Datasets:

Deojoandco

/

reddit_ah_v3

like 0

[ { "body": "Officially, Egypt was still an Ottoman province, as you mentioned - there was even a token tribute sent off to Istanbul every year.\n\nThe government system remained largely intact -- i.e., there was a Khedive, a council of ministers headed by a prime minister, government ministries and agencies and the like, however the power behind the throne was the British consul-General (Lord Cromer between 1883 and 1905), who called the shots, and basically ran affairs out of the British High Commission. \n\nThe British and French had taken over various government ministries in 1876 when Egypt first defaulted on its loans; these included the Ministry of the Interior (which oversaw agricultural production; the Europeans being eager to make certain that agricultural products that would fetch high prices on the world market were being grown efficiently and exported in the highest possible amounts) and the Ministry of Finance. It was, in fact, growing internal opposition to the European power over the Egyptian government that led to the military revolt under Col. Ahmad Urabi in the winter of 1881-82 that resulted in the British military incursion and occupation (whoopsie).\n\nDuring the occupation, all serious affairs outside of the Ministry of Waqf (religious endowments) and similar internal organs were run by the British--Europeans were either the ministers themselves or \"trustworthy\" Egyptians (usually western educated) would be installed, almost always with a European advisor or vice minister to make sure things were done properly. Servicing the debt was the top priority, and government services were reduced in order to make Egypt profitable (expenditures on education and public health, for example, did not exceed 1% of the national budget until after Cromer's tenure ended). \n\nThey de-emphasized industrial production, encouraging Egyptian companies instead to produce raw materials that could be sold to European factories (and then re-imported to Egypt as finished goods); they pushed agriculture in the direction of producing cash crops like cotton--even though Egypt produced high quality wheat and rice, these would then be exported and cheaper commodities would be brought in from India to feed the local population; the Suez Canal was operated wholly by the British and revenue from it went to its European operators. \n\nThe Khedive had no real choice but to go along with it. Ahmad II Hilmi got a bit feisty and hoped that WWI might lead to the Ottomans removing the British; he was on a visit to Constantinople when he was deposed by the British and replaced with his nephew Hussein Kamil - shortly thereafter Egypt was officially made a protectorate and Hussein Kamil became \"sultan.\"\n\nSo, on the surface, it wasn't the governmental structure that changed so much as who was actually installed into key positions within those structures, how the government was run, and what their priorities were.", "created_utc": 1571930688, "distinguished": null, "id": "f50oxyg", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/dmhe35/from_the_1880s_through_the_outbreak_of_world_war/f50oxyg/", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "Hello! As a Dutchman this post stood out to me, while I am not an expert on WW2 history, I will explain the history behind the German invasion of the Netherlands as I understand it.\n\n**World War 1**\n\nThe Netherlands maintained an armed neutrality throughout WW1 and declared itself to be neutral at the outbreak of the war, like Belgium. And just like Belgium, the Netherlands was militarily no match for the German Empire. Unlike Belgium however the Netherlands did not border any nations of the Allies, and there would be little military gain for the German Empire had it invaded the Netherlands. Not only would it have enlarged the area that needed to be occupied, it would have driven the newly formed Dutch government in exile to join the Allies, who could then make use of resources from the Dutch colonies in the Americas and Asia. The Netherlands were also an important trading partner for Germany during the war, as the Empire's waters were blockaded by the Royal Navy. Invading the Netherlands in WW1 was thus not seen as something that would be advantageous by the Germans.\n\n**Interbellum**\n\nDuring the 1920s and 1930s the Dutch economy would be hit hard by the Great Depression. Investment in the military effectively came to a standstill until then end of the 1930s. While the military brass of the Netherlands was aware of the aged equipment and the importance of tanks, anti-tank weapons and sub-machine guns, none of these weapons were purchased. Only in the latter half of the 1930s did modernisation begin, and by that time many countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Germany were already busy with their own rearmament programs and could thus not supply new weapons in any great numbers.\n\nWhen the Germans invaded the Netherlands on 10 may 1940, the Dutch soldiers were armed with 45 year old rifles, machine guns dating back to WW1, no tanks, 39 armoured cars, too few mortars and only 52 pieces of post-WW1 artillery. The military had been able to acquire new anti-tank guns and anti-aircraft guns however. The airforce was in a slightly more modern shape, flying a mixture of biplanes and more modern fixed-wing aircraft, but had to deal with unpreparedness and only 70 modern planes in total. When the troops were mobilised in August, not much time was spend training the troops, most soldier spend their time building bunkers and trenches instead of actually gaining military skills.\n\n**World War 2**\n\nThe German plan to invade of the Netherlands was primarily born out of the failures of WW1. The Germans had been unable to defeat France, and this was partially attributed to the fact that the Belgian front had been to narrow in the rear. To solve this, the Dutch province of Zuid-Limburg would have to be invaded to give the Germans more space to manoeuvre. The Netherlands could also serve as a beachhead for the British, which was of course not favorable for Germany. While the Dutch and German armies would have been quite similarly armed in 1914, the Germans now greatly had the upper hand when it came to firepower and mobility. The German soldiers and officers were also more experienced due to fighting in Poland.\n\nWhile the Dutch military put up a good fight and even won a number of battles, such as the Battle for The Hague and the Battle of the Afsluitdijk, they were unable to do much about German air superiority once the small Dutch airforce had been mostly destroyed. After the Bombing of Rotterdam, the Germans threaten to bomb Den Haag, Amsterdam, Utrecht and Haarlem if the Dutch government did not surrender, which it did. By the time the Netherlands capitulated on 15 May, half of the country was already taken by the Germans, and only in the province of Zeeland did fighting between Dutch and German soldiers continue for a little less than two more weeks, with the help of the Belgian, French and British forces.", "created_utc": 1567019271, "distinguished": null, "id": "eydil8p", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/cs94dh/why_did_the_german_army_invade_netherlands_in/eydil8p/", "score": 15 } ]

