What little chunk of history makes your life worth living? What historical event, however small or trivial, do you enjoy or take pride in knowing about?

I'll get the ball rolling with an example.

One of my favourite lil' bits of history involves the Lena goldfield strikes in Russia in 1912. The funny bit of history is- the Lena goldfield strikes started due to the realisation by the miners that the meat they were being fed was, in fact, horses' penis.

So, does anyone have any other interesting historical incidents or anecdotes?

I always found it tragically ironic that the Gran Chaco in fact contained not a drop of anything worth the time to find it.

Speaking of irony: Hindenburg was the last barrier protecting democracy in Weimar Germany.

Another interesting piece of South American history is Peru's secret weapon during the War of the Pacific: the submarine! They had a submarine that scared away the whole Chilean fleet on more than one occasion, which was vastly superior to the Peruvian-Bolivian fleet.

Well, other than my well-known Baktria fetish, I gotta say that I always enjoy reading about the tragedy of Nikephoros II Phokas, Byzantine Emperor, even if it is the saddest historical story I know. He was a brilliant general, an able administrator, and loved his wife Theophano (who married him to have a guardian for her children by the previous emperor, who had suffered an untimely death). But she didn't love him back, partly because he was ugly as sin and a pretty ascetic dude, so she started up an affair with Ioann Tzimiskes, Nikephoros' old buddy and a general in the army. When Nikephoros found out about them, Tzimiskes was smuggled into Theophano's chamber to escape the imperial guards, and then launched a palace coup, killing the emperor.

Probably the story of Razia Sultana, the first female sultan of the Muslim world. She was of the slave kings of the Sultanate of Delhi, dressed after the manner of a man, commanded troops in battle not too shabbily, and was overthrown by her men because they were sexist pigs. Kind of sad, but a neat historical gem.

Speaking of irony: Hindenburg was the last barrier protecting democracy in Weimar Germany.
You mean the airship or the man? :mischief:

Probably the story of Razia Sultana, the first female sultan of the Muslim world. She was of the slave kings of the Sultanate of Delhi, dressed after the manner of a man, commanded troops in battle not too shabbily, and was overthrown by her men because they were sexist pigs. Kind of sad, but a neat historical gem.

She was also accused of being 'intimate' with a black slave which was also particularly objectionable... even more so than just being female apparently :p

You mean the airship or the man? :mischief:

Yeah, once the zeppelin came down there was no stopping him.:p

Another interesting piece of South American history is Peru's secret weapon during the War of the Pacific: the submarine! They had a submarine that scared away the whole Chilean fleet on more than one occasion, which was vastly superior to the Peruvian-Bolivian fleet.

How'd they manage that?

I like the Siamese king laughing himself to death when he heard Venice was a republic, myself

My favorite little historical tidbit/fable is that at the Battle of Stamford Bridge a massive viking warrior allegedly held off scores of Saxon soldiers until eventually an soldier floated under the bridge and stabbed him in his nuts. 'Tis a good bedtime story for your kids.

the french king paying half of the Swiss army to go home so he could defeat the rest and retake Milano thus ending Swiss expansionist tendencies forever?

A swedish kind Adolf Fredrik eating semlor to death.

How'd they manage that?

It was 1880, and one of only a few operational submarines in the world. The Chileans for the most part only knew it as "the Peruvian Secret Weapon" and were scared to hell of it. That, and the Chilean Navy was considerably less well-run than the Peruvian Navy, who apart from their secret weapon, generally found employment during the war in pissing off the Chileans repeatedly, especially because the Peruvian Navy was much smaller.

I like the Siamese king laughing himself to death when he heard Venice was a republic, myself

Which King was this? Has to be in the Ayutthaya period.

A certain Maori chief believing that white women in their form altering dresses were some kind of exotic animal and offering to buy one :p

Which King was this? Has to be in the Ayutthaya period.
Nanda Bayin, Bayinnaung's son. Wasn't Siamese, but Burmese, of the Taungoo dynasty.

I've always thought that Felix Faure's death mustn't have been too good for his reputation. 10 points for anyone who knows how he died.

Sexed to death?

Sexed to death?

Ten points for taillesskangaru! I read somewhere it was exertion, but wikipedia says it was apoplexy.

A certain Maori chief believing that white women in their form altering dresses were some kind of exotic animal and offering to buy one :p
Cetshwayo, the last independent King of the Zulus, offered 500 head of cattle for a woman in London, at a public party.

Winston Churchill provides me with plenty of chuckles, due to his penchant for offending everyone in sight when he was drunk, which was often.

Lady Astor: "Winston, you're drunk!"

Winston Churchill: "Yes my dear, and you are ugly. But I shall be sober in the morning."

Female Labour MP: "Mr Churchill, if you were my husband I'd put poison in your coffee."

Winston Churchill: "And if I were you're husband I'd drink it."

Also, stuff like the Germans failing to take Paris in WWI because they stopped to raid a wine district and got drunk off their arses is terribly entertaining to me.

I love the failure of the March Offensive. The huge stores of supplies that the French and British were forced to leave behind proved to be more effective at stopping the German Army than their troops had been.

I find it interesting that the primary armaments for the Arab Legion in 1947 was abandoned German-Italian equipment scavenged from the Egyptian coast, and left during the retreat West.

Yes, but the first Israeli aircrafts were as well nazi-planes. Sold to them by the new Czechoslovakian Republic. ;-) (along with other arms the Czech had from .... ?)

I love the failure of the March Offensive. The huge stores of supplies that the French and British were forced to leave behind proved to be more effective at stopping the German Army than their troops had been.
I once read that a German officer declared that his men's failure to advance "was not due to a lack of German fighting spirit, but an abundance of Scottish drinking spirit!" :lol:

I'm quite fond of the Anglo-Zanzibar War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Zanzibar_War), because of the simply absurdity of it- it lasted all of forty minutes, starting with the expiration of a British ultimatum which demanded the Zanzibari sultan surrender, followed by the British navy casually blowing holes into the sultan's palace for half an hour while some marines strolled in and occupied what was left without sustaining so much as a stubbed toe.

From what I've read of the Indian Rebellion, the British insensitivity and overall meanness astounds me.

Wasn't it Guam in the Spanish-American war where the American fleet fired a broadside and the Spanish apologized for being unable to return the salute due to lack of gunpowder?

I've always thought that Felix Faure's death mustn't have been too good for his reputation. 10 points for anyone who knows how he died.

In the QI annual. Everyone with taste must know :p

Yes, but the first Israeli aircrafts were as well nazi-planes. Sold to them by the new Czechoslovakian Republic. ;-) (along with other arms the Czech had from .... ?)

I think it would be more accurate to say that the Avia was the first modern fighter plane Israel got their hands on rather than its first aircraft, but the point is still interesting.

Yes, but the first Israeli aircrafts were as well nazi-planes. Sold to them by the new Czechoslovakian Republic. ;-) (along with other arms the Czech had from .... ?)
Israel had a combination of German and Czech tanks, planes, and other weapons, sold to them by Czechoslovakia. Since most Czech equipment had been used by the Germans anyway, basically 90% of Israel's equipment came from Nazi Germany.

There's a certain Austrian battle so awesome that it does not even need to be named on CFC, and recently learning about the "Voyage of the Damned" has also made me laugh my arse off. History is awesome.

Wasn't it Guam in the Spanish-American war where the American fleet fired a broadside and the Spanish apologized for being unable to return the salute due to lack of gunpowder?

Yes it was:lol:

Israel had a combination of German and Czech tanks, planes, and other weapons, sold to them by Czechoslovakia. Since most Czech equipment had been used by the Germans anyway, basically 90% of Israel's equipment came from Nazi Germany.

That's not really true even if you're only talking about the 1948 war and its run up. Certainly some of Israel's equipment came from Czech sources, and some of that was from Nazi Germany, but to say that 90% of everything Israel used was Nazi built is incorrect. The first real armoured vehicles Israel used were converted trucks. They also used armoured cars of mixed origins including General Motors Otters, a Damiler Mk 1, and numerous home built vehicles (some of which were based on the White armoured car). Early tanks in the 8th Armoured Brigade included 2 Renault R38s, 2 Cromwells and a Sherman. Large numbers of Hotchkiss R39s also arrived during the war and even after the war Shermans of various types were probably the most common acquisitions.

