History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VIII

[Ajidica]

Why did rationing in the United Kingdom last so long after the end of World War II?

Short answer is, Britain was still running a wartime economy into the 1950s. Huge areas of Europe had been devastated by the war, so weren't producing agricultural surpluses that could be exported to Britain, and indeed surpluses from relatively unaffected like Australia and South America were diverted to Europe to prevent famine. Britain also maintained a wartime army through this period, and keeping the troops fed remained a priority. This was all exacerbated by very poor farming years in 1946 and 1947, leading to shortages of staples like bread and potatoes, and delaying a return to normal production.

It was also in part because the rationing suited the egalitarian policies of the new Labour government. Although rationing is typically seen in terms of constricting food supplies, it also ensured that almost everyone recieved a baseline of food at a controlled price, and some very poor people ate better during the war years than they had in peacetime. Labour were unwilling to sacrifice this control and risk abandoning the poor to a still-unstable market until they could guarantee genuine plenty. Immediately after the war, the Conservatives were still too anxious about the favourable reputation of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party, seeing the rise of Soviet-backed regimes cross Central and Eastern Europe and remembering how close Britain had come to revolution after the previous war, so they quietly accepted the continuation of what you might call "wartime socialism" until they satisfied that the threat of revolution had passed.

Basically what Traitorfish said. The UK found itself with even larger commitments in Europe and the US was withdrawing Lend-Lease aid and the Marshall Plan wasn't a thing until 1948. The UK was in desperate need of hard currency and wanted to keep the Sterling Area together so it imposed export quotas and maintained very strict import controls. Also, rebuilding from the war was going to be both expensive and inflationary. Rationing allowed the government to maintain both price controls and wage controls. And to some degree Labour probably enjoyed seeing the Poxbridge born-to-rule crowd squirm under rationing.

 

[Agent327]

You should come to the US sometime. Segregation still exists. Not in as formal a way as before, but it remains government policy. It is not voluntary.

Either it's policy, or it's not. If it doesn't exist in a formal way, it doesn't exist. I'm not sure how me coming to the US sometime will alter that. The fact that segregated communities exist, is a well-known fact; it's not a US thing either.

 

[Cutlass]

Either it's policy, or it's not. If it doesn't exist in a formal way, it doesn't exist. I'm not sure how me coming to the US sometime will alter that. The fact that segregated communities exist, is a well-known fact; it's not a US thing either.

It is policy. It just uses an end run around the fact that it can no longer explicitly say 'Negros not allowed.'

 

[Agent327]

I'm afraid you have to do a little better than ' it exists, I say so' here.

 

[Silurian]

Regent Street as well?

Regent Street was rebuilt in the 1895-1927.

Map of bombs on Westend. The key gives 2500kg bombs, parachute mines and others. So I assume that most of the red dots are smaller bombs than 2500kg.
Regent Street was not destroyed in the Blitz.

http://www.westendatwar.org.uk/images/uploaded/originals/Medium_sized_bomb_map.jpg

http://www.westendatwar.org.uk/page_id__99.aspx?path=0p28p

 

[Cutlass]

What were the small arms, pistols and rifles, and general soldiers equipment common to European armies circa the 1870s-80s-90s?

 

[JohannaK]

The YouTube channel C&Rsenal basically does WWI weapons, but especially in their crossovers with the The Great War Channel, they introduce the weapons by talking about their predecessors in whatever military they are talking about. In some cases they do show pretty obsolete stuff that made it to the frontline simply by virtue of being in stock while production of new guns was unable to keep up with mobilisation. For example, Romania modernised its armaments with Austrian-produced guns, then went to war on the Entente side, which was a logistical nightmare when they ran out of their Austrian ammo stockpiles.

 

[Jessica Davis]

Hi all,

This is my first time posting. This is a personal post; I hope that is allowed.
My whole life my family have claimed my Australian grandfather was awarded the key to the city of Osaka for helping open trade between Japan and Australia.
I wish to find some sort of evidence that this is true or not.
I know keys are usually awarded to people who are from those cities and I'm not even sure Osaka offers this honour; but this little bit of doubt just makes me more curious to find the truth.
I have tried to search myself online, but as a first time, amateur, "historical researcher", I am not making any progress.
Can anyone enlighten or advise me on this subject?
Anything would be much appreciated.

Thank you.

