicia in spain that had invaded and settled Ireland in pre-roman times, displaced most but not all of the native Irish, eventually invaded scotland and largely politcally merged/interbred with the picts there to form Scotland.
3. Various Germanic and Norse post-roman invaders - largely displaced indigenous Britons from England into Wales, migrated into various areas in Ireland and Scotland but not nearly to the same extent and interbred into the local population?
I had assumed the pre-Roman British to be largely like mainland gauls/celts, which were described by Romans as tall and fair, but reading up that does not seem to really be the case.
was about to reply but yeah you got it. Ancient history is a rapidly changing subject Much moreso than more recent history.
edit: note that even "indigenous" British hadn't been there super long. The place wasn't inhabitable until the climate warmed up enough after the last ice age.
And the fun thing is they walked across the ice sheet to get there :rotate:
There are a depressingly large number of people with their feathers all in a fluff because there was one black guy in that.
if people are gonna get uptight about that kind of thing then why are celts all running around with very pale skin and blonde / red hair. That kind of thing didn't become common until the migrations / invasions after the Roman period.
Eh? There definitely was a (relatively)darker skinned, darker haired, shorter group of people living on the British isles that was subsumed into an immigrating group of taller, fairer Indo-European Celts, and the remnants of whom still exist in some irish and Scottish populations today, but that was all occuring pretty well before the Romans entered the picture.
Nah the Gael and Germanic invasions made Britain a lot paler, but the Brythonic speaking people's at the time of the Roman invasions were like the archetypical Welsh are today: dark haired and short.
The Celts from Iberia were in Ireland by this time but not great Britain.
I guess you are right looking it up.
So I guess there were three big influences.
1. The original indigenous British people - relatively darker skinned, brown eyes, dark hair, related to the Basques of France and Spain. Eventually were pushed back after Romans into Wales and possibly could have been the Picts, 'black irish', etc. Culturally adopted many Celtic/Gallic elements - Chariots, burials, language - but genetically still largely indegenous.
2. The Gaels - an indo-european Celtic people from gallicia in spain that had invaded and settled Ireland in pre-roman times, displaced most but not all of the native Irish, eventually invaded scotland and largely politcally merged/interbred with the picts there to form Scotland.
3. Various Germanic and Norse post-roman invaders - largely displaced indigenous Britons from England into Wales, migrated into various areas in Ireland and Scotland but not nearly to the same extent and interbred into the local population?
I had assumed the pre-Roman British to be largely like mainland gauls/celts, which were described by Romans as tall and fair, but reading up that does not seem to really be the case.
was about to reply but yeah you got it. Ancient history is a rapidly changing subject Much moreso than more recent history.
edit: note that even "indigenous" British hadn't been there super long. The place wasn't inhabitable until the climate warmed up enough after the last ice age.
And the fun thing is they walked across the ice sheet to get there :rotate:
eh? Oh no the British Isles were connected by land to the continent (and to each other) until around ~7000 BCE (ish). Sea levels were much lower during the last glacial maximum.
Zavianuniversal peace sounds better than forever warRegistered Userregular
edited January 2018
The Celts were also famous for spiking their hair blonde with lime, but yea given the time period it really is up for interpretation what they physically looked like, especially since we have to rely on the written accounts and sculptures from hostile Romans and Greeks. Even modern Greeks look nothing like ancient Greeks. I think with Britannia they also cast a lot of British actors, which happens in a lot of shows about Rome which usually get made by them (the BBC has been great in that regard going back to the excellent I, Claudius series). They always have tall actors playing famous Romans, when in reality Romans were quite short
As for having African soldiers, the Roman Empire by that time was largely cosmopolitan, and there have been recent burials found of Roman Britons who were of African descent. I think that cosmopolitan nature of the empire kind of eludes a lot of people, but I would argue Romans had been cosmopolitan ever since the Social War when they started giving citizenship to non-Latins
Maybe it's because I'm a huge nerd but the idea of the Thames and the Rhine having a confluence exit into the Channel is neat, as is going fishing and coming up with mammoth fossils in that part of the North Sea.