As for planes with the exception of the Avia S199 I don't think the Czechs sent any particular "nazi" plane in large numbers, although they did send about 60 Spitfires they'd bought from Britain (only 13 actually arrived in time for the 1948 war though). Even the S199 is only Nazi in outward appearance since it used a different engine to the ME109 and was quite inferior to it. The Israelis also used the likes of the Dragon Rapide, Auster, Bristol Beaufighter and the B17 Flying Fortress amongst others.

The Israelis also used a large number of German machine guns in their armoured vehicles and probably other weapons (including rearming a few Shermans after the war with 1911 Krupp guns bought from of all places Switzerland) but I doubt that these would outweigh the sizeable amount of British, French and American built equipment Israel was using up to and during the 1948 war.

90% was a figurative term meaning 'an awful lot.' I don't claim to know the percentage of anything.

I'm not sure of the figures for small arms but there were about 23 Avia S199 planes delivered before the 1948 war ended. I don't know how many planes Israel had in total but I do know she had at least that many again in Spitfires, P51s, Beaufighters and B17s. Given the large number of older and less agile planes employed by the air force that tends to suggest that the figure is well below 50% so not even really an awful lot in comparison to the total.

Same with tanks, although there was some German tanks sold to Israel after 1948 and many others used what ammounted to an upgraded Panther gun these vehicles weren't exactly in the majority. As far as I'm awre no tank Israel used in 1948 was built in Germany, certainly none in its main armoured unit was.

Whatever way you look at it either 90% or "an awful lot" is misleading since an awful lot more came from other sources. Whilst its interesting to see the irony in Nazi German equipment in the hands of Israel its practical importance to Israel in the 1948 was very limited and should not be overstated. If I had to guess I'd say the figure is closer to 10% than 90.

This is absolutely my most favorite tidbit of history:

The U.S.S. Constitution, as a combat vessel carried 48,600 gallons (184,000 l) of fresh water for her crew of 475 officers and men. This was sufficient to last six months of sustained operations at sea. She carried no evaporators (fresh water distillers). However, let it be noted that according to her log, "On July 27, 1798, the U.S.S. Constitution sailed from Boston with a full complement of 475 officers and men, 48,600 gallons (184,000 l) of fresh water, 7,400 cannon shot, 11,600 pounds (5,250 kg) of black powder and 79,400 gallons (300,500 l) of rum." Her mission: "To destroy and harass English shipping."
Making Jamaica on 6 October, she took on 826 pounds of flour and 68,300 gallons of rum. Then she headed for the Azores, arriving there 12 November. She provisioned with 550 pounds (250 kg) of beef and 64,300 gallons (243,400 l) of Portuguese wine. On 18 November, she set sail for England. In the ensuing days she defeated five British men-of-war and captured and scuttled 12 English merchantmen, salvaging only the rum aboard each.
By 26 January, her powder and shot were exhausted. Nevertheless, and though unarmed, she made a night raid up the Firth of Clyde in Scotland. Her landing party captured a whiskey distillery and transferred 40,000 gallons (151,400 l) of single malt Scotch aboard by dawn.
The U.S.S. Constitution arrived in Boston on 20 February 1799, with no cannon shot, no food, no powder, NO rum, NO wine, NO whiskey and 38,600 gallons (146,100 l) of stagnant water.

This is absolutely my most favorite tidbit of history:

The U.S.S. Constitution, as a combat vessel carried 48,600 gallons (184,000 l) of fresh water for her crew of 475 officers and men. This was sufficient to last six months of sustained operations at sea. She carried no evaporators (fresh water distillers). However, let it be noted that according to her log, "On July 27, 1798, the U.S.S. Constitution sailed from Boston with a full complement of 475 officers and men, 48,600 gallons (184,000 l) of fresh water, 7,400 cannon shot, 11,600 pounds (5,250 kg) of black powder and 79,400 gallons (300,500 l) of rum." Her mission: "To destroy and harass English shipping."
Making Jamaica on 6 October, she took on 826 pounds of flour and 68,300 gallons of rum. Then she headed for the Azores, arriving there 12 November. She provisioned with 550 pounds (250 kg) of beef and 64,300 gallons (243,400 l) of Portuguese wine. On 18 November, she set sail for England. In the ensuing days she defeated five British men-of-war and captured and scuttled 12 English merchantmen, salvaging only the rum aboard each.
By 26 January, her powder and shot were exhausted. Nevertheless, and though unarmed, she made a night raid up the Firth of Clyde in Scotland. Her landing party captured a whiskey distillery and transferred 40,000 gallons (151,400 l) of single malt Scotch aboard by dawn.
The U.S.S. Constitution arrived in Boston on 20 February 1799, with no cannon shot, no food, no powder, NO rum, NO wine, NO whiskey and 38,600 gallons (146,100 l) of stagnant water.
My god that's my new favorite :lol:

My god that's my new favorite :lol:
I agree with you. I love the fact that they actually raided a whiskey distillery, despited being unarmed.

Stalin's crazy paranoia exemplified when he shot the German soldier who desterted to warn him of Barbarossa...

This is absolutely my most favorite tidbit of history:

The U.S.S. Constitution, as a combat vessel carried 48,600 gallons (184,000 l) of fresh water for her crew of 475 officers and men. This was sufficient to last six months of sustained operations at sea. She carried no evaporators (fresh water distillers). However, let it be noted that according to her log, "On July 27, 1798, the U.S.S. Constitution sailed from Boston with a full complement of 475 officers and men, 48,600 gallons (184,000 l) of fresh water, 7,400 cannon shot, 11,600 pounds (5,250 kg) of black powder and 79,400 gallons (300,500 l) of rum." Her mission: "To destroy and harass English shipping."
Making Jamaica on 6 October, she took on 826 pounds of flour and 68,300 gallons of rum. Then she headed for the Azores, arriving there 12 November. She provisioned with 550 pounds (250 kg) of beef and 64,300 gallons (243,400 l) of Portuguese wine. On 18 November, she set sail for England. In the ensuing days she defeated five British men-of-war and captured and scuttled 12 English merchantmen, salvaging only the rum aboard each.
By 26 January, her powder and shot were exhausted. Nevertheless, and though unarmed, she made a night raid up the Firth of Clyde in Scotland. Her landing party captured a whiskey distillery and transferred 40,000 gallons (151,400 l) of single malt Scotch aboard by dawn.
The U.S.S. Constitution arrived in Boston on 20 February 1799, with no cannon shot, no food, no powder, NO rum, NO wine, NO whiskey and 38,600 gallons (146,100 l) of stagnant water.

As hilarious as that was upon first reading, I have some doubts. The ship was at sea 208 days. If we suppose it suffered no losses among crew, that would make 208x475=98,800 man-days... to drink 147,700 gallons, or 559,105 liters, of rum. So even if we suppose they salvaged nothing from the merchantmen, that is still 5.658 litres of rum per man, daily - never mind wine and whiskey. I doubt that is possible. Also, it looks dubious that a battleship with a crew of 475 would provision only with 250kg of beef or 400 kg of flour.

As hilarious as that was upon first reading, I have some doubts. The ship was at sea 208 days. If we suppose it suffered no losses among crew, that would make 208x475=98,800 man-days... to drink 147,700 gallons, or 559,105 liters, of rum. So even if we suppose they salvaged nothing from the merchantmen, that is still 5.658 litres of rum per man, daily - never mind wine and whiskey. I doubt that is possible. Also, it looks dubious that a battleship with a crew of 475 would provision only with 250kg of beef or 400 kg of flour.
She got that beef and flour in Jamaica. I presume it was just replacing that which had already been used.

And if you think people can't go through 5-1/2 litres of rum daily, I'll introduce you to my aunt.

I can simply not get over Hess and his British peace mission.

She got that beef and flour in Jamaica. I presume it was just replacing that which had already been used.

And if you think people can't go through 5-1/2 litres of rum daily, I'll introduce you to my aunt.

You mean "rum", like the beverage with alcohol content of 40%?:rolleyes:
Yes, I am pretty sure it is medically impossible to drink 5,5 liters of it daily for 7 months. Even if you don't have to sail a battleship at the same time. And don't forget some 2 liters of wine and 1,5 liters of whiskey on top of it.

historical fact: it is a common austrian myth that leopold figl drank the russian delegation under the table to gain austria's independence.