[ { "body": "Chapter VI of War Department Technical Manual [TM-E 30-451] (http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/wwIItms/TME30_451_1945.pdf), Handbook on German Military Forces, is concerned with Supply, Evacuation, and Movements. In general terms Section IV, Maintenance Requirements, details four types of daily ration quantities: for troops committed to combat, recuperating from combat or in northern Norway (Ration I); occupation and line-of-communication troops (Ration II); garrison troops in Germany (Ration III); and office workers and nurses in Germany (Ration IV). Total maximum ration quantities range from 1698g (Ration I) to 1483g (Ration IV) and consist of bread, meat/fish/cheese/eggs, vegetables, puddings and milk, seasoning, butter/lard/fats, coffee and sugar.\n\nIn the field troops could be issued with an iron ration (*Eiserne Portion*), along similar lines to US Army C- or K-rations, including canned meat and crackers. There's [an article by Doug Nash] (http://www.dererstezug.com/IronRation.htm) about the iron rations including quotes from a post-war U.S. Army Quartermaster Food and Container Institute report concerning the canned meat; apparently the pork was \"excellent in both appearance and flavor\", and the beef was also \"of excellent appearance and palatability\". \n\nIn the North African campaign German troops received Italian supplies including meat in cans stamped with \"AM\" for *Amministrazione Militare* (military administration); this wasn't very popular and gained a number of nicknames amongst Axis troops including *Alter Mann* (old man), *Arab Morto* (dead Arab) and\n*Asinus Mussolini* (Mussolini's ass). Luftwaffe pilot \"Macky\" Steinhoff mentions a meal of \"old man\" and scrambled eggs late in the war, plentiful supplies of AM tins having been taken as booty from Italy.\n", "created_utc": 1490860949, "distinguished": null, "id": "dflhcdy", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/628k4e/during_world_war_i_i_what_sort_of_rations_were/dflhcdy/", "score": 11 }, { "body": "As a follow on. What was the diet of Soviet soldiers. and how important was lend lease in their diet? Did they also eat spam?\n", "created_utc": 1490820298, "distinguished": null, "id": "dfkqusf", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/628k4e/during_world_war_i_i_what_sort_of_rations_were/dfkqusf/", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "The defender has the advantage of prepared defences (trenches and barbed wire). But the attackers has advantages, too. Typically, before a major attack, the attacker will accumulate large amounts of artillery ammunition, and will often bring in more guns. The attacker will use reconnaissance to locate enemy artillery positions (and other methods such as sound ranging and flash ranging, as far as possible), and will target those in the initial attack. As a result, the attacker often has a large artillery advantage early in the offensive (which is eroded as the offensive continues, as the defender brings in more ammunition and guns). In an ideal offensive - rarely achieved in practice - the attacker's artillery clears paths through the barbed wire, and kills the defenders in their trenches, so that the attackers only need to occupy the undefended trenches. Once in the trenches, the artillery fires a barrage (in the original and literal sense, a barrier) to stop counter-attacks from recapturing those trenches.\n\nIn practice, the defenders take cover in dugouts, leaving a minimal force exposed to the artillery fire in the trenches, and reoccupy the trenches when the infantry attacks. The attacker can counter this by having the infantry attack following as closely as possible behind the artillery (and tricks like stopping the artillery fire so that the defenders reoccupy the trenches expecting the infantry attack, but instead receive renewed artillery fire). And, even if the defenders aren't wiped out by the artillery attack, they can still take many casualties.\n\nFurther, the objectives of attacks are often high ground that overlooks the rest of the defences. If the attack succeeds, and the attacks retains control of the captured positions, they are often able to direct effective fire on the rest of the defensive positions. The defender is faced with the prospect of an even worse time in their defensive positions, with more chance of further attacks succeeding. To avoid this, they could abandon their positions and withdraw - forcing this to happen is often one of the major goals of the attacker (better to take key positions and force abandonment of the rest of the defences rather than grind away at the entire defensive position). The defender's other alternative is to counter-attack, to recapture the taken positions. This exposes the counter-attackers to artillery fire - often already firing as a barrage - and to small arms fire from the original attackers occupying the position. To make things worse, such counter-attacks often need to be made with little preparation and less-than-adequate forces. To wait to prepare will give the attackers-turned-defenders time to repair damage to the trenches, place barbed wire, and so on.\n\nSo while the attackers take many casualties from artillery, machine guns, and small arms fire as they attack, the defenders take many casualties from the initial artillery attack and in counter-attacks.\n\nNote that artillery was the main killer in combat and the main causer of wounds in the war. While soldiers in the trenches had good protection from small arms fire, they were still vulnerable to artillery (much less vulnerable than if they were in the open, but still vulnerable). If the trenches were too lightly defended, they couldn't be held against an attack. If the defenders remained in well-protected dugouts where they were safe against artillery, they couldn't defend against an infantry attack. Successful defence meant exposing your soldiers to enemy artillery, and that meant casualties.", "created_utc": 1552948386, "distinguished": null, "id": "eiu39co", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/b2igh0/why_defenders_took_so_high_casualties_during_the/eiu39co/", "score": 12 }, { "body": "Expanding a little on what /u/wotan_weevil wrote about the tactical problems faced by defenders, especially respecting artillery, and on what they alluded to about counterattacks; it might be useful to zoom out a bit and explicitly state that many of the \"large battles,\" even though we often think about them as having one attacker and one defender, in reality were weeks- or months-long grinds composed of many sub-battles in which the opposing armies often locally traded roles between attacker and defender.