Maybe it's because I'm a huge nerd but the idea of the Thames and the Rhine having a confluence exit into the Channel is neat, as is going fishing and coming up with mammoth fossils in that part of the North Sea.
They find mammoth remains all the time in the land reclamation the Dutch do
I just find the Stag moose part of the Cervalces genus and how they find mummified remains in the mammoth caves in KY all the time really interesting
Or how Cave bears in NA and eastern Europe are related via mitochondria
The Celts were also famous for spiking their hair blonde with lime, but yea given the time period it really is up for interpretation what they physically looked like, especially since we have to rely on the written accounts and sculptures from hostile Romans and Greeks. Even modern Greeks look nothing like ancient Greeks. I think with Britannia they also cast a lot of British actors, which happens in a lot of shows about Rome which usually get made by them (the BBC has been great in that regard going back to the excellent I, Claudius series). They always have tall actors playing famous Romans, when in reality Romans were quite short
As for having African soldiers, the Roman Empire by that time was largely cosmopolitan, and there have been recent burials found of Roman Britons who were of African descent. I think that cosmopolitan nature of the empire kind of eludes a lot of people, but I would argue Romans had been cosmopolitan ever since the Social War when they started giving citizenship to non-Latins
Really anytime after the conquests of Egypt and North Africa it wouldn’t have been that odd to see black soldiers. Nubia was a client state for a lot of this period and at war for the rest, other sub saharan africans often hired out as mercenaries to various states in the region, and the romans used local auxillary forces and took battle captives as slaves, both of which occasionally eventually led to local peoples filtering into the legions.
The ancient world was a lot more cosmopolitan than people really think in general.
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
So, this ranks as one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, and I live right now.
You've probably heard about the anti-German propaganda of World War I and how things like sauerkraut got renamed "liberty cabbage," dachshunds got called "liberty pups," and hamburgers "liberty sandwiches." Liberty ____ for everything in very lazy ways.
Rubella was also called German measles at the time. People were just plain allergic to calling anything German, but instead of calling it rubella, they called it Liberty Measles. For the war. Something that I thought must've been said sarcastically, possibly by a doctor to other doctors off duty while rolling their eyes and doing whatever the 1917 equivalent of a jerk-off motion is, but no, they seriously called it Liberty Measles. The one dang thing they probably could've kept calling German, because it's a bad disease and they were actively demonizing the other country, they decided to make more patriotic. They just decided to blindly jingoize a potentially fatal or crippling contagious disease, for the war effort or something.
So I'm pretty sure our entrance into the Stupidest Timeline began with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
So, this ranks as one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, and I live right now.
You've probably heard about the anti-German propaganda of World War I and how things like sauerkraut got renamed "liberty cabbage," dachshunds got called "liberty pups," and hamburgers "liberty sandwiches." Liberty ____ for everything in very lazy ways.
Rubella was also called German measles at the time. People were just plain allergic to calling anything German, but instead of calling it rubella, they called it Liberty Measles. For the war. Something that I thought must've been said sarcastically, possibly by a doctor to other doctors off duty while rolling their eyes and doing whatever the 1917 equivalent of a jerk-off motion is, but no, they seriously called it Liberty Measles. The one dang thing they probably could've kept calling German, because it's a bad disease and they were actively demonizing the other country, they decided to make more patriotic. They just decided to blindly jingoize a potentially fatal or crippling contagious disease, for the war effort or something.
So I'm pretty sure our entrance into the Stupidest Timeline began with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
Turns out you can go stupider than "freedom fries".
Articles like these do confirm that we do not live in the stupidest of times, at points in history our ancestors were considerable more stupid than we are right now.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
We used to have a town named Berlin near where I lived, it had a large German Mennonite immigrant population. Then, in 1916, for no reason at all, they changed it to Kitchener, after This guy.