Yes, I am pretty sure it is medically impossible to drink 5,5 liters of it daily for 7 months. Even if you don't have to sail a battleship at the same time. And don't forget some 2 liters of wine and 1,5 liters of whiskey on top of it.

Question what was the daily Rum allowance on the Royal Navy for most of its history?

A half pint twice daily was the general allowance prior to 1740 which is equal to a 473 mL daily. Which was doubled quite often so call it a round litre it was watered down as well at a ratio of a quart of water to a half pint of rum so 1.1 litres of water to 473ml of rum. Of special note is the fact that Royal Navy rum was 95.5 proof 47.75% alcohol.

I don't doubt its impossible to drink 5.5 litres of Rum for a short period of time capped with 3 litres of miscellaneous alcohol [done so] but there is almost no way your going to be conscious enough to crew a ship or do it for seven months...

I don't doubt its impossible to drink 5.5 litres of Rum for a short period of time capped with 3 litres of miscellaneous alcohol [done so] but there is almost no way your going to be conscious enough to crew a ship or do it for seven months...


I guess you mis-wrote impossible, but your meaning is that it is possible... frankly, I very much doubt you drank 5.5 litres of rum plus 3 litres of misc. alcohol in one day - unless you used a feather in the throat after each glass, that is :D... or had your stomach pumped.

If you - or anyone else - did that, you wouldn't be writing on this forum.... you'd be dead.

historical fact: it is a common austrian myth that leopold figl drank the russian delegation under the table to gain austria's independence.
These stories are getting just wilder and wilder...:lol::lol::lol:

As hilarious as that was upon first reading, I have some doubts. The ship was at sea 208 days. If we suppose it suffered no losses among crew, that would make 208x475=98,800 man-days... to drink 147,700 gallons, or 559,105 liters, of rum. So even if we suppose they salvaged nothing from the merchantmen, that is still 5.658 litres of rum per man, daily - never mind wine and whiskey. I doubt that is possible. Also, it looks dubious that a battleship with a crew of 475 would provision only with 250kg of beef or 400 kg of flour.

Remember that rum was mixed with water to make the water safe to drink.

Remember that rum was mixed with water to make the water safe to drink.
Well, that drives the figure for total liquid consumption per day even higher, since we're already around 8 liters per day with just alcoholic beverages. Those who escaped alcoholic poisoning would have succumbed to kidney failure. :D

Well, that drives the figure for total liquid consumption per day even higher, since we're already around 8 liters per day with just alcoholic beverages. Those who escaped alcoholic poisoning would have succumbed to kidney failure. :D

Not to mention that the sailors would have lined the rails all day instead of working in the rigging.. :D

Remember that rum was mixed with water to make the water safe to drink.
Ew, grog. That stuff is nasty. Ruining perfectly good rum and all that.

Well, that drives the figure for total liquid consumption per day even higher, since we're already around 8 liters per day with just alcoholic beverages. Those who escaped alcoholic poisoning would have succumbed to kidney failure. :D

I dunno. It never explicitly says they drank all that alcohol. I see where you're getting with this, though.

Ew, grog. That stuff is nasty. Ruining perfectly good rum and all that.

Well you can't exactly take along 50,000 gallons of pineapple juice now can you? :yum:

It's probably not historical, but I like the story in Herodotus of how Gyges became king of Lydia.

Way to ruin a perfectly good story guys :(

Who cares if it's true? We still bring kids to Santa and he's not real. I say we carry on like this examination hasn't happened!

A wise man once said, "Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story."

It's probably not historical, but I like the story in Herodotus of how Gyges became king of Lydia.
It's why I hide in wealthy women's bedrooms.

The Battle of Karánsebes, I guess. Some Austrians joined a group of partying Hessians, got piss drunk, and then someone thought it would be fun to yell "Turks! Turks!" When the contigent's drunken paranoia got out of hand, a commanding officer yelled "Halt! Halt!" in German. None of the Austrian and Balkan-area soldiers knew any German, so they thought the officer was yelling "Allah! Allah!" Then, they began shooting at each other, using each others' shadows as references.

Casualties:

Austrians: 10000 dead or wounded
Ottomans: 0

It's why I hide in wealthy women's bedrooms.
But do their husbands tell you to? :p

My Classical Historiography professor loves the story of Kandaules and his wife, and hammered it into our brains...

I can simply not get over Hess and his British peace mission.

Didn't he end up in the Tower?

Didn't he end up in the Tower?

Don't know, he went mental at the Nuremberg trials though :lol:

just one of the peculiarities of history:
In late WWI, an american and german unit once decided to be friends and such. (as in earlier Christmas truce) The next day, they refused to fight eachother. So they were both pulled out of the line and put somewhere else on the front... and they both ended up in the exact same place. When they realized this, they once again refused to fight eachother. So, for the only time throughout the war, the American and German commander (I don't know how far up each one was, sorry) met and arranged to have their respective units sent to different areas of the front

also, there was apparently a small battle in WWII in which they decided to pick the winner by having a cooking contest

Didn't he end up in the Tower?

I think he was put in a military mental asylum for the rest of the war, before going to Spandau after the Nuremberg Trials.

just one of the peculiarities of history:
In late WWI, an american and german unit once decided to be friends and such. (as in earlier Christmas truce) The next day, they refused to fight eachother. So they were both pulled out of the line and put somewhere else on the front... and they both ended up in the exact same place. When they realized this, they once again refused to fight eachother. So, for the only time throughout the war, the American and German commander (I don't know how far up each one was, sorry) met and arranged to have their respective units sent to different areas of the front

I'm really surprised that the two men weren't just shot.

also, there was apparently a small battle in WWII in which they decided to pick the winner by having a cooking contest

Well, it's more productive than fighting, I 'spose.

just one of the peculiarities of history:
In late WWI, an american and german unit once decided to be friends and such. (as in earlier Christmas truce) The next day, they refused to fight eachother. So they were both pulled out of the line and put somewhere else on the front... and they both ended up in the exact same place. When they realized this, they once again refused to fight eachother. So, for the only time throughout the war, the American and German commander (I don't know how far up each one was, sorry) met and arranged to have their respective units sent to different areas of the front

I've heard the same story about Germans and French, Germans and Brits, etc. I've read from first-hand accounts that such strange things did happen during the war, but who knows where is happened.

also, there was apparently a small battle in WWII in which they decided to pick the winner by having a cooking contest

Now this I want a link to.

I've heard the same story about Germans and French, Germans and Brits, etc. I've read from first-hand accounts that such strange things did happen during the war, but who knows where is happened.



Now this I want a link to.
I remember stories of German and Australian troops who routinely ate dinner together, the Germans having a fondness for the canned beef Australian soldiers had.

I remember stories of German and Australian troops who routinely ate dinner together, the Germans having a fondness for the canned beef Australian soldiers had.

ANZAC troops during a certain failure of a campaign in Turkey traded with the Turks, beef for cigarettes.

also, there was apparently a small battle in WWII in which they decided to pick the winner by having a cooking contest

Of course this puts into mind the Maori Battalions standard practice with German troops, "You want a smoke and a meal boy?" followed by a shot to the back of the head when they lit the cigarette. They never bothered to do the same with Italians... never quite considered them men.

also, there was apparently a small battle in WWII in which they decided to pick the winner by having a cooking contest

this would be an awesome display of civil disobedience if it was true.

this would be an awesome display of civil disobedience if it was true.
No, that would be a case of a military disobedience - e.g. something to be court-marshaled and shot for.

The Battle of Karánsebes, I guess. Some Austrians joined a group of partying Hessians, got piss drunk, and then someone thought it would be fun to yell "Turks! Turks!" When the contigent's drunken paranoia got out of hand, a commanding officer yelled "Halt! Halt!" in German. None of the Austrian and Balkan-area soldiers knew any German, so they thought the officer was yelling "Allah! Allah!" Then, they began shooting at each other, using each others' shadows as references.