\n\nPopular depictions of WWI battles often tend to overemphasize overrunning the enemy trenches as being the goal that decides victory or defeat, and neglect actions following the first attack; success lies completely with capturing or not capturing the enemy trenches, and either the attack captures the enemy trenches due to this or that special factor, in which case the battle is over and won, or everyone gets cut down before getting there, in which case the whole attack was a hopeless stupidity that should presumably never have been done.\n\nIn reality *counterattack* was a central element of the defensive strategy of every army in defending the trench lines of WWI, and attacks that captured their initial objectives (which attacks *pretty often* did) typically had to worry about fighting off vigorous counterattacks before they could proceed on to any secondary objectives and exploitation of their gains. Successful counterattacks in turn might prompt fresh waves of attacks by the original attacker to try to reinforce, consolidate, or just retake their initial gains. This seesaw of attack and counterattack is a prominent characteristic of WWI trench warfare.\n\nCounterattacking of course involves the defender exposing himself to many of the same dangers that the attacker did, so it's not that hard to see that it was a risky proposition that could involve the counterattacker suffering serious casualties (and often did when counterattacks went more poorly than hoped). Why do it at all then rather than just staying on the tactical defensive all the time and bleeding the enemy dry each time he attacked, maybe giving ground to the enemy over time, but inflicting horrifically disproportionate casualties because you are always enjoying the huge advantages of defense?\n\nTo answer this we can partly say that the tactical advantages of defense, while real, may not have been so extreme and could be set against other advantages the attacker could assemble (see wotan\\_weevil's post again for some of these); partly because (see his post again), attackers tended to aim at strategically beneficial positions, which if they were allowed to reinforce, consolidate, bring in artillery, etc. might allow them to cause major disarray in the defense rather than just minor adjustments; and partly also, and this is important to understanding why the Western Front stayed so still, because a successful attacker often attacked his way into a position in which, if he *weren't* allowed to reinforce, consolidate, etc., he could be at his most vulnerable. A unit of soldiers that had just successfully attacked and captured an objective well ahead of their own lines was likely to find itself in a position difficult to supply with ammunition, reinforcements, etc. (because their new trenches were previously the enemy's and won't be connected to their own), difficult to support (because they may have gone out of range of their artillery or at least a lot of their shorter-range artillery pieces), and even difficult to communicate with (because they'd have advanced away from the prelaid landlines of the field telephones, which often meant it was harder and slower to communicate exactly where and when reinforcements, artillery barrages, etc. were needed, even when such would have been available). Not to mention physically and mentally worn out. The opportunity to attack the enemy when he was suffering all these disadvantages could obviously be very attractive to a defending commander, enough to make launching a dangerous counterattack seem like a very worthwhile risk. And often these risks paid off by overrunning the attackers in turn.\n\nThis characteristic phenomenon of attacks being rolled back or bogged down after initial success (due to the serious difficulty that armies on all sides faced in consolidating local advances), as opposed to just failing outright at the beginning, was a big reason that the Western Front remained so static, more so than the multilayered trench systems and machine gun nests. Major defensive works like these grew up after the frontlines set, and were to some extent a symptom rather than a cause.\n\n(to some extent... not to say that the elaborate defenses didn't, as they grew, become a self-reinforcing contributor to the stasis, too)\n\nSo TLDR, it wasn't possible, nor was it desirable, for the side that was *strategically* defending in a battle to spend the whole time on the *tactical* defensive, mowing down waves of attackers with machine guns from the relative safety of the trenches. Attackers had various ways to overcome such defenses, but then in the aftermath of success might present an vulnerable target for attack themselves, causing the defender to bring up reserves and take the opportunity to switch roles. Dealing with the aftermath of an advance and the near-inevitable counterattack presented a huge challenge on the Western Front, a challenge that was bigger and did more to define the course of that theater of war than the challenge of capturing a defended trench.", "created_utc": 1552966115, "distinguished": null, "id": "eiuq15o", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/b2igh0/why_defenders_took_so_high_casualties_during_the/eiuq15o/", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "Not a real historian but I can provide some context for 1 part:\n\n> The \"shin guards\"?\n\nThose are 1910 Leggings. Generally known as gaiters today. They were worn to provide extra protection to the lower legs from brush and rocks and sometimes snow. [Here](https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/135842-us-army-model-1910-canvas-leggings-gait) is some more information about the specific pair he was wearing.", "created_utc": 1593266465, "distinguished": null, "id": "fw60pvc", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/hgp2n0/world_war_i_us_military_uniform_some_context/fw60pvc/", "score": 1 }, { "body": "Thanks so much!", "created_utc": 1593269028, "distinguished": null, "id": "fw64v2v", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/hgp2n0/world_war_i_us_military_uniform_some_context/fw64v2v/", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.\n\nWe thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to be written, which takes time. Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ffzxkz/why_werent_combat_shotguns_employed_earlier_in/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)**, [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written!\n\n\n*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*", "created_utc": 1583781033, "distinguished": "moderator", "id": "fk1jolj", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/ffzxkz/why_werent_combat_shotguns_employed_earlier_in/fk1jolj/", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "Officially, Egypt was still an Ottoman province, as you mentioned - there was even a token tribute sent off to Istanbul every year.