madviking
north american scum
What was the range of machine guns during WWI?
History questions not worth their own thread II
- Thread starter Plotinus
- Start date
- Status
You'll note that in the second photograph you really can't tell how high any of the chairs are. Photographers at the different Allied conferences had to follow precise instructions about when and what to photograph. No photos of any of the men standing as Roosevelt's polio was not common knowledge, no photos of FDR in his wheelchair (obviously) and all photos were to be from favourable angles. The first photograph in your post is a rare example of a revealing photograph slipping through the cracks. Most of them don't obviously reveal the differences in the three men's seating arrangements.
There's another one out the where Charles De Gaulle appears shorter than Roosevelt, when the man was a good 6ft 6inches tall, if not more. You can bet FDR, who hated De Gaulle, had that one shot on purpose. As it's likely that De Gaulle is behind the photo from Casablanca where Roosevelt is in his wheelchair, looking like a sick, haggard old man.
Cheezy might correct me on this, but from what I've read the Soviets themselves didn't really give a damn about Stalin's height. Most of his associates in Russia where themselves fairly short, and Stalin, who was of peasant origin, didn't care about his height. It was the Americans and British who were concerned with appearances at the Allied conferences and wished to make the three leaders appear equal in size. The Americans didn't want FDR's illness revealed and the British wanted to pretend that they were an equal partner. Stalin didn't really give a damn, he just wanted to achieve his political and diplomatic goals. Molotov and Beria did have him pursue a propaganda campaign in the US and UK during the war though, which may have intentionally disguised his height.
I was looking at some population statistics from 1890 to 1938 and while all the other major powers grew significantly (by at least 10 million each) in this period, France only grew from 38 million to about 42 million. I understand the reasons for the enormous growth in some of the newly industrialized countries compared to France (Japan, Italy) but even Britain grew from about 34 million, being less populous than France, to approximately 46 million in this time. What's the reason for this?
France's population had most of its growth earlier in the period. It was what allowed France, a relatively small country, to pull above its weight for such a long time. The growth also happens to have slowed during taillesskangaru's reference period when compared to the other European states. Interestingly enough, it was a major concern for the French in the lead-up to the First World War precisely because they no longer felt they had a numerical edge over the Germans something that was projected to keep growing as time went on. French relations with Russia were kept civil in part to balance out this and keep German fighting on a far more sustainable, for France, two fronts. It broadly speaking worked.
Because it experienced most of its population growth earlier than the rest of Europe? The Netherlands had much the same experience. Both reached a steady state in terms of population that could be supported by the core. This was to some extent, alleviated by importing food from the colonies. But take France as an example, it heavily subsidised its domestic food production by slapping high tariffs on imports. This worked to insulate France for the spectre of domestic starvation during war and ensured domestic tranquillity by keeping a substantial part of the electorate, small landowners, content. Unfortunately, it also proved to be a serious break on domestic population growth because prices for food were correspondingly higher which raised costs for having a larger family. Indubitably other factors including the much maligned cultural factors were in play but I think this is a far better mechanism (and the literature agrees) than specious claims about the reluctance of French women to push it.
Compare this to Germany which had only fairly recently entered into a customs union and later a political union. What is interesting, in the German case, is that Prussia historically had been a major exporter of wheat. This had gone in large part to Britain and had underwritten that countries population growth for some time by providing cheap abundant grain to the masses. This was soon diverted into the expanded German market and helped drive a growth in population. This process had more or less finished at the beginning of the First World War. There simply wasn't the redundancy in the system to provide for a further increase in population growth from Germany's domestic sources. Interestingly, Russian grain made up much of this shortfall and helped continue the process. The consequences of this are pretty obvious in the success of the Allied blockade in the First World War and to a lesser extent in the Second World War.
Britain which had lost the benefits of cheap Prussian grain over time replaced it with grain from Canada and the United States. Fortunately, this shift coincided with a period of rapid efficiency gains in transportation which eased the transition considerably. Eventually, with the introduction of refrigeration system the other white colonies including Australia and New Zealand got involved. Previously, neither had provided much in the way of foodstuffs to Britain. Most of what we produced was far to perishable to make the journey. With this technological change it became possible for lamb from New Zealand and cattle from Australia to be consumed in Great Britain.
Compare this to Germany which had only fairly recently entered into a customs union and later a political union. What is interesting, in the German case, is that Prussia historically had been a major exporter of wheat. This had gone in large part to Britain and had underwritten that countries population growth for some time by providing cheap abundant grain to the masses. This was soon diverted into the expanded German market and helped drive a growth in population. This process had more or less finished at the beginning of the First World War. There simply wasn't the redundancy in the system to provide for a further increase in population growth from Germany's domestic sources. Interestingly, Russian grain made up much of this shortfall and helped continue the process. The consequences of this are pretty obvious in the success of the Allied blockade in the First World War and to a lesser extent in the Second World War.
Britain which had lost the benefits of cheap Prussian grain over time replaced it with grain from Canada and the United States. Fortunately, this shift coincided with a period of rapid efficiency gains in transportation which eased the transition considerably. Eventually, with the introduction of refrigeration system the other white colonies including Australia and New Zealand got involved. Previously, neither had provided much in the way of foodstuffs to Britain. Most of what we produced was far to perishable to make the journey. With this technological change it became possible for lamb from New Zealand and cattle from Australia to be consumed in Great Britain.
You know Tibet is a pretty awesome country if you think about it. But I've seen several maps which show Tibet owning Bengal at some point in the 700's and I haven't seen anything to indicate that actually happened, what exactly is that being based on? Most curious indeed.
Indeed. Wikipedia says so, and I remember I read it in a book somewhere, but I can find no sources.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
What were the primary causes of the British Empire becoming a global economic and military power, other than the luck in having achieved military supremacy in India during the Seven Years' War and their general inclination to having a large navy?
The wiki article for Nineveh 627 seems to have been substantially rewritten by a new author. Can anyone comment on the veracity of this account ?
Whoever did it basically employed Walter Kaegi's Herakleios book, plus Norwich's subpar history. It's mostly a single-source revision. It's not terrible, but unbalanced in favor of that book's interpretation of a relatively indecisive battle. Personally, I like James Howard-Johnston's version better, because it does not contradict the Armenian chronicler Sebeos' claim of a "decisive engagement" that destroyed the Sasanian army as a fighting force. Anyway, it's better than the Charles Oman-inspired nonsense that came before, although it takes no account whatsoever of secondary literature. Probably some high schooler.
GinandTonic
Saphire w/ Schweps + Lime
- Joined
- May 25, 2005
- Messages
- 8,898
The location on an island removing the need for a large expensive army in favour of a large fleet and a small professional army. Then Antwerp was put out of business by the Peace of Munster, effectively putting international commerce up for grabs.
So as England becomes richer chasing the trade its investment in its navy and small professional army to protect that trade becomes what we would now term power projection.
madviking
north american scum
What are the basic differences between bushido and European chivalry?
nonconformist
Miserable
Bushido was invented in the 1920s as a way iof galvanisaing the Japanese Imperial Army.
- Status
Similar threads