Wait, none of the Austrian soldiers knew any German? :mischief:

Anyway, that was pretty amazing, yes. Two small other things though: the guy who screamed "Turcii" ("the Turks") was not the one to actually provoke the conflict, he was merely the one to light the spark of the serious fighting. The hussars were already fighting the infantry, for the alcohol. Don't forget to mention how the artillery got orders to fire too and was shooting almost randomly in the crowd.

Imagine the surprise on the Turks' part when they actually got there. :lol:

No, that would be a case of a military disobedience - e.g. something to be court-marshaled and shot for.

"civil" as in "being a citizen of your state" as in "being a poor guy who was handed a gun to kill and die for the interest of others".

Or: bing a professional who had sworn to kill and die for your country and layng down arms in the face of the foe?

Or: bing a professional who had sworn to kill and die for your country and layng down arms in the face of the foe?

that's utterly romantic and not a meaningful way to understand wars.

I always thought this was pretty cool...

Wilmer McLean (May 3, 1814 – June 5, 1882) was a wholesale grocer from Virginia. It is said that the American Civil War started in Wilmer McLean's front yard and ended in his front parlor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmer_McLean

Or: bing a professional who had sworn to kill and die for your country and layng down arms in the face of the foe?

Professionals? In late WWI? We're talking conscript armies here...

Personally, I feel anyone who has the moral courage to refuse to kill under such circumstances should be applauded...

Professionals? In late WWI? We're talking conscript armies here...

Personally, I feel anyone who has the moral courage to refuse to kill under such circumstances should be applauded...
It says WWII.

Professionals? In late WWI? We're talking conscript armies here...

Personally, I feel anyone who has the moral courage to refuse to kill under such circumstances should be applauded...

Indeed.

And Sharwood, you think armies in WWII were professional?

Personally, I feel anyone who has the moral courage to refuse to kill under such circumstances should be applauded...

...with a commissars bullet.

Indeed.

And Sharwood, you think armies in WWII were professional?
Some were, some weren't. Professional and conscript aren't mutually exclusive, many conscripts can be trained well, though often aren't. More like individual brigades were professional. What's your point?

Professionals? In late WWI? We're talking conscript armies here...

Personally, I feel anyone who has the moral courage to refuse to kill under such circumstances should be applauded...

First, in WWI most of the British army (until later on) was professional, as were the elite units of other nations (the Légion Etrangere springs to mind). Secondly, anyone who was a conchie could do unarmed work, at least in the UK. Anyway, anyone who refuses to defend his country is hardly a hero

In WWII almost everyone was a professional, or at least a trained conscript, and as I said everybody has a moral (and in Switzerlland, legal) duty to defend their country from invaders when asked.

Professionals? In late WWI? We're talking conscript armies here...

Australia and New Zealand were to cool for conscription (Canada might be in the same boat).

Australia and New Zealand were to cool for conscription (Canada might be in the same boat).
But not the second time around...

Ancient Egypt - The Old Kingdom dynasties.
India - various periods throughout its history. Rise of Buddhism and the Mauryans and the Mughals come to mind.

In WWII almost everyone was a professional, or at least a trained conscript, and as I said everybody has a moral (and in Switzerlland, legal) duty to defend their country from invaders when asked.

like the german soldiers that defended against poland's sneak attack? :rolleyes:

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall) entire history

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall) entire history

What I wonder is why all those countries want to claim a rock. Wouldn't that make them, in a way, slightly liable for any accident involving said rock?

What I wonder is why all those countries want to claim a rock. Wouldn't that make them, in a way, slightly liable for any accident involving said rock?
I gave it a cursory glance... Apparently it's to do with control of the surrounding water. Because it's technically land, whoever has claim to it can claim the surrounding waters, and so can control shipping, blah blah blah. Also, tit seems that the UK put it under military occupation for a little bit during in the 50s, to stop the Soviets using it as a potential observation post during missile tests. It was the final territorial acquisition of the British Empire, apparently, mwhich I guess reflects it's potency in the mid-50s.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Rockall.jpg
Behold, the majesty of the Empire!

I gave it a cursory glance... Apparently it's to do with control of the surrounding water. Because it's technically land, whoever has claim to it can claim the surrounding waters, and so can control shipping, blah blah blah. Also, tit seems that the UK put it under military occupation for a little bit during in the 50s, to stop the Soviets using it as a potential observation post during missile tests. It was the final territorial acquisition of the British Empire, apparently, mwhich I guess reflects it's potency in the mid-50s.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Rockall.jpg
Behold, the majesty of the Empire!

I'm sure that would have been a fun station to be posted to.

A French commoner-peasant turned general who became the King of Sweden

A French commoner-peasant turned general who became the King of Sweden

Was that Karl XIV or something? True rags to riches story. Although the story usually goes more along the lines of 'yes darling, you can grow up to be a princess', not a king.

I gave it a cursory glance... Apparently it's to do with control of the surrounding water. Because it's technically land, whoever has claim to it can claim the surrounding waters, and so can control shipping, blah blah blah.


I was thinking the same thing, that it had to do with potential undersea prospecting, but apparently it's just so the lawyers can be paid for arguing over anything.

[edit] Law of the Sea
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea states, “Rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.” Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland all acceded to the convention. The United Kingdom acceded to the convention on 25 July 1997. The United Kingdom and Ireland have agreed to a delineation which ignores Rockall's existence and have granted exploration rights.[21]

I've always loved hearing about the death of Rasputin.

I've always loved hearing about the death of Rasputin.

Which one, being poisioned, being drowned in Ice water or being shot?

Or all three?

Which one, being poisioned, being drowned in Ice water or being shot?

Or all three?
you forgot the part about being stabbed, and having his entrails hang out prior to all of those ;)

you forgot the part about being stabbed, and having his entrails hang out prior to all of those ;)

Oh yeah, thats good fun.

Another little piece is Katherine of Aragon killing off the Scottish King and sending his bloody coat to Henry VIII, who had failed to defeat Francis in France. Henry threw a hissy fit

you forgot the part about being stabbed, and having his entrails hang out prior to all of those ;)
And being exhumed by peasants during the revolution and sitting up while being set on fire.

And being exhumed by peasants during the revolution and sitting up while being set on fire.

Drinking all that poison (there was apparently more poison than anything else in the cups) and asking for more because it tasted good.

I also like how his member was pickled in a jar (apparently) and people thought it held miraculous healing powers (apparently).

Drinking all that poison (there was apparently more poison than anything else in the cups) and asking for more because it tasted good.

I also like how his member was pickled in a jar (apparently) and people thought it held miraculous healing powers (apparently).
And I love that there are actually perfectly feasible explanations for all the stuff that happened to him and his body before and after his death (well, except that last point you made, that one I never heard before, and kind of wish I still hadn't). It makes it even cooler.

Found out this in OT Friday, and it immediately became one of my favourites.

1971 India-Pakistan War

On the evening of Sunday, 3 December, the Pakistani air force launched sorties on eight airfields in north-western India, including Agra which was 300 miles (480 km) from the border.. This attack, called Operation Chengiz Khan, was inspired by the Arab-Israeli Six Day War and the success of the Israeli preemptive strike. Unlike the Israeli attack on Arab airbases in 1967, which involved a large number of Israeli planes, Pakistan flew no more than 50 planes to India. Indian runways were non-functional for several hours after the attack.

India reacted by declaring war on Pakistan. Indian forces responded with a massive coordinated air, sea, and land assault, Indian Air Force started flying sorties against Pakistan from midnight and quickly achieved air superiority.
Now, that's an Historic Epic Fail if ever I've seen one.

well, except that last point you made, that one I never heard before, and kind of wish I still hadn't

Wiki up Sharwood it's there in all its glory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasputin%27s_penis):p

Wiki up Sharwood it's there in all its glory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasputin%27s_penis):p
Dear God, there's actually a Wikipedia entry called "Rasputin's Penis." Ladies and gentlemen, that's my favourite piece of history. [/thread]

like the german soldiers that defended against poland's sneak attack? :rolleyes:

Apart from your duty to defend your country, you also, if you sign up to the forces, must obey orders provided that they are legal.

Apart from your duty to defend your country, you also, if you sign up to the forces, must obey orders provided that they are legal.
Praytell, how many said orders were legal? And did German Jews have a "duty" to defend their country? Don't be so simplistic.