\n\nThe government system remained largely intact -- i.e., there was a Khedive, a council of ministers headed by a prime minister, government ministries and agencies and the like, however the power behind the throne was the British consul-General (Lord Cromer between 1883 and 1905), who called the shots, and basically ran affairs out of the British High Commission. \n\nThe British and French had taken over various government ministries in 1876 when Egypt first defaulted on its loans; these included the Ministry of the Interior (which oversaw agricultural production; the Europeans being eager to make certain that agricultural products that would fetch high prices on the world market were being grown efficiently and exported in the highest possible amounts) and the Ministry of Finance. It was, in fact, growing internal opposition to the European power over the Egyptian government that led to the military revolt under Col. Ahmad Urabi in the winter of 1881-82 that resulted in the British military incursion and occupation (whoopsie).\n\nDuring the occupation, all serious affairs outside of the Ministry of Waqf (religious endowments) and similar internal organs were run by the British--Europeans were either the ministers themselves or \"trustworthy\" Egyptians (usually western educated) would be installed, almost always with a European advisor or vice minister to make sure things were done properly. Servicing the debt was the top priority, and government services were reduced in order to make Egypt profitable (expenditures on education and public health, for example, did not exceed 1% of the national budget until after Cromer's tenure ended). \n\nThey de-emphasized industrial production, encouraging Egyptian companies instead to produce raw materials that could be sold to European factories (and then re-imported to Egypt as finished goods); they pushed agriculture in the direction of producing cash crops like cotton--even though Egypt produced high quality wheat and rice, these would then be exported and cheaper commodities would be brought in from India to feed the local population; the Suez Canal was operated wholly by the British and revenue from it went to its European operators. \n\nThe Khedive had no real choice but to go along with it. Ahmad II Hilmi got a bit feisty and hoped that WWI might lead to the Ottomans removing the British; he was on a visit to Constantinople when he was deposed by the British and replaced with his nephew Hussein Kamil - shortly thereafter Egypt was officially made a protectorate and Hussein Kamil became \"sultan.\"\n\nSo, on the surface, it wasn't the governmental structure that changed so much as who was actually installed into key positions within those structures, how the government was run, and what their priorities were.", "created_utc": 1571930688, "distinguished": null, "id": "f50oxyg", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/dmhe35/from_the_1880s_through_the_outbreak_of_world_war/f50oxyg/", "score": 8 } ]

[ { "body": "Not a real historian but I can provide some context for 1 part:\n\n> The \"shin guards\"?\n\nThose are 1910 Leggings. Generally known as gaiters today. They were worn to provide extra protection to the lower legs from brush and rocks and sometimes snow. [Here](https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/135842-us-army-model-1910-canvas-leggings-gait) is some more information about the specific pair he was wearing.", "created_utc": 1593266465, "distinguished": null, "id": "fw60pvc", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/hgp2n0/world_war_i_us_military_uniform_some_context/fw60pvc/", "score": 1 }, { "body": "Thanks so much!", "created_utc": 1593269028, "distinguished": null, "id": "fw64v2v", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/hgp2n0/world_war_i_us_military_uniform_some_context/fw64v2v/", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "While more can be said on this topic, you can see my answer on planned British landings on the German and Belgian coast, and why they didn't occur [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/45l3ap/was_landing_soldiers_behind_enemy_trench_lines/czywz8v/).", "created_utc": 1564517575, "distinguished": null, "id": "evgxze5", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/cjwx5k/did_the_allies_ever_attempt_an_amphibious_landing/evgxze5/", "score": 9 } ]

[ { "body": "I’m assuming here that the toothache would result in the discovery of some sort of more serious infection and an eventual tooth extraction or extractions, requiring a surgery under general anesthetic and a few days’ rest, so as to examine all the low levels of medical treatment the U.S. Army offered during WWII. \n\nIf the toothache became utterly unbearable so as to prevent the soldier from participating in combat effectively, he would be evacuated (or voluntarily evacuate himself) to his battalion’s aid station. [The medical detachment of the infantry regiment](http://militaryresearch.org/7-11%20Med%20Det%2026Feb44.pdf) consisted of a headquarters section of four officers and thirty men (which maintained the regimental aid station) and three battalion sections each of two officers and thirty-two enlisted men (which maintained the three battalion aid stations). The total strength was thirty-four officers and 136 enlisted men. The detachment was issued no weapons, but had four 1/4 ton jeeps with trailers, three 3/4 ton trucks, and one 2 1/2-ton truck. The purpose of the battalion aid stations was to receive casualties from the front line companies that had either been evacuated by the surgical technicians (platoon aid men) or the supporting litter bearers, or had evacuated themselves, provide minor medical care, and evacuate more serious cases to higher echelons. Neither the battalion aid stations or the regimental aid station (which served the other elements of the regiment) were equipped to provide any sort of surgical treatment, and it was advised against beginning any preliminary procedures for the initiation of more complex treatment, as it could cause backups which could potentially lead to life-threatening complications for other casualties. \n\nPatients would not normally be evacuated from a battalion aid station to the regimental aid station, but the dental officers and equipment of the regimental medical detachment were located in the headquarters, so it is conceivable that this could be one of the rare cases. A dental examination chair and related equipment, and a chest of dental tools (such as forceps and stitches) was provided for the performance of minor procedures not requiring general anesthetic (although ether was listed among the contents of the chest). The dental officers could be missing entirely, as “it was found that the dental officers in the infantry regiments were underutilized and in many cases, they were removed from the regiments and used to form roving dental teams that provided dental care for a geographic area, rather than for specific units,” meaning that a men would have to be evacuated to an equal or higher echelon to be examined by a dentist.