Twenty years later, the good people of Swastika stuck to their guns and voted to keep their village's name.
So, this ranks as one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, and I live right now.
You've probably heard about the anti-German propaganda of World War I and how things like sauerkraut got renamed "liberty cabbage," dachshunds got called "liberty pups," and hamburgers "liberty sandwiches." Liberty ____ for everything in very lazy ways.
Rubella was also called German measles at the time. People were just plain allergic to calling anything German, but instead of calling it rubella, they called it Liberty Measles. For the war. Something that I thought must've been said sarcastically, possibly by a doctor to other doctors off duty while rolling their eyes and doing whatever the 1917 equivalent of a jerk-off motion is, but no, they seriously called it Liberty Measles. The one dang thing they probably could've kept calling German, because it's a bad disease and they were actively demonizing the other country, they decided to make more patriotic. They just decided to blindly jingoize a potentially fatal or crippling contagious disease, for the war effort or something.
So I'm pretty sure our entrance into the Stupidest Timeline began with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
Turns out you can go stupider than "freedom fries".
I mean, if I had to choose between renaming German shit because of Germany's actions in world war one, or renaming french shit because....France didn't want to invade Iraq with us...
National Geographic is launching an interesting series, examining and critiquing the magazine's own racist historiography.
I’m the tenth editor of National Geographic since its founding in 1888. I’m the first woman and the first Jewish person—a member of two groups that also once faced discrimination here. It hurts to share the appalling stories from the magazine’s past. But when we decided to devote our April magazine to the topic of race, we thought we should examine our own history before turning our reportorial gaze to others.
[...]
How we present race matters. I hear from readers that National Geographic provided their first look at the world. Our explorers, scientists, photographers, and writers have taken people to places they’d never even imagined; it’s a tradition that still drives our coverage and of which we’re rightly proud. And it means we have a duty, in every story, to present accurate and authentic depictions—a duty heightened when we cover fraught issues such as race.
We asked John Edwin Mason to help with this examination. Mason is well positioned for the task: He’s a University of Virginia professor specializing in the history of photography and the history of Africa, a frequent crossroads of our storytelling. He dived into our archives.
What Mason found in short was that until the 1970s National Geographic all but ignored people of color who lived in the United States, rarely acknowledging them beyond laborers or domestic workers. Meanwhile it pictured “natives” elsewhere as exotics, famously and frequently unclothed, happy hunters, noble savages—every type of cliché.
Unlike magazines such as Life, Mason said, National Geographic did little to push its readers beyond the stereotypes ingrained in white American culture.
“Americans got ideas about the world from Tarzan movies and crude racist caricatures,” he said. “Segregation was the way it was. National Geographic wasn’t teaching as much as reinforcing messages they already received and doing so in a magazine that had tremendous authority. National Geographic comes into existence at the height of colonialism, and the world was divided into the colonizers and the colonized. That was a color line, and National Geographic was reflecting that view of the world.”
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
+22
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
I didn't know until today that you can go on cruises on actual tall ships! With sails and stuff!
Today marks the centennial of the start of the German Spring Offensive of 1918, the final offensive push by the Germans in WWI, and ultimately the beginning of the end for the war. The German High Command surmised that the British, having suffered through brutal battles, was weakened and demoralized, and as such a strong punch could break through the lines, allowing the German Army to knock out the British and push forward into France proper. Part of the consideration for this was also the entry of the US into the war - while American forces had only begun to enter the field by this point, there was concern that their addition would make the line of the Entente impossible to breach.