Dear God, there's actually a Wikipedia entry called "Rasputin's Penis." Ladies and gentlemen, that's my favourite piece of history. [/thread]

There used to be a picture as well :p

There used to be a picture as well :p
I've seen pictures of geoducks, and I can only conclude that Russian women living in Paris don't know what a penis looks like.

Praytell, how many said orders were legal? And did German Jews have a "duty" to defend their country? Don't be so simplistic.

'Go to Poland and invade it', before the UN, was perfectly legal. German Jews had no requirement to defend their nation because of their inability to do so and the fact that according to the Nazis they weren't Germans anyway.

I've seen pictures of geoducks, and I can only conclude that Russian women living in Paris don't know what a penis looks like.

Well I hope they didn't indulge in any close inspections :p

'Go to Poland and invade it', before the UN, was perfectly legal. German Jews had no requirement to defend their nation because of their inability to do so and the fact that according to the Nazis they weren't Germans anyway.
Wrong. Invading Poland was highly illegal, under the terms of the charter of the League of Nations, the Kellogg-Briand Treaty, and a slew of others. Your ignorance on this matter really makes arguing with you pointless.

German Jews would be perfectly capable of defending Germany. After all, Blacks defended the Confederate States of America, and there were Gypsies in most Eastern European armies in WWII.

Wrong. Invading Poland was highly illegal, under the terms of the charter of the League of Nations, the Kellogg-Briand Treaty, and a slew of others. Your ignorance on this matter really makes arguing with you pointless.

German Jews would be perfectly capable of defending Germany. After all, Blacks defended the Confederate States of America, and there were Gypsies in most Eastern European armies in WWII.

As to part 1; sorry, my mistake. Although, Germany was not, in 1939, a member of the League of Nations, so is it still bound by them? And; the Kellog-Briand treaty is obviously not followed - it makes war illegal.

As to part 2; Jews were banned from the army.

As to part 2; Jews were banned from the army.

I'm fairly sure there were Jews in the navy at the onset of the war just a side note.

Maybe; but to my knowledge only German citizens could join the forces, and Jews were not citizens. Anyway; all of this argument only applies to the German soldiers carrying out specific orders, and does not change the basic duty of national defense.

As to part 1; sorry, my mistake. Although, Germany was not, in 1939, a member of the League of Nations, so is it still bound by them? And; the Kellog-Briand treaty is obviously not followed - it makes war illegal.

As to part 2; Jews were banned from the army.
All nations were bound by League laws, as all are now bound by UN laws.

And SS officers were supposed to be blonde haired and blue eyed, yet included Albanians. And national defence is NOT a basic duty. It can be considered a duty if it's your job, and even then I'd argue you had to be a volunteer, but to paraphrase Chris Rock: "I don't care if I see a Russian tank driving down Broadway, I aint fightin'"

National defense is a moral duty; if a country protects you and helps you when you're in trouble, the provided that your job is not essential to its survival then surely you have some kind of obligation to help it out when its in trouble? And, as I established earlier, WWII armies were professional or at least so well trained conscripts as to be considered professionals. And Mr. Rock is just selfish.

National defense is a moral duty; if a country protects you and helps you when you're in trouble, the provided that your job is not essential to its survival then surely you have some kind of obligation to help it out when its in trouble? And, as I established earlier, WWII armies were professional or at least so well trained conscripts as to be considered professionals. And Mr. Rock is just selfish.
National defence is NOT a moral duty. I am Australian. My country has not done one damn thing for me, and has gone out of its way to make my life hell on many occasions. Far from protecting and helping me when I've been in trouble, my country has kicked the crap out of me while I was down. If this country were invaded tomorrow, unless the invaders were people I despised more than my own nation, I'd likely join them. I mean that.

Anyone who feels that a moral duty is owed to a place that they just happened to be born in is not basing that opinion on an ounce of logic. If one was born in Saudi Arabia, would one be beholden to defend it? How about Pakistan? Afghanistan? North Korea? It's a blatantly wrong argument.

The Italian and Soviet armies, among others, was damn sure not well trained. Neither were most Germans towards the end, though quite a few were battle-hardened. And to furnish you with Mr Rock's full quote:

"I aint fightin'. I don't care if I see a Russian tank driving down Fifth Avenue (got it wrong earlier) I aint killin' nobody."

That seems more like he values human life than he's selfish. Especially since it wasn't part of the joke, I'd heard the routine before, he ad-libbed "I aint killin' nobody."

National defence is NOT a moral duty. I am Australian. My country has not done one damn thing for me, and has gone out of its way to make my life hell on many occasions. Far from protecting and helping me when I've been in trouble, my country has kicked the crap out of me while I was down. If this country were invaded tomorrow, unless the invaders were people I despised more than my own nation, I'd likely join them. I mean that.

Anyone who feels that a moral duty is owed to a place that they just happened to be born in is not basing that opinion on an ounce of logic. If one was born in Saudi Arabia, would one be beholden to defend it? How about Pakistan? Afghanistan? North Korea? It's a blatantly wrong argument.

The Italian and Soviet armies, among others, was damn sure not well trained. Neither were most Germans towards the end, though quite a few were battle-hardened. And to furnish you with Mr Rock's full quote:

"I aint fightin'. I don't care if I see a Russian tank driving down Fifth Avenue (got it wrong earlier) I aint killin' nobody."

That seems more like he values human life than he's selfish. Especially since it wasn't part of the joke, I'd heard the routine before, he ad-libbed "I aint killin' nobody."

Consider this - you are probably richer than some people. Of those, there are some of the mwho would like to beat you up and take your house and family and use them for their own nefarious ends. The state is the only thing between you and them.

Your country is not the place you were born. You can choose, up to a point, where you make your home. And nationality is, on your part, a one-way thing - the fact that the tribe, natin or empire or whatever never did anything for you does not mean that you should do nothing for them. If yo dfend your country, you defend everyone in it.

Even if the armies were not well-trained, the people still had to obe the orders of men with greater rank than them (and the Soviets did so, on numerous occasions). Chris Rock has failed to appreciate, as well, that those guys in a Russia Tank driving down Fifth Avenue do not share his sentiment, and are perfectly willing to open fire on his countrymen who stand in the way. You would applaud somebody who stood in the face of the enemy unarmed, why not the guy with the gun who helps repel them?

Consider this - you are probably richer than some people. Of those, there are some of the mwho would like to beat you up and take your house and family and use them for their own nefarious ends. The state is the only thing between you and them.
My state doesn't protect my home, I do. Anyone who wants it is welcome to try and take it; unlike Mr Rock, I'm more than capable of killing a man. My family they can have.

Your country is not the place you were born. You can choose, up to a point, where you make your home. And nationality is, on your part, a one-way thing - the fact that the tribe, natin or empire or whatever never did anything for you does not mean that you should do nothing for them. If yo dfend your country, you defend everyone in it.
I have no option but to remain in Australia - I simply do not possess the necessary funds to escape it.

Why should I protect anyone who has never protected me? I certainly don't give a damn about the average troglodyte that inhabits this nation. They can all burn for all I care. There's some I like enough to go out of y way somewhat to protect, but if rage-infected humans enter the bedroom, I'm shutting the door and leaving them to die while I leave through the window.

Even if the armies were not well-trained, the people still had to obe the orders of men with greater rank than them (and the Soviets did so, on numerous occasions). Chris Rock has failed to appreciate, as well, that those guys in a Russia Tank driving down Fifth Avenue do not share his sentiment, and are perfectly willing to open fire on his countrymen who stand in the way. You would applaud somebody who stood in the face of the enemy unarmed, why not the guy with the gun who helps repel them?
Who said anything about not applauding soldiers? I have no problem with people who choose a military life: I almost did so myself, though not out of love for my country. I was interested in acquiring practical skills which would enable me to either dominate or leave it.

While we're on the subject, I wouldn't applaud anyone who fought or did not fight simply for doing one of those two things. It's the reasons why that matter. Which is why that guy at Tiananmen standing in front of the tank was beyond commendable, whereas some drunken hobo standing in front of a tank... Somewhat less impressive.

My state doesn't protect my home, I do. Anyone who wants it is welcome to try and take it; unlike Mr Rock, I'm more than capable of killing a man. My family they can have.


It does, though. If you see someone trying to commit a crime andyou dial 999 (or whatever the Australians have) the police will come and help you out


I have no option but to remain in Australia - I simply do not possess the necessary funds to escape it.