\n\n[The medical battalion of the infantry division](https://www.med-dept.com/articles/the-ww2-medical-battalion-infantry-division/) served a similar purpose; one collecting company was attached to each regiment, and received patients from the battalion aid stations. The clearing company, which also acted as the collecting company for non-regimental divisional units, triaged patients, performed minor treatment if necessary (similar in extent to the regimental medical detachments), and either returned men to their units or evacuated them to higher echelons. Because of the volume of casualties that passed through them, neither the medical detachments of the infantry regiments, the medical detachments of other divisional units that had such, or the divisional medical battalion were equipped to hold men more than a day or two before either returning them to their units or evacuating them.\n\nField hospitals, 400 bed mobile units (capable of moving themselves in one lift with their organic transportation), could either operate on their own or be broken into three 100-bed platoons, which was the norm. In combat, these hospitals’ platoons were normally attached to divisions, to relieve the clearing companies of the divisional medical battalions of non-transportable patients. Operating in this manner, only the most urgent cases where any transportation beyond a short litter carry or ambulance ride could be life-threatening, such as men with \"massive chest and abdominal injuries, severe compound fractures, and traumatic amputations\" were evacuated here. \n\nEvacuation hospitals, which received patients from field hospitals for further treatment or holding and moved them on to higher echelons (general or convalescent hospitals, usually located several hundred miles to the rear), or received, treated, and held patients briefly (i.e., the mildly injured, so as to not clog up divisional clearing stations) before returning them to their units, were either 400-bed semi-mobile (in this case, 25 percent mobile with one lift of all organic transportation) or 750-bed units. They were capable of operating in the same manner as field hospitals (as was done in Italy, when field and evacuation hospitals were “leapfrogged” up the peninsula), but usually received patients who required anesthetic surgery of a less urgent and/or more complex nature than that which was offered at the former facility. The field and evacuation hospitals themselves lacked enough organic surgical personnel to allow them to function at the extent which they would be called upon to do, so surgical augmentation teams from auxiliary surgical groups would be attached to provide more staffed operating tables. The EA-EF teams had three officers, three men, and a nurse, while the EG team had one officer and three men:\n\n* Team EA: general surgery\n* Team EB: orthopedic surgery\n* Team EC: shock treatment\n* Team ED: maxillofacial surgery\n* Team EE: neurosurgery\n* Team EF: thoracic surgery\n* Team EG: gas treatment \n\nBecause of the nature of battle injuries, thoracic and shock treatment teams were mostly found in field hospitals, while evacuation hospitals had more maxillofacial, neurosurgical, and orthopedic teams. [Because of theater-determined evacuation policies, the field armies attempted to keep as many patients within their boundaries as physically possible, operating a full array of their own medical facilities to prevent the loss of patients to the Communications Zone](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7sczh2/why_were_injured_soldiers_that_had_recovered_sent/). \n\n**Sources:**\n\nCosmas, Graham A., and Albert E. Cowdrey. *United States Army in World War II, The Technical Services, The Medical Department: Medical Service in the European Theater of Operations*. Washington, D.C.: United States Army Center of Military History, 1992.\n\nHall, Donald E. *From the Roer to the Elbe With the 1st Medical Group:\nMedical Support of the Deliberate River Crossing*. Fort Leavenworth: Combat Studies Institute Press.", "created_utc": 1553545665, "distinguished": null, "id": "ejd5x79", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/b5el4g/im_a_frontline_soldier_in_the_us_army_during_the/ejd5x79/", "score": 18 } ]

[ { "body": "Not really; for one thing, with Britain now at war, the staff talks with the French Army came into play, wherein the British would despatch an expeditionary force to assist them in fighting the Germans. Plus, the immediate reason for British involvement was the Invasion of Belgium, so the British could hardly be seen to sit around and do nothing while there was serious fighting taking place across the Channel.\n\nYou also have to take into account the fact that it took until November 1914 for the Blockade to actually be in place, and it wasn't until March 1915 that it became much stronger (and also borderline illegal). The British did not have the time to wait around for two months doing nothing, while their now-allies the Russians and the French bore the brunt of the fighting. It's also important to consider that a more 'material' contribution by the British, ie actually sending ground forces to fight instead of just relying on their Navy while the French and Russians absorbed casualties, would give the British greater influence in negotiations when the war was over.", "created_utc": 1460838834, "distinguished": null, "id": "d25kyri", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/4f3gx9/did_the_uk_have_any_options_at_the_start_of_world/d25kyri/", "score": 15 }, { "body": "Given that France very nearly lost the war despite the help of a British army, it's not likely that would have worked out well for them. The only option they had, in so far as it goes, was to make much clearer much earlier that they absolutely would commit an army in defense of belgian neutrality, no ifs ands, or buts. And even that might not have made a difference, depending on your personal perspective of IR theory and the motives of various actors. ", "created_utc": 1460891218, "distinguished": null, "id": "d267ewn", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/4f3gx9/did_the_uk_have_any_options_at_the_start_of_world/d267ewn/", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "The short answer is \"no\".\n\nA slightly longer answer is that the USA and Ottoman Empire never directly declared war on each other as the USA only declared war on Germany in April 1917 as a result of anger surrounding the Zimmerman Telegram (and unrestricted submarine warfare in the Atlantic). Soon after, the Ottoman Empire broke off relations with the USA but war was never formally declared.\n\nIn Dec 1917, the USA declared war on the Austro-Hungarian Empire.\n\nThe reality of separate declarations of war by USA were due to a variety of reasons. Firstly, the USA pursued a somewhat isolationist policy of non-intervention in the war for many years. Secondly, the USA was not part of the Triple Entente and the web of military alliances and obligations that bound the European states. The final reason was mixed public opinion that gradually shifted in favour of entry into the war as events unfolded.