Part of what made the "Kaiserschlacht", the "Emperor's Battle" possible was the cessation of hostilities with Russia courtesy of the Treaty of Brest-Litovisk, which allowed troops from the Eastern Front to be relocated to the West. And with those troops came new battle techniques, such as the stormtroopers trained in assaulting and breaching lines:
Initially, the operations were successful, with the initial thrust breaking the British line. But a lack of logistical planning soon had the German Army outpacing their supply lines, forcing the advance to slow down, and giving the Entente the opportunity to rally and reinforce their lines. By the end of April, the Offensive was over - and its cost left the Germans weakened. In seven months, the Entente would be on the doorstep of Germany proper, forcing the final surrender to end the war.
Not more than 40 years later, the German military would repeat the same mistake, in the Battle of the Bulge.
It sounds like, from that summary, the mistake was being too aggressive in the first instance, desperate in the second? Like, if they had slowed to allow supplies, would better troops have let them hold the gains and sue for an advantageous peace or something?
I feel like Ferdinand Foch’s defense in depth gets less credit than it deserves, that the Germans outran their own supply lines was by design. Also a bigger parallel than the battle of the bulge is probably the invasion of Russia, Stalin and his generals had studied WWI and did a lot to copy France’s defensive strategy.
Jealous Deva on
+4
Options
KadokenGiving Ends to my Friends and it Feels StupendousRegistered Userregular
Today marks the centennial of the start of the German Spring Offensive of 1918, the final offensive push by the Germans in WWI, and ultimately the beginning of the end for the war. The German High Command surmised that the British, having suffered through brutal battles, was weakened and demoralized, and as such a strong punch could break through the lines, allowing the German Army to knock out the British and push forward into France proper. Part of the consideration for this was also the entry of the US into the war - while American forces had only begun to enter the field by this point, there was concern that their addition would make the line of the Entente impossible to breach.
Part of what made the "Kaiserschlacht", the "Emperor's Battle" possible was the cessation of hostilities with Russia courtesy of the Treaty of Brest-Litovisk, which allowed troops from the Eastern Front to be relocated to the West. And with those troops came new battle techniques, such as the stormtroopers trained in assaulting and breaching lines:
Initially, the operations were successful, with the initial thrust breaking the British line. But a lack of logistical planning soon had the German Army outpacing their supply lines, forcing the advance to slow down, and giving the Entente the opportunity to rally and reinforce their lines. By the end of April, the Offensive was over - and its cost left the Germans weakened. In seven months, the Entente would be on the doorstep of Germany proper, forcing the final surrender to end the war.
Not more than 40 years later, the German military would repeat the same mistake, in the Battle of the Bulge.
In 1958?
+1
Options
Kane Red RobeMaster of MagicArcanusRegistered Userregular
Well he did say not more than 40 years later, so any amount of time less than that is technically correct. From a certain point of view.
I wouldn't call it a "repeated mistake"
They share 3 characteristics
- last major offensive of the war in their theatre
- overall failure
- need to secure a quick peace due to overwhelming future force
In the Bulge, they didn't outrun their supply lines so much as their supply lines were bombed behind them when the weather cleared and they slowed down due to higher than expected resistance from initially outnumbered allied forces. Of course, given the overwhelming numerical superiority of the allies in general, a week later they had doubled the forces in the area and a week after that it was up to triple
The Bulge did make strategic sense when you consider the eastern front. By the end of the Bulge the soviets were in Warsaw, by the end of March they were on the german border, in order to have any chance of stopping the soviet advance they needed to get a quick peace with the allies by demonstrating that any invasion of germany proper would be too expensive to bear and then sending everything east. Retreating and holding the westwall with the bulge troops would have only prolonged the strategically inevitable and wouldn't have helped the eastern front at all
It sounds like, from that summary, the mistake was being too aggressive in the first instance, desperate in the second? Like, if they had slowed to allow supplies, would better troops have let them hold the gains and sue for an advantageous peace or something?
Kaiserschlacht was a final offensive. The Germans knew it, the allies knew it. Everyone knew it. To make it worse they were on a timer. The Americans were bringing 150,000 more troops to the frontline every month, and that kind of numerical superiority was impossible to beat in the long run.