Not the point - at least you have the right to


Why should I protect anyone who has never protected me? I certainly don't give a damn about the average troglodyte that inhabits this nation. They can all burn for all I care. There's some I like enough to go out of y way somewhat to protect, but if rage-infected humans enter the bedroom, I'm shutting the door and leaving them to die while I leave through the window.


I can't really argue with that - if you want to be a self-interested sort who doesn't give a damn for others, fine.


Who said anything about not applauding soldiers? I have no problem with people who choose a military life: I almost did so myself, though not out of love for my country. I was interested in acquiring practical skills which would enable me to either dominate or leave it.


Did you eventually settle for a career as a Bond villan? ;)


While we're on the subject, I wouldn't applaud anyone who fought or did not fight simply for doing one of those two things. It's the reasons why that matter. Which is why that guy at Tiananmen standing in front of the tank was beyond commendable, whereas some drunken hobo standing in front of a tank... Somewhat less impressive.

Interesting... does the intent or the consequences make an act moral/sinful? Anyone who willingly opposes the enemy is acting as they should, and anyone who opposes the enemy successfully is acting more morally than one who fails. As one should aim to live as morally as possible, then it follows that there is an obligation upon everyone to defend the state if asked.

foot soldiers of the opposing army are in no way "the enemy".
the enemy are the ruling class who sent those two armies there to further their interests.

this discussion really is meaningless under the premises you guys lead it under...

foot soldiers of the opposing army are in no way "the enemy".
the enemy are the ruling class who sent those two armies there to further their interests.

this discussion really is meaningless under the premises you guys lead it under...
:lol: You're so refreshing.

:lol: You're so refreshing.

thanks....

It gets so much worse Sharwood... the holy is now mixed with the profane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallic_saints).

I find it amusing that Ireland was subjugated by the English a fair time before Wales was.

I find it amusing that Ireland was subjugated by the English a fair time before Wales was.
The control of Ireland was pretty transient and ineffective the first time the Normans invaded. I don't think it counts. :(

The control of Ireland was pretty transient and ineffective the first time the Normans invaded. I don't think it counts. :(

Maybe my memory was goofy, but I believe Ireland was invaded by Henry II, and the conquest of Wales happened under Edward I.

Maybe my memory was goofy, but I believe Ireland was invaded by Henry II, and the conquest of Wales happened under Edward I.
Yep, but Ireland was only nominally controlled by the English for most of that time while the English had a pretty good grasp on Wales earlier than that whole business with Cromwell and, later, the Boyne.

Ireland was invaded by Henry II, and the conquest of Wales happened under Edward I.

Answered your own question :)

It does, though. If you see someone trying to commit a crime andyou dial 999 (or whatever the Australians have) the police will come and help you out
You don't know much about my past history, do you? I grew up in a twon with a police academy, and trust me, the police are more likely to beat you and rob you than help out. Besides, by the time they arrive, you're likely to be dead anyway.

Not the point - at least you have the right to
Actually I don't. My government has been hedging on giving me a passport for months.

I can't really argue with that - if you want to be a self-interested sort who doesn't give a damn for others, fine.
I care for those who care for me. It just so happens that no-one has ever lifted a finger to help me.

Did you eventually settle for a career as a Bond villan? ;)
I tried for Stargate villian, but the show got cancelled. I seriously tried out for the part of a Trust henchman in what would have been Season 11.

Interesting... does the intent or the consequences make an act moral/sinful? Anyone who willingly opposes the enemy is acting as they should, and anyone who opposes the enemy successfully is acting more morally than one who fails. As one should aim to live as morally as possible, then it follows that there is an obligation upon everyone to defend the state if asked.
I think you must have been drunk when you typed that. I believe intent is more important than consequences when judging the morality of an act, but they are still intertwined. After all, the Dawes Act was intended to help Native Americans, and pretty much destroyed the culture of numerous tribes and opened them to even more exploitation than previously.

But how in God's name you get the rest of that paragraph, I'll never know. I've already told you not to look at things so simplistically, but that's not just simplistic, it's weird.

foot soldiers of the opposing army are in no way "the enemy".
the enemy are the ruling class who sent those two armies there to further their interests.

this discussion really is meaningless under the premises you guys lead it under...
I offer no argument to the contrary.

It gets so much worse Sharwood... the holy is now mixed with the profane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phallic_saints).
I think Rasputin was worse.

You don't know much about my past history, do you? I grew up in a twon with a police academy, and trust me, the police are more likely to beat you and rob you than help out. Besides, by the time they arrive, you're likely to be dead anyway.

The sad thing is that the cops are so utterly inefficient it makes your eyes water. You can be standing outside a police station being mugged and beaten up and nobody will come to your assistance (despite placing a call), you can find dead bodies outside police stations and the cops will go "Hmmm when did that get here (happened) and you can be beaten up by the cops for being just a touch drunk or indignant such that you end up having a heart attack (a case of each happened). Charming.

It isn't just Australia's police force being incompetent... that kind of crap is fairly endemic to most Western countries now. The whole militarization of the police and the them and us mentality that pervades the police force is no good thing.

After all, the Dawes Act was intended to help Native Americans, and pretty much destroyed the culture of numerous tribes and opened them to even more exploitation than previously.

Australian missions for Aboriginals... the shutting down of Native Schools in New Zealand... all 'good policies' with horrible consequences.

the enemy are the ruling class who sent those two armies there to further their interests.

What about the Soviet Union and other Socialist paradises with apparently no 'ruling elite'? Or the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain? It takes the people to obey to get armies together.

What about the Soviet Union and other Socialist paradises with apparently no 'ruling elite'? Or the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain? It takes the people to obey to get armies together.

from where do you get that there was no ruling class in the soviet union?
as far as i remember the bolsheviks took control of the revolution and thus the country pretty fast, with lenin making a final and bloody statement in st. petersburg in 1921.

then:
1. anarcho-syndicalists in spain were fighting a revolution.
2. what happened after this during the spanish civil war is a complicated issue and the republican army was in no way anarcho-syndicalist.

from where do you get that there was no ruling class in the soviet union?
as far as i remember the bolsheviks took control of the revolution and thus the country pretty fast, with lenin making a final and bloody statement in st. petersburg in 1921.

then:
1. anarcho-syndicalists in spain were fighting a revolution.
2. what happened after this during the spanish civil war is a complicated issue and the republican army was in no way anarcho-syndicalist.
Yes, it's the sad truth: even anarchists' armies (ones who were nominally anarchists anyway) like the Makhnovites had a ruling class.

Emphasis being on the 'Ruling class'/

makhno had more of a cult running than an anarchist society...

unlike the st.petersburg/kronstadt soviet.

makhno had more of a cult running than an anarchist society...

unlike the st.petersburg/kronstadt soviet.
Psh, they were simply petty bourgeois!

yeah, especially those sailors who happened to have been the backbone of the russian revolution.

Just read now in wikipedia:

The time the US army lost the most B 52 airplanes at a time in World War 2 was due to an eruption of the vesuvio in Italy ;)

yeah, especially those sailors who happened to have been the backbone of the russian revolution.
Lies - they were members of the fifth column all along!

Just read now in wikipedia:

The time the US army lost the most B 52 airplanes at a time in World War 2 was due to an eruption of the vesuvio in Italy ;)

Neat trick, as the B-52 didn't exist in World War II.

I mistiped B-25 ;) (although I cannot verify it, I just read it in wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Vesuvius#Eruptions_in_the_20th_century)

Speaking of WWII, Italy bombed Loch Ness to kill Nessie. Those monsters.

Speaking of WWII, Italy bombed Loch Ness to kill Nessie. Those monsters.
did they really?!

My favorite piece of history is the Doolittle Raid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doolittle_Raid) a harebrained scheme to improve US morale in a time when we were getting our butts kicked in the Pacific war . The wikipedia article is missing several interesting details. For instance, the bomber crew that made it to Soviet Union after the raid got imprisoned in Siberia. They wrote a letter to Stalin complaining about the cold(they were well prepared for tropical Pacific islands, not Siberia). Stalin took pity on the men... and relocated them to a desert. :lol:

did they really?!
No, I made it up.