\n\nFinally (and this is outside my area of knowledge), the Marine Corps Hymn famously refers to the \"shores of Tripoli\" which is a reference to the Barbary Wars. While those wars were fought against states within the Ottoman Empire, I don't believe that such conflict had any bearing on WW1 hostilities.", "created_utc": 1537758605, "distinguished": null, "id": "e6j2wjf", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/9id1qm/during_world_war_i_did_the_us_and_ottoman_empire/e6j2wjf/", "score": 23 }, { "body": "No actually, in fact looking at a list of U.S war declarations you see declarations of war against the other central powers (Austria-Hungary and Germany) but never the Ottoman Empire. However, the Ottoman Empire did cut their relations with the United States under pressure from the Germans.\n\nThe reason the U.S didn't declare war against the Ottoman Empire is partly their anti-interventionist policy and also the simple fact that it there was almost no strategic benefit in doing so. The U.S declarations of war against the Germans on April of 1917 came amidst German violation of the \"Sussex Agreement\" in which they would restrict submarine attacks on civilians. However, the German military promptly ignored this agreement and resumed attacks anyways in the belief that it would hasten the end of the war. Additionally, the Germans sent the Zimmerman telegram to Mexico, which promised them territories taken from them in the Mexican-American war. When this information was revealed to the U.S it, of course, caused a large upstir and was another primary factor in the declaration of war against Germany. The declaration of war on Austria-Hungary in December of 1917 came amidst Austrian military victory in Italy that threatened to put Italy out of the war. Which would be a disadvantage to the U.S and her allies. The Ottoman Empire on the other had posed no such threat. Their fight had mostly focused on Ottoman territory itself, and by 1917 the British were managing the conflict just fine. I also suspect that the U.S and Woodrow Wilson understood that what they could lose a result of a declaration of war on the Ottoman Empire. The U.S had just ended a costly conflict with the Muslim minority in the Philippines in 1913. In the early stages, the Ottoman Empire helped the United States. The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire in 1899 had written a letter to the Sulu Sultanate in which he called for them to put down their arms, the Moro obliged for the time being. However, the United States later violated treaties they had set in place with the Sulu's, causing a new breakout of conflict in 1904. This extended the rebellion until 1913. Having just ended this rebellion the United States must have been wary of another such conflict in the Philippines that would drain U.S resources. This would ring especially true in light of the Moro's acquiescence to he sultans letter as well as the fact that the Ottoman Empire declared a holy war on the Entente powers (although the declaration was mostly unsuccessful). \n\nhttps://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/wwi\n\nhttps://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL31133.pdf\n\nhttps://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1135777.pdf\n\nhttp://www.centenarynews.com/article/the-us-declares-war-on-austria-hungary-7-december-1917\n\nhttps://books.google.com/books?id=PvVlS3ljx20C&pg=PA235&dq=Pleased+sultan+Philippines+khalif+Sulu+chiefs+understanding&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Pleased%20sultan%20Philippines%20khalif%20Sulu%20chiefs%20understanding&f=false\n\nhttps://www.historytoday.com/david-motadel/jihad-1914", "created_utc": 1537774784, "distinguished": null, "id": "e6jdhy5", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/9id1qm/during_world_war_i_did_the_us_and_ottoman_empire/e6jdhy5/", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "> We always hear stories about lions which were led by donkeys\n\nFirst of all we need to deal with this. The phrase entered the public mind as a result of its publication in Alan Clark's 1961 book *The Donkeys* where he purports that the following conversation took place between Ludendorff and Hoffman\n\n*Ludendorff: The English soldiers fight like lions.*\n\n*Hoffmann: True. But don't we know that they are lions led by donkey*\n\nWhich is pretty odd, since Hoffman spent his war on the eastern front and had never so much as seen a British soldier in action. In addition, there is no documentary evidence that this conversation ever took place. No evidence at all. It is, fundamentally, a fiction to support Clark's polemic and can safely be disregarded as such.\n\nThe issue of senior officer casualties in the British Army in WWI was covered fairly well by Davis and Maddocks in *Bloody Red Tabs* where they give a figure of all Generals (Brigadiers through Field Marshalls) killed and wounded as 232, though this includes those wounded more than once. Amongst these are 78 who were killed or died of wounds while on active service. Out of a total of 1,257 who actually served, the overall casualty rate for Generals was therefore 18.5%.\n\nOf the 78 who were KIA \n\n43% were killed by shellfire\n28% were killed by small arms fire (at least half by snipers)\n3 Generals drowned, 2 were killed in accidents, and the of the remainder no cause of death is known but we can safely assume the majority were by small arms and shellfire.\n\nThe interesting point here is the surprisingly high proportion killed by small arms and snipers. Overall, its commonly accepted that roughly two thirds of all casualties were caused by artillery. The high proportion of Generals killed by small arms is indicative of the fact that they were obliged to expose themselves to a disproportionate extent, presumably in attempts to reconnoiter the ground over which their forces would soon be fighting. \n\nThus we can safely say that myth of the 'Chateaux General' is pretty well busted. \n\nThe actual positioning of an officer depended on their rank and therefore their role in the battle. A subaltern was obviously in the thick of it with his men, but even Divisional commanders (Major Generals) would often be obliged to come far forward to see for himself what the situation was. In fact, no less than 3 divisional commanders were killed at Loos, more than were killed in the whole of the second world war, and Loos was a fairly small battle!\n\nEven staff officers would often be exposed to fire. The high casualty rates of staff officers in 1914 meant they had to be explicitly forbidden from nearing the front as the casualty rate was unsustainable.\n\nTL;DR - It varied depending on rank and role, but the casualty rates for Generals indicates that they frequently exposed themselves to danger and were by no means 'Chateaux Generals'\n\nEdit: As a point of interest, two British Field Marshalls died on active in WWI. Kitchener died when the cruiser he was sailing on struck a mine, while Lord Roberts of Kandahar (VC) died from pneumonia after refusing to wear a coat to inspect units of the Indian Army in late 1914. They in tropical clothes and he refused to wear anything warmer than his men. He had an interesting career. He was commissioned when the Duke of Wellington was still in charge and he served long enough to be concerned about aircraft and armoured cars. \n", "created_utc": 1451229717, "distinguished": null, "id": "cycrfg4", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/3yefvw/where_did_the_generals_of_the_world_war_i_stay/cycrfg4/", "score": 20 } ]