To make it even worse, the allies were implementing a defense in depth tactic that the germans had used the autumn before that both make the frontline deeper about a mile in depth, with outlying sniper nests and machinegun bunkers to prevent probing attacks and the main battleline 3-4km back, outside the range of light and medium artillery. Even further back were more troops in reserve, to plug any gap.
If they had been able to do this offensive in 1916, then they could have taken their time, taken Amiens, collapsed the western portion of the allied front, shortened their defensive lines and taken Paris 3 months later. In 1918 it was too late.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
0
Options
ThomamelasOnly one man can kill this many Russians. Bring his guitar to me! Registered Userregular
Today marks the centennial of the start of the German Spring Offensive of 1918, the final offensive push by the Germans in WWI, and ultimately the beginning of the end for the war. The German High Command surmised that the British, having suffered through brutal battles, was weakened and demoralized, and as such a strong punch could break through the lines, allowing the German Army to knock out the British and push forward into France proper. Part of the consideration for this was also the entry of the US into the war - while American forces had only begun to enter the field by this point, there was concern that their addition would make the line of the Entente impossible to breach.
Part of what made the "Kaiserschlacht", the "Emperor's Battle" possible was the cessation of hostilities with Russia courtesy of the Treaty of Brest-Litovisk, which allowed troops from the Eastern Front to be relocated to the West. And with those troops came new battle techniques, such as the stormtroopers trained in assaulting and breaching lines:
Initially, the operations were successful, with the initial thrust breaking the British line. But a lack of logistical planning soon had the German Army outpacing their supply lines, forcing the advance to slow down, and giving the Entente the opportunity to rally and reinforce their lines. By the end of April, the Offensive was over - and its cost left the Germans weakened. In seven months, the Entente would be on the doorstep of Germany proper, forcing the final surrender to end the war.
Not more than 40 years later, the German military would repeat the same mistake, in the Battle of the Bulge.
Stormtroopers generally were developed on the Western front although you see their use later in the Italian front too, and they develop relatively early in the war. What the shift of forces from the East let them do is pull units off of front line duty and train them in infiltration tactics. One of the limiting factors for units like Stormtroopers is that the casualty rate for these units can be tremendous. And replacing them is harder from both a materials and training perspective. So replacement is slower. Getting a lot of them together was a non-trivial exercise. What you really see from a tactical perspective that is a kinda new shift for them is the use of creeping barrage. Creeping barrage was a favored tactic of British commanders. And it wasn't unknown for Germans to use it but they didn't emphasize it on the Western Front in the same way that the British did. Not until Hutier brings over one of his artillery from the East who does. And that forms a pretty big template for Hutier's tactics.
Start with a poison gas attack. This isn't so much for the killing power but the ability to demoralize opposing troops. As well as pin them in place. Then follow this with a creeping barrage. The creeping barrage provides suppressive artillery cover for advancing stormtroopers. Stormtroopers infiltrate and then you use assault troops to force an opening in the line. Then follow up with regular infantry to open the hole open wider and overwhelm any strong defensive pockets left. The methods for the assault troops are fairly new at this point and there are a lot of interesting small unit tactical things going on but it's the combination of all of these that are the big innovation of Hutier.
And this isn't really history repeating in a sense that you can take the tactical or even strategic analysis and apply it from one to another. This is a political analysis which is much harder to apply. But basically it can be summed up as if you are in a position where your only potential path to military victory is a desperate last ditch campaign in hopes of a quick victory then you're already likely fucked. Seven is the most likely combination if you throw two six side dice. But you still only have a 16.67% chance of throwing it.
It wasn't so much a failure of logistical planning as the area the Germans took was no man's land. There wasn't any transportation infrastructure at all. Even really basic things like roads were pretty much gone from the area. The few the English had recreated had basically been turned back into mud. Most of the area is deeply fucked from the Battle of the Somme having been fought there earlier. Moving supplies through that area was going to be a fucking nightmare no matter how much planning they did. And it doesn't matter that much when the elite units they were depending on to fulfill Hultier's tactics were being depleted faster than they could be replaced. Nor did it help that they went at the British at one of the strongest points of the British lines, while at the same time underestimating British morale levels.