What about the Soviet Union and other Socialist paradises with apparently no 'ruling elite'? Or the anarcho-syndicalists in Spain? It takes the people to obey to get armies together.

People in charge /= ruling elite. They were not anarchists, you know.

People in charge /= ruling elite.
Actually, people in charge usually = ruling elite for all intents and purposes. :p

I love the failure of the March Offensive. The huge stores of supplies that the French and British were forced to leave behind proved to be more effective at stopping the German Army than their troops had been.

:lol: Does anyone have some kind of source for this? :)

No, I made it up.
I was about to say.... I just wanted to make sure because there are some crazy facts in history that happened that I wouldn't've expected

I was about to say.... I just wanted to make sure because there are some crazy facts in history that happened that I wouldn't've expected
I think you missed my sarcasm there. It really did happen, and Italy triumphantly crowed that they'd killed the monster.

I think you missed my sarcasm there. It really did happen, and Italy triumphantly crowed that they'd killed the monster.
Don't mess with my head. Unless you provide me with at least three independent and respectable sources, I don't believe Italian aircraft ever could have gotten as far as Scotland, even if they had been crazy enough to set such an objective.

EDIT: Made a Google search and found this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R26O904LLPAWM5

Well, them jokingly boasting they did it =/= them actually doing it.

Don't mess with my head. Unless you provide me with at least three independent and respectable sources, I don't believe Italian aircraft ever could have gotten as far as Scotland, even if they had been crazy enough to set such an objective.

EDIT: Made a Google search and found this:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R26O904LLPAWM5

Well, them jokingly boasting they did it =/= them actually doing it.
They had a crack at it. It's not like I'm claiming they actually killed Nessie. We all know she returned to her homeworld with Elvis.

They had a crack at it. It's not like I'm claiming they actually killed Nessie. We all know she returned to her homeworld with Elvis.

:nono: You said they did bomb Loch Ness, however. :nono:



:lol:

:nono: You said they did bomb Loch Ness, however. :nono:



:lol:
:dunno: My encyclopaedia at home says they did. Then again, it also expressly states that "the Negro is inherently inferior to the White man," but it tends to be accurate on actual history, so long as Bismarck or "Zionists" aren't involved.

My mate actually has an old-skool textbook from a 1930s public school - with a whole chapter on why the White Man is superior. It's awesome stuff :D

My mate actually has an old-skool textbook from a 1930s public school - with a whole chapter on why the White Man is superior. It's awesome stuff :D
What's awesome about my encyclopaedia collection is that it was published in 1979!

It's weird, it has a lot of very good, and from my subsequent research, accurate articles, including about such things as the Anglo-Zulu War and black Kingdoms in Africa. It's article on Mohammed Ali (Cassius Clay) is very good, as is the one on Malcolm X. But the article on the Black Panthers describes them as, I am not joking here, my all-time favourite word: uppity.

It tells the truth about the Holocaust, but claims The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are real. How did I not become a neo-Nazi, reading that at 8, maybe even younger? I legitimately thought "Zionists" were some sort of worldwide terrorist organisation bent on world domination, somwhat similar to Cobra from GI Joe, or KAOS from Get Smart. You can see why I brought them with me when I move. Closest thing I have to a sentimental possession.

I love how Christopher Columbus did a full circle in the atlantic ocean then got lost a billion times before discovering what he thought was Asia.

I like it when both sides claim victory in a battle, like the battle of Edgehill in the English Civil War.

Personally, I thought fighting was the winner of the day.

I have a 5.25 inch shell casing from the King George V battleship that my grandfather gave to me once. It's really neat sitting there on the bookcase.

I have a 5.25 inch shell casing from the King George V battleship that my grandfather gave to me once. It's really neat sitting there on the bookcase.
Not exactly what was meant by "favourite little piece of history," but that's cool anyway. Did he serve onboard, and how did he come by it?

He did serve aboard the ship, and he said that he just snuck it into his pocket once.

He did serve aboard the ship, and he said that he just snuck it into his pocket once.
Got to love that security.

Because there's a lot someone could do with an empty shell casing?

It's also a 5.25 inch shell casing... he could have put it in his pants but the phrase 'are you happy to see me?' would have taken on mythical proportions.

Because there's a lot someone could do with an empty shell casing?
Well, if he can take a shell casing I assume he has access to more dangerous stuff.

And if he slipped it into his pants, considering the average size penis is six inches, he may have wound up embarrassing himself.

But it's 5.25 inches in diameter

But it's 5.25 inches in diameter
What, and yours isn't?

Infraction for spam. - KD

Of course not. I have a penis, not an oil drum! :p

Infraction for spam. - KD

Of course not. I have a penis, not an oil drum!

Guilty on both counts :p

I also now see where the Banana bit came from ;)

Infraction for spam. - KD

Of course not. I have a penis, not an oil drum! :p
Further research has revealed the average size is six inches in length. No wonder my girlfriends have always freaked out.

Speaking of bananas, do you... No, not going there.

Spam. See above. - KD

Well, I am Asian...

Spam. See above. - KD

I don't know how this degenerated into a discussion of penis length, but in the interests of getting the thread back on track... :rolleyes:

My favorite little bit of history is how the last battle of the Civil War was fought ..... in Alaska.
(It's a bit of a simplification, but you can Google "CSS Shenandoah" for the full story.)

Well, one little bit of history (disputed, but nonetheless) I find interesting, is how Jean Luc Picard's remains were discovered in North America (http://kennewickpicard.ytmnd.com/) fueling debates over when Europeans first came to North America.

Kennewick man, indeed! I'm not too much on Star Trek, but I thought it was Data that lost his head in (then) ancient San Francisco.

Warned for spam. - KD

My favourite piece of history is Italy's heroic efforts in WWII. They had 300,000 men in North Africa when they invaded Egypt and the British had only 36,000. We all know the outcome. And when they invaded Greece, they were pushed back into Albania and nearly pushed right out of the Balkans. Italy's effort in WWI is also quite good. Stabbing the Central powers in the back they oppurtunistically attacked the undefended Austrian border while they were busy with the Russians. They good all of 12kms into Austrian territory by the time Russia had surrendered and then the Austrians launched their counter-offensive and pushed the Italians right back. Once again the Italians had to wait for its allies to help it before it could do anything important.

I've developed a theory. Nations have a finite amount of military talent to call upon during the history of the universe. Italy used all of its talent in a very short period of time by building (arguably) the greatest empire the world has ever known. That's why, ever since that empire, they've sucked.

So, we'll never see a powerful Germany again?

Nope, and I'd keep an eye on Greenland if I were you.

I've developed a theory. Nations have a finite amount of military talent to call upon during the history of the universe. Italy used all of its talent in a very short period of time by building (arguably) the greatest empire the world has ever known. That's why, ever since that empire, they've sucked.
Italy's had some genial military leaders since then. Raimondo Montecuccoli?

I don't know... Germany managed to be powerful a few times, in various forms, Persia's had a few stints and even France managed to bounce back after Waterloo to become one of the world's premier imperial powers.

Italy was actually very successful in choosing the winning side from 1859 to 1918. They even won a couple of wars by themselves (Italo-Turkish and the (temporary) conquest of Ethiopia in 1937, and they took over Albania somehow). Otherwise, they got other people to win their wars for them.

I've developed a theory. Nations have a finite amount of military talent to call upon during the history of the universe. Italy used all of its talent in a very short period of time by building (arguably) the greatest empire the world has ever known. That's why, ever since that empire, they've sucked.

Another theory is that there is a finite amount of intelligence in the world. The population is growing. You do the math.

Italy was actually very successful in choosing the winning side from 1859 to 1918. They even won a couple of wars by themselves (Italo-Turkish and the (temporary) conquest of Ethiopia in 1937, and they took over Albania somehow). Otherwise, they got other people to win their wars for them.
And there's the renaissance of Italian arms in 1918 that culminated in the victory of Vittorio Veneto, which was a surprisingly expert operation integrating fifty-one divisions of the Italian army with about five from the other Allies, and which included Marlboroughnic distracting attacks and even an amphibious assault on Trieste. Austria-Hungary suffered nearly half a million casualties including prisoners.

Italy's had some genial military leaders since then. Raimondo Montecuccoli?
*sigh* Must you point out flaws in my clearly non-serious statements?