[ { "body": "In the run-up to the war, the British and French agreed to a split in naval responsibilities. In the event of war with Austria-Hungary and Germany, the British were to operate against Germany in the North Sea, while the French concentrated on the Mediterranean. In general, this was the case throughout the war. \n\nWhen the war began, the French fleet in the Mediterranean, under the command of Vice Admiral Augustin Boué de Lapeyrère. While the RN's Mediterranean Squadron moved to chase the German battlecruiser *Goeben* and the accompanying light cruiser *Breslau*, Lapeyrère took his fleet to blockade the Strait of Otranto. On the 16th August, he took his fleet into the Adriatic to support Montenegro. The aim of the sortie was to clear the Austrian blockade of the Montenegrin port of Antivari (now Bar). His force encountered the Austro-Hungarian light cruiser *Zenta*, and overwhelmed it. Following this, the French fleet set up a rolling blockade of the southern Adriatic. The fleet was based at Malta, some 550 miles away. To ease the logistical pressure this created, Corfu was used as a forward base, though this breached Greek neutrality. Lapeyrère made several sorties to attack the Austro-Hungarian base at Cattaro (Kotor), bombarding it on regular occasions. Some of his cruisers even travelled further up the coast, albeit to little effect. He also covered supply convoys running to Antivari to support the Montenegrin Army. The French fleet in the Adriatic went effectively unopposed until late 1914, when Austro-Hungarian submarines began to be based at Cattaro. On the 21st, *U 21* would torpedo Lapeyrère's flagship, the modern dreadnought *Jean Bart*. While she would survive, the torpedoing put her out of action for several months, and caused the French to pull their battleships out of the Adriatic. This encouraged the Austro-Hungarians to be bolder with their light forces, laying mines in the southern Adriatic and raiding the area with submarines and destroyers. On the 26th-27th April, the submarine *U 5*, commanded by Georg von Trapp of *The Sound of Music* fame, sank the French armoured cruiser *Léon Gambetta*. This caused the French to effectively pull back their entire fleet from the Adriatic, at least until Italy's entry to the war. \n\nThe Italian entry resulted in a rather convoluted command structure. Lapeyrère (and his successor, Admiral Fournet) was still in overall command of the Allied forces in the Mediterranean, with the Italian Admiral Luigi of Savoy, Duke of the Abruzzi as his second-in-command. However, if Lapeyrère took his fleet into the Adriatic, he would come under Abruzzi's command. Following this, the French played a comparatively minor part in the war in the Adriatic. Their largest contribution was the evacuation of the Serbian Army from Albania. They also supported the Otranto Barrage, the Allied attempt to block submarines from travelling through the Strait of Otranto, and participated in later sorties into the Adriatic.\n\nThe French Navy also operated in the Eastern Mediterranean. In 1914, a French squadron joined the British force guarding the Dardanelles against a possible breakout by *Goeben* and *Breslau*. Battleships from this force would join the initial British bombardments of the Dardanelles forts. Following this, the Allied force entered the straits on the 18th March, with four French battleships joining the sixteen British ships. Unfortunately, they would encounter mines, and the French battleship *Bouvet* would be sunk, along with two British ships.After this attempt, the French Navy assisted the RN in supporting the landings on the Gallipoli peninsula. French submarines joined British and Australian subs in the Sea of Marmora, while French cruisers guarded the rest of the Ottoman coast. After the evacuation from the Dardanelles, a French squadron formed the main force watching the straits. \n\nThe French Navy was also instrumental in operations on the Salonika Front. The Allies had transported a small force to the Greek port of Salonika (Thessaloniki) to take the pressure off the Serbs, albeit to little effect. Once the Serbs were forced out of Serbia, they were also transported to Salonika. The Allies were allowed to do this thanks to the political crisis ongoing in Greece at the time. The Greek king, Constantine I, was sympathetic to the Central Powers, and hence favoured Greek neutrality, while Greece's Prime Minister, Eleftherios Venizelos, was pro-Allied. Venizelos invited the Allies to use Salonika, against the wishes of Constantine. Tensions between the two came to the head in the winter of 1916. In November, the French forced the Greek Navy at Salamis to disarm itself, and commandeered many of their ships. This led to significant opposition from Constantine and his supporters. Loyal army units and Royalist militias began to occupy Athens to prevent the Allies deposing him or forcing Greece into the war. A French naval squadron arrived off Piraeus on the 1st December. Armed sailors and marines were landed, and the city bombarded; ultimately, Constantine would be forced to agree to Allied demands. Shortly afterwards, though, the battleship *Gaulois* would be sunk by a German submarine near Salonika.\n\nThe French operated outside the Mediterranean, albeit to a lesser extent. French forces in the Far East participated in the hunt for German surface raiders, with the destroyer *Mousquet* being sunk by *Emden* during her raid on Penang. French forces helped to escort convoys in the Atlantic, and several ships were lost there. The battleship *Suffren* and armoured cruisers *Kléber* and *Dupetit-Thouars* were all sunk by German submarines in the Atlantic.", "created_utc": 1567979357, "distinguished": null, "id": "ezlohox", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/d1ghdl/what_was_the_role_of_the_french_navy_in_world_war/ezlohox/", "score": 12 } ]

[ { "body": "In addition to the sketch by Starmoses:\n\nThe Austrian (Austro-Hungarian) is dressed in the traditional costume of a 19th century clown. \n\nThe Brit is in the attire of a shopkeeper (vest, rolled up sleeves, bow-tie to avoid catching on things)... this is probably a play on the German dismissal of \"England\" as \"nothing more than a nation of shopkeepers\"... it's a clever reversal, as *this* \"Business as Usual\" is not shopkeeping but bringing the saber and boot to the Continent. (perhaps a very subtle allusion to the victory over Napoleon? not sure here.) \n\nThe other Brit soldiers are from India, Australia, and either Canada or South Africa--symbolizing Britain drawing on it's imperial manpower. \n\nFrance is wearing the Liberty cap and overall dresses as \"Marianne\" (a traditional symbol of France). \n\nBelgium is down but not out... which makes me think this is quite early? \n\nThe Netherlands has a bruised/bloody nose? Not sure about that...\n\nNorway and Sweden (neutral) are watching like one watches a dramatic opera: Sweden has opera glasses, Norway is whispering in hushed tones...