Stormtroopers generally were developed on the Western front although you see their use later in the Italian front too, and they develop relatively early in the war.
It's more fair to say that their development begins relatively early in the war. Neither their tactics, equipment or the knowledge of how to incorporate them into the general battleplan was really ready until early 1917. Until stormtrooper successes are sporadic and limited in scope, primarily used to disrupt enemy attacks during the 1917 Entente offensive.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Battle of the Bulge; there was a single engineered mobile bridge deployed to help the mechanized infantry/tanks reach the front lines that broke down. It created a giant traffic jam on a muddy road that had ditches. There were pioneers stuck several miles behind with the equipment to repair it but it took hours to get through.
I had read one account that this one incident may have been what really broke the german offensive. Had these tanks and infantry been where they were supposed to be 12 hrs sooner, they would have reached their overall objective
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
History thread, I have a question. I just recently went through my first experience with antibiotics. How did people through the ages deal with infections. Besides dying, anyway.
Posts
I am not sure if irony is the right word, but it is something that Germany has so fully embraced its past atrocities while literally thousands (tens of?) Americans insist it never happened.
PSN:Furlion
if people are gonna get uptight about that kind of thing then why are celts all running around with very pale skin and blonde / red hair. That kind of thing didn't become common until the migrations / invasions after the Roman period.
Do you really want the answer, or are you just being sarcastic?
Eh? There definitely was a (relatively)darker skinned, darker haired, shorter group of people living on the British isles that was subsumed into an immigrating group of taller, fairer Indo-European Celts, and the remnants of whom still exist in some irish and Scottish populations today, but that was all occuring pretty well before the Romans entered the picture.
During the post-roman era there were the Angles and Saxons during 5th and 6th century and then the vikings between the 8th-11th century. The Angles and Saxons made a stronger impression on the main brittish island from Northumbria and southwards, while the Vikings had a stronger genetic influence on Ireland and Scotland (particularily on the islands and around Dublin). For example, if your last name is MacAlister, MacDougall or MacDonald there is a more than fair chance that one of your ancestors was a norwegian viking.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Nah the Gael and Germanic invasions made Britain a lot paler, but the Brythonic speaking people's at the time of the Roman invasions were like the archetypical Welsh are today: dark haired and short.
The Celts from Iberia were in Ireland by this time but not great Britain.
I guess you are right looking it up.
So I guess there were three big influences.
1. The original indigenous British people - relatively darker skinned, brown eyes, dark hair, related to the Basques of France and Spain. Eventually were pushed back after Romans into Wales and possibly could have been the Picts, 'black irish', etc. Culturally adopted many Celtic/Gallic elements - Chariots, burials, language - but genetically still largely indegenous.
2. The Gaels - an indo-european Celtic people from gallicia in spain that had invaded and settled Ireland in pre-roman times, displaced most but not all of the native Irish, eventually invaded scotland and largely politcally merged/interbred with the picts there to form Scotland.
3. Various Germanic and Norse post-roman invaders - largely displaced indigenous Britons from England into Wales, migrated into various areas in Ireland and Scotland but not nearly to the same extent and interbred into the local population?
I had assumed the pre-Roman British to be largely like mainland gauls/celts, which were described by Romans as tall and fair, but reading up that does not seem to really be the case.
was about to reply but yeah you got it. Ancient history is a rapidly changing subject
edit: note that even "indigenous" British hadn't been there super long. The place wasn't inhabitable until the climate warmed up enough after the last ice age.
And the fun thing is they walked across the ice sheet to get there :rotate:
eh? Oh no the British Isles were connected by land to the continent (and to each other) until around ~7000 BCE (ish). Sea levels were much lower during the last glacial maximum.