Moderator Action: Moved from its own thread - FP

 

[Absolution]

Why does the geopolitical term "Germany" cover smaller territories than those covered by Germanic peoples? Even if we narrow it to West Germanics...

- Is it because this is what Romans considered to be the homeland of Germanic tribes? Or is it an 19th century division?
- Did the territories of later Austria and the Netherlands count as parts of geopolitical Germany back then?
- Is it correct to assume that those West Germanic groups who today inhabit Germany and Austria are more closely related to each other than to the Dutch, Frisian, English or whatever else there is in N/W Europe? Or am I just misled by modern nationalism?

 

[Flying Pig]

It was historically complicated. For at least most of the 19th century, people could say 'Germany' to mean everywhere that people spoke German or Dutch (which was seen as a dialect of German). While Germany was politically disunited, it was up in the air as to which states and statelets you included in your idea of 'Germany', and people could have different, contradictory ideas. Once 'Germany' came to exist as a country founded as the homeland of the 'German people', and stuck around, it became much harder to argue that 'Germany' and, well, Germany were anything different, though people in Austria and Germany continued to do so. However, it might have turned out differently. The earlier 'German Confederation' included Austria, and turning that into a single German state was not off the table. The issue is usually called the 'German Question', if you're interested.

 

[Absolution]

It was historically complicated. For at least most of the 19th century, people could say 'Germany' to mean everywhere that people spoke German or Dutch (which was seen as a dialect of German). While Germany was politically disunited, it was up in the air as to which states and statelets you included in your idea of 'Germany', and people could have different, contradictory ideas. Once 'Germany' came to exist as a country founded as the homeland of the 'German people', and stuck around, it became much harder to argue that 'Germany' and, well, Germany were anything different, though people in Austria and Germany continued to do so. However, it might have turned out differently. The earlier 'German Confederation' included Austria, and turning that into a single German state was not off the table. The issue is usually called the 'German Question', if you're interested.

From a quick reading about it, I see that Austria actually supported the idea of a wider German unification under their realm.
I got me wondering - Didn't the Austrian wish to identify themselves first as Austrians? Did they really accept the idea of a German nation (that includes Austria)?

 

[Flying Pig]

A lot of Austrian policy throughout the age of nationalism was trying to keep German nationalism down, because of the problem in there - that a German nation could include Austria (as long as you weren't too fussy about confession, which a lot of nationalists were), but couldn't include Hungary or the other bits of the Austrian empire. Those Austrians (pre-1914, after which things changed) who did push for a 'Big Germany' solution didn't see it as a nation-state in the same way, but rather a huge, multinational and rather vague confederation like the Holy Roman Empire had been. The idea of an 'Austrian nation' was tied very closely to Catholicism, but was never anything like as strong as German nationalism, and only really became politically noticeable after German unification.

Edited out some things that aren't true.

 

[Hrothbern]

Why does the geopolitical term "Germany" cover smaller territories than those covered by Germanic peoples? Even if we narrow it to West Germanics...

- Is it because this is what Romans considered to be the homeland of Germanic tribes? Or is it an 19th century division?
- Did the territories of later Austria and the Netherlands count as parts of geopolitical Germany back then?
- Is it correct to assume that those West Germanic groups who today inhabit Germany and Austria are more closely related to each other than to the Dutch, Frisian, English or whatever else there is in N/W Europe? Or am I just misled by modern nationalism?

The issue you raise is very complex
I see some answers regarding more modern history.
My 2 cents for where it also originated linguistic

It already starts with using the English word Germany !
The Germans themselves use "Deutschland" since the year 1000 AD or so, same time as the Second Holy Empire formally started.

The Romans used Germania for "everything" up North of themselves except for the Helvetians.
It was what those people called themselves at that time: "Ger" means "Free" and Germans were Freemen.
Really Freemen: When Hermann (Arminius), who led the German tribes when defeating the Roman Legions in the Teutoburger Forest, after uniting all those autonomous tribes (pfff), wanted to become the surpreme leader of the Germans, he was killed by his own tribe. What he wanted was like blasphemy against their culture.