\n\nThe Italian is singing \"You Made Me Love You\"--a popular song by Al Jolson (an American minstrel singer) from the previous year, 1913..\nI'm pretty sure this is a jab at Germany, in that Italy was part of the German-Austro-Hungarian \"Triple Alliance\", and was thereby *supposed* to join the Central (Germany-AH) powers in any conflict... but now is clearly having second thoughts. (Italy ultimately joined on the Entente side... i.e. with Britain-France-Russia.) So Italy singing the song is a joke about Italy feeling torn... \n\nThe little yap-yap dog is the Kingdom of Serbia, \"worrying\" (nipping at) Austria-Hungary... so this is probably referring to the (fruitless) attack across the Sava river in 1914... \n\nGreece is bloodied--but ready to fight the Ottomans, referring to the Balkan War of 1912-23.\n\nSame with Bulgaria. (this is before Bulgaria joined Germany and A-H, which occurred in 1915)\n\nRomania is ready to fight Austria... not sure about the significance of the cannon. \n\nThe Ottoman (wearing a traditional Fez) is 'cut off' by the Royal Navy in the Adriatic and the Russian Navy in the Black Sea... the Prussian (Wilhelm in German army uniform) is \"forcing\" him to sit on a powderkeg... i.e. the cartoonist is saying this is a really bad idea for the Ottomans to enter the war, and are doing it only under duress. \n\nSwitzerland (neutral) has his fingers in his ears, wishing the whole thing would just go away. \n\n\nPortugal is spoiling for a fight... (boxing).... probably symbolizing the tension between German and Portuguese colonial troops in southern Africa.\n\nAnd Spain (neutral) is just chillin'... watching from afar. \n\n\n\n", "created_utc": 1470768091, "distinguished": null, "id": "d6aq9ib", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/4wur01/can_someone_explain_the_symbolism_in_this_cartoon/d6aq9ib/", "score": 7 }, { "body": "Fro what it looks like this is a few months into the war so using thay context I'll try to give an example of each country.\n\nRussia: The Russian bear eating Austria Hungary With the cossack horde charging in. Russia early in the war were able to make massive gains against Austria Hungary basically crippling their whole empire and causing thousands of casualties. It wasn't until the Germans failed to win a decisive victory on the western front that they put massive amounts of resources into fighting the Russian empire thus saving Austria Hungary.\n\nAustria Hungary: collapsing while desperately clutching Germany for support. Read Russia.\n\nGermany: The mighty eagle striking the French while being pinned by the Russian bear. Early in the war Germany was hoping to win a decisive victory against the French by going through Belgium and Luxembourg. Despite early successes the French and British started to dig trenches thus began the race to the sea as each army tried to out manure each other.\n\nFrance: Bravely facing the eagle while dressed in bright colors eager for battle. See Germany\n\nBritain: Coming in from their isles not changing anything at home while their subjects come in from other parts of the world. You can also see the British fleet starting the north sea blockade. The north sea blockade was a idea put in place by Winston Churchill while he was lord of the admiralty. Instead of blockading Germany at her ports Britain would use their fleet to control the north sea thus cutting supplies from neutral countries.\n\nOttoman Empire: From what it looks like they are forcibly being dragged in the war by Germany however I don't know the context for that.", "created_utc": 1470761742, "distinguished": null, "id": "d6al3ag", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/4wur01/can_someone_explain_the_symbolism_in_this_cartoon/d6al3ag/", "score": 11 } ]

[ { "body": "Actually the view that Britain acquired a lot of its wealth because of exploitation of its colonies has a lot of evidence against it, from the point of view of economic historians. There's two chief arguments against it, firstly that European colonialism was actually harmful not just to its victims but to the 'home' country's economy, and secondly that all trade wasn't that important to British economic growth, let alone trade with colonies in particular.\n\n**Colonisation harms the home country**\n\nSo firstly: European colonialism as a harm to the 'home' country (I'm going to be very Euro-centric and call the colonising country the 'home' country and its victim the 'subject' country, because trying to keep 'coloniser' and 'colonised' straight gives me a headache). This argument dates back to Adam Smith in the 18th century, in his 1776 book *The Wealth of Nations* and more recently is championed by the economic historian Deidre McCloskey. The basic insight is that it is better to have a richer trading partner than a poorer one, but colonialism by its nature is destructive to its victims, it is a violent process directly destroying physical capital and its victims lives, and less directly harming social and institutional capital. The colonial officers typically are out to line their own pockets and head home, hopefully before the local diseases killed them. And when the fastest communication was by sailing ship, the ability of the head office of the East India Trading Company, for example, to control said colonial agents was minimal. What's more, even if the colonisers were truly public-spirited, they typically would lack local knowledge of political, cultural and environmental factors. Maddison's long-term historical statistics show that India's GDP per capita actually declined from 1600 to the latter part of the 19th century (and GDP is a measure of what is produced in a country for a given period of time, regardless of whether that product is consumed domestically or exported).\n\nThis argument does depend on assuming that the alternative to colonisation is that the subject country would trade with the home country mostly peacefully and freeishly, as the US did with Britain post the American Revolution. This was not inevitable, the strongest argument for the value of the British empire to Britain was that if Britain hadn't built its empire another colonial power would have (presumably France) and then would have cut Britain out of international trade flows, Niall Fergusson is a proponent of this argument. It also is possible that in the absence of European colonialisation more countries would have cut themselves off from trade like Edo-era Japan did. \n\nO’Rourke, de la Escosura and Daudin (2008) discuss another argument as to why colonialization can harm the home country’s economy: in the case of Spain and Portugal the immense amount of gold and silver flowing in from their American colonies meant that the Iberian authorities (the monarchy, the aristocracy) didn’t need to build representative institutions to raise taxes. The flow of gold and silver to Portugal and Spain also may have damaged the competitiveness of local industries, a kind of ‘Dutch disease’ (so named when Dutch manufacturing struggled with the development of North Sea oil extraction).\n\n**How much was Britain trading with its colonies anyway?**