As for having African soldiers, the Roman Empire by that time was largely cosmopolitan, and there have been recent burials found of Roman Britons who were of African descent. I think that cosmopolitan nature of the empire kind of eludes a lot of people, but I would argue Romans had been cosmopolitan ever since the Social War when they started giving citizenship to non-Latins
doggerland sounds like something much better than what it actually is
They find mammoth remains all the time in the land reclamation the Dutch do
I just find the Stag moose part of the Cervalces genus and how they find mummified remains in the mammoth caves in KY all the time really interesting
Or how Cave bears in NA and eastern Europe are related via mitochondria
Really anytime after the conquests of Egypt and North Africa it wouldn’t have been that odd to see black soldiers. Nubia was a client state for a lot of this period and at war for the rest, other sub saharan africans often hired out as mercenaries to various states in the region, and the romans used local auxillary forces and took battle captives as slaves, both of which occasionally eventually led to local peoples filtering into the legions.
The ancient world was a lot more cosmopolitan than people really think in general.
I have a new favorite medieval death.
It's always worth checking every few weeks to see what new mischief medieval clerks got up to.
The post office has clerks. Seems to check out.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
You've probably heard about the anti-German propaganda of World War I and how things like sauerkraut got renamed "liberty cabbage," dachshunds got called "liberty pups," and hamburgers "liberty sandwiches." Liberty ____ for everything in very lazy ways.
This included freaking rubella.
Rubella was also called German measles at the time. People were just plain allergic to calling anything German, but instead of calling it rubella, they called it Liberty Measles. For the war. Something that I thought must've been said sarcastically, possibly by a doctor to other doctors off duty while rolling their eyes and doing whatever the 1917 equivalent of a jerk-off motion is, but no, they seriously called it Liberty Measles. The one dang thing they probably could've kept calling German, because it's a bad disease and they were actively demonizing the other country, they decided to make more patriotic. They just decided to blindly jingoize a potentially fatal or crippling contagious disease, for the war effort or something.
So I'm pretty sure our entrance into the Stupidest Timeline began with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
Turns out you can go stupider than "freedom fries".
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Twenty years later, the good people of Swastika stuck to their guns and voted to keep their village's name.
WoW
Dear Satan.....
I mean, if I had to choose between renaming German shit because of Germany's actions in world war one, or renaming french shit because....France didn't want to invade Iraq with us...
I know which one I think is stupider
National Geographic is launching an interesting series, examining and critiquing the magazine's own racist historiography.
Part of what made the "Kaiserschlacht", the "Emperor's Battle" possible was the cessation of hostilities with Russia courtesy of the Treaty of Brest-Litovisk, which allowed troops from the Eastern Front to be relocated to the West. And with those troops came new battle techniques, such as the stormtroopers trained in assaulting and breaching lines:
Initially, the operations were successful, with the initial thrust breaking the British line. But a lack of logistical planning soon had the German Army outpacing their supply lines, forcing the advance to slow down, and giving the Entente the opportunity to rally and reinforce their lines. By the end of April, the Offensive was over - and its cost left the Germans weakened. In seven months, the Entente would be on the doorstep of Germany proper, forcing the final surrender to end the war.
Not more than 40 years later, the German military would repeat the same mistake, in the Battle of the Bulge.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
In 1958?