There are a few exceptions here and there, but I think you'll find said military leaders probably studied other brilliant leaders from other nations and stole their ideas. The proof of my theory is Mongolia. How many continents have they conquered lately, hmm?

The real threat to world peace is Sealand. They've yet to produce a single brilliant military leader. It's coming, soon they will burst out of that oil rig with unrelenting savagery and prowess. We need to fortify Sark, and now.

i liked the 1600's and 1700's my Favorite civilization was the Dutch.they fought for a hundred years to be independent until 1648 AD and built a major empire that had colonies all over the world. other civilizations the Dutch contacted was the Zulu's the Iroquois, japanese and the indonesians and others

once the Dutch East india company was bulit the Dutch could Sail there ships faster and thus conduct more trade.in 1653 Cape town was founded.in 1664 a serius blow was delt when the new netherlands colony was lost.the capitals were Fort Orange and New Amsterdam the city wall built in the town of New Amsterdam became legendary and when it was one many years later a street was contructed called "wall street" which is very fitting because the stock market was invented in the netherlands in the 1500's ad

its also important to note that when the independence of Netherlands was reconized in the peace of Westphalia in 1648 another nation was also reconized called Switzerland parodoxically Netherlands and Switzerland were both under attack by the Holy Roman Empire this empire was really a long standing Alliance between Germany ,Austria ,and Italy but when the italian states fell away from the empire it was dominated by Austria paradoxically in a few centuries the strond state of Germany ended up being Prussia which existed till 1947 when it was abolished and broken up and germany was partitioned and set up with only 16 states.

when the Napolean wars were raging in the late 1700's and early 1800's thats when the Dutch civilization faced many problems in 1815 at the treaty of paris THe dutch had to give up the Cape Provence to the British from here till 1902 a rag tag group of Dutchmen calling them selves the boars fought a war to survive in the end in 1910 they had to become part of a United South Africa.

my favorite peace of History was from 1618 to 1664 when the dutch were in there prime

Well, the funniest thing about the Dutch (and another thing against Wikipedia) is that apparently, the English version of the ANglo-Dutch Wars says it was a draw, and the Dutch version (a friend told me this so it could be wrong) says it was a Dutch victory because William of Orange became King. :D

Well, the funniest thing about the Dutch (and another thing against Wikipedia) is that apparently, the English version of the ANglo-Dutch Wars says it was a draw, and the Dutch version (a friend told me this so it could be wrong) says it was a Dutch victory because William of Orange became King. :D
Not really- the Third Anglo-Dutch War, the last until 1780, was ended in 1674, 14 years before William took the throne, with what was more or less a draw, but one which allowed England's favoured candidate, William of Orange, to become Staatholder. He became King of England, not through conquest, but because the English nobility invited him to replace James II due to suspicions of Papist sympathies on his part. William's claim lay in the fact that he was married to Mary, James' daughter, and was a grandson of Charles I through his daughter, Mary (apparently, the Stewarts were a fan of the name), and was nominated because he was staunchly protestant. The Glorious Revolution, as it is known, was not a direct result of any Anglo-Dutch conflict.

England also won in the long run... :)

Does all that mean that the Netherlands won the War of 1812?

Does all that mean that the Netherlands won the War of 1812?
Nah, the personal union of England and the Netherlands was dissolved after William popped his clogs (no pun intended, honestly) and the House of Hanover ("the Georges") took over. I suppose it might mean that Hanover won the War of 1812, though... But after checking Wiki (out of sheer dorky interest), it seems that Hanover was under French Occupation at the time, so George was a sort of King-in-Exile during the war.

Nah, the personal union of England and the Netherlands was dissolved after William popped his clogs (no pun intended, honestly) and the House of Hanover ("the Georges") took over. I suppose it might mean that Hanover won the War of 1812, though... But after checking Wiki (out of sheer dorky interest), it seems that Hanover was under French Occupation at the time, so George was a sort of King-in-Exile during the war.
Hannover was only under occupation until late 1813, IIRC. French garrisons were cleared relatively rapidly following the Battle of Leipzig. A British artillery unit (using Congreve rockets, woohoo) might have actually deployed from there to the Saxony theater, I don't quite remember where their point of origin was.

So this means - through my new process of conclsuion-jumping - that Germany defeated the US in the War of 1812! Awesome.

Regarding the occupation of Hannover, the French were gone by 1814 - I think they left in October 1813, I'd have to dig up some books though to be sure - and were certainly long gone by 1815.

Battle of Waterloo was 1815

Battle of Waterloo was 1815
...yes...and that was part of the Hundred Days...which has nothing to do with Napoleon being chased out of Germany in the fall of 1813 following the Battle of Leipzig.

So this means - through my new process of conclsuion-jumping - that Germany defeated the US in the War of 1812! Awesome.

Regarding the occupation of Hannover, the French were gone by 1814 - I think they left in October 1813, I'd have to dig up some books though to be sure - and were certainly long gone by 1815.

The US didn't lose the war of 1812. It was a draw against what many considered the most powerful empire in the world.

Well, more or less.

Ignore the burning of the capitol, the home defense edge, and the itty bitty and totally insignificant distraction Britain had fighting that Napoleon fellow.

Ignore the burning of the capitol, the home defense edge, and the itty bitty and totally insignificant distraction Britain had fighting that Napoleon fellow.

Lets put it this way, you lost to what would in the future be Canada :p

Infraction for spam. - KD

Lets put it this way, you lost to what would in the future be Canada :p

We'll get them eventually. :p

Infraction for spam. - KD

Lets put it this way, you lost to what would in the future be Canada :p

You usually don't spend much time worrying about a suburb.

:D

Warning for spam. - KD

Lets put it this way, you lost to what would in the future be Canada :p
This is correct. Canada ftw!

Seriously, if you invade a nation and the result is a stalemate, you've lost the war. You have failed to achieve your goals, you've lost. It's very straightforward. I believe every nation on Earth counts the War of 1812 as an American defeat - in some cases, which I do not agree with, a debacle - except you damn yankees.

@west india man: And The Animals' version of "House of the Rising Sun" was re-recorded live in 2002.

No comment:

When Grigori Rasputin was murdered in 1916, some claim he was also castrated.[1] Since then, a number of people boasting to be in possession of his severed penis and testicles have come forth, although none of them have been able to come up with hard evidence.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasputin's_penis

none of them have been able to come up with hard evidence
This is classic. Whoever edited that and got it through is brilliant.

Hey, Sharwood, there are lots of Americans who won't admit we lost the War in Vietnam,.

Hey, Sharwood, there are lots of Americans who won't admit we lost the War in Vietnam,.
I know, and they're deluding themselves. I can do that too.

I went out with a girl I wanted to have sex with. She broke up with me and I didn't get to sleep with her. But that doesn't mean she rejected me, I had already decided I didn't want to sleep with her and besides, it was South Vietnam's fault.

Infraction for spam/threadjack. - KD

She broke up with me

There's a surprise. :lol:

There's a surprise.

It was South Vietnam's fault... didn't you READ the post?

Pls stop with the spamming and threadjacking in this thread, thanks. - KD

IIRC when the axis conquered Greece, Mussolini wanted a military parade through Athiens. Despite the potest from the German command Hitler let Mussolini have his parade. So when the German troops marched though the city they would have some cheering and clapping but when the Italian troops marched though the city no one would be clapping or cheering there would be just silence. When I read this I almost bust out laughing.

:bump:
Studying Albert Speer, I came across my new favourite piece of history.
In the closing stages of the war, Albert Speer was Minister for Economy in the Dönitz government. However, at the same time, he was a prisoner of the Americans, as they interrogated him about Germany's armaments industry and the 'armaments miracle'. This ridiculous situation is described by Matthias Schmidt as:
The resulting situation was grotesque: From May 10 to May 25, a still officiating minister of the German Reich, 'at liberty', was divulging secrets of the German armaments industry to the enemy.
Every afternoon, when Speer returned to Glücksburg Castle from the daily cabinet meeting, the interviewers, who then questioned him for hours, couldbe certain of hearing his opinion on the latest session of the Dönitz team. "A bad movie comedy" or "poor theater" were some of his barbs.
Just something I though I ought to share. :D