The French use Allemagne which comes from the tribe the "Alemannen" living in the area East of France. Roughly a big Switzerland extending into current South Germany and current France.
The Dutch, the Flemish and the Germans themselves use words derived from the word "Diets" meaning "the peoples language" and the common language of Flanders, the Netherlands and the North-Western part of current Germany.
From this "Diets" we get Deutschland (as Germans call it), we get Duitsland (as Flemish an Dutch people call it)
And in English the word Diets is remained in the word Dutch, now solely used only for the Netherlands.

So... it would be much better to use the word Deutschland instead of Germany.

 

[JohannaK]

Why would that be?

 

[sophie]

The issue you raise is very complex
I see some answers regarding more modern history.
My 2 cents for where it also originated linguistic

It already starts with using the English word Germany !
The Germans themselves use "Deutschland" since the year 1000 AD or so, same time as the Second Holy Empire formally started.

The Romans used Germania for "everything" up North of themselves except for the Helvetians.
It was what those people called themselves at that time: "Ger" means "Free" and Germans were Freemen.
Really Freemen: When Hermann (Arminius), who led the German tribes when defeating the Roman Legions in the Teutoburger Forest, after uniting all those autonomous tribes (pfff), wanted to become the surpreme leader of the Germans, he was killed by his own tribe. What he wanted was like blasphemy against their culture.

The French use Allemagne which comes from the tribe the "Alemannen" living in the area East of France. Roughly a big Switzerland extending into current South Germany and current France.
The Dutch, the Flemish and the Germans themselves use words derived from the word "Diets" meaning "the peoples language" and the common language of Flanders, the Netherlands and the North-Western part of current Germany.
From this "Diets" we get Deutschland (as Germans call it), we get Duitsland (as Flemish an Dutch people call it)
And in English the word Diets is remained in the word Dutch, now solely used only for the Netherlands.

So... it would be much better to use the word Deutschland instead of Germany.

Ok, so some of this stuff is good and correct, but your etymological information is way...not right.

Western words to describe "Germans" as in "people from Germany" come in 4 variants of 4 different etymological roots:

First you have the Germanic root; the Germanic word for themselves which is a du- or tu- word, e.g.:

English: Dutch
Dutch: Duits
German: Deutsch
Norwegian: tysk
Icelandic: þyskúr

These words all originate from the same source, PGmc. þeudo ("people"), from PIE tewteh ("people"). This is also where the Latin word "Teuton, Teutones" comes from.

while "diets" is indeed a Low German variant of the word I just referenced above, Diet as in the Holy Roman assembly has its origins in Latin via Greek: dieta (originally diaeta) from Gk: διατα, in both cases meaning "abode", "dwelling", "way of living" or "arbiter/arbitration". This word has nothing to do with the Germanic denonym.

Next you have the Roman name, Alemannus -i, which was probably brought into Latin from PGmc as a word meaning "all men". As you noted, this word was used in Latin to refer to a specific confederation of Germanic peoples which resided in modern day Bavaria and Franconia. This word came, by extension, to be a broad term used to refer to all people living in the region of modern-day Germany and speaking modern German:

Spanish: alemán
French: allemand
Portuguese: alemão

as well as the Celtic languages:

Welsh: Almaen
Breton: Alaman

Then you have Germannus, also a Latin word, although whose etymological origins are disputed and almost entirely unclear. It should be noted, though, that Germani, much like Alemanni, referred rather specifically to a confederation or a collection of confederations of Germanic peoples residing along the Rhine, and its use as a catch-all term only came later.

Finally you have the Slavic word for German, which derives ultimately from a PSlavic word /*němъ/ meaning "mute" (as in "unable to speak Slavic"). This word is reflected in basically all the slavic languages, such as (reproduced in romance letters cuz aint nobody got time for cyrillic):

Russian: némec
Bulgarian: nemec
Czech: Nemec
Polish: Niemiec
Slovak: Nemec

Also in Hungarian: német

 

[Arakhor]

Then that would be why you occasionally see Nemetzoi as a Byzantine term for the Germans.

 

[sophie]

Then that would be why you occasionally see Nemetzoi as a Byzantine term for the Germans.

Same Slavic root: the word also appears in Ottomon Turkish and modern-day Arabic

 

[Arakhor]

Today I learnt...

 

[JohannaK]

That some countries still call Germans barbarians? I love it.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why do English-speakers say "first, second, third" rather than "oneth, twoth, threeth"? I suspect it has something to do with Latin or French, stuff like this usually does, but why those numbers specifically, and not four through twenty?