They share 3 characteristics
- last major offensive of the war in their theatre
- overall failure
- need to secure a quick peace due to overwhelming future force
In the Bulge, they didn't outrun their supply lines so much as their supply lines were bombed behind them when the weather cleared and they slowed down due to higher than expected resistance from initially outnumbered allied forces. Of course, given the overwhelming numerical superiority of the allies in general, a week later they had doubled the forces in the area and a week after that it was up to triple
The Bulge did make strategic sense when you consider the eastern front. By the end of the Bulge the soviets were in Warsaw, by the end of March they were on the german border, in order to have any chance of stopping the soviet advance they needed to get a quick peace with the allies by demonstrating that any invasion of germany proper would be too expensive to bear and then sending everything east. Retreating and holding the westwall with the bulge troops would have only prolonged the strategically inevitable and wouldn't have helped the eastern front at all
Kaiserschlacht was a final offensive. The Germans knew it, the allies knew it. Everyone knew it. To make it worse they were on a timer. The Americans were bringing 150,000 more troops to the frontline every month, and that kind of numerical superiority was impossible to beat in the long run.
To make it even worse, the allies were implementing a defense in depth tactic that the germans had used the autumn before that both make the frontline deeper about a mile in depth, with outlying sniper nests and machinegun bunkers to prevent probing attacks and the main battleline 3-4km back, outside the range of light and medium artillery. Even further back were more troops in reserve, to plug any gap.
If they had been able to do this offensive in 1916, then they could have taken their time, taken Amiens, collapsed the western portion of the allied front, shortened their defensive lines and taken Paris 3 months later. In 1918 it was too late.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Stormtroopers generally were developed on the Western front although you see their use later in the Italian front too, and they develop relatively early in the war. What the shift of forces from the East let them do is pull units off of front line duty and train them in infiltration tactics. One of the limiting factors for units like Stormtroopers is that the casualty rate for these units can be tremendous. And replacing them is harder from both a materials and training perspective. So replacement is slower. Getting a lot of them together was a non-trivial exercise. What you really see from a tactical perspective that is a kinda new shift for them is the use of creeping barrage. Creeping barrage was a favored tactic of British commanders. And it wasn't unknown for Germans to use it but they didn't emphasize it on the Western Front in the same way that the British did. Not until Hutier brings over one of his artillery from the East who does. And that forms a pretty big template for Hutier's tactics.
Start with a poison gas attack. This isn't so much for the killing power but the ability to demoralize opposing troops. As well as pin them in place. Then follow this with a creeping barrage. The creeping barrage provides suppressive artillery cover for advancing stormtroopers. Stormtroopers infiltrate and then you use assault troops to force an opening in the line. Then follow up with regular infantry to open the hole open wider and overwhelm any strong defensive pockets left. The methods for the assault troops are fairly new at this point and there are a lot of interesting small unit tactical things going on but it's the combination of all of these that are the big innovation of Hutier.
And this isn't really history repeating in a sense that you can take the tactical or even strategic analysis and apply it from one to another. This is a political analysis which is much harder to apply. But basically it can be summed up as if you are in a position where your only potential path to military victory is a desperate last ditch campaign in hopes of a quick victory then you're already likely fucked. Seven is the most likely combination if you throw two six side dice. But you still only have a 16.67% chance of throwing it.
It wasn't so much a failure of logistical planning as the area the Germans took was no man's land. There wasn't any transportation infrastructure at all. Even really basic things like roads were pretty much gone from the area. The few the English had recreated had basically been turned back into mud. Most of the area is deeply fucked from the Battle of the Somme having been fought there earlier. Moving supplies through that area was going to be a fucking nightmare no matter how much planning they did. And it doesn't matter that much when the elite units they were depending on to fulfill Hultier's tactics were being depleted faster than they could be replaced. Nor did it help that they went at the British at one of the strongest points of the British lines, while at the same time underestimating British morale levels.
It's more fair to say that their development begins relatively early in the war. Neither their tactics, equipment or the knowledge of how to incorporate them into the general battleplan was really ready until early 1917. Until stormtrooper successes are sporadic and limited in scope, primarily used to disrupt enemy attacks during the 1917 Entente offensive.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
I had read one account that this one incident may have been what really broke the german offensive. Had these tanks and infantry been where they were supposed to be 12 hrs sooner, they would have reached their overall objective
http://m.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2138951/archaeologists-confident-they-have-found-body-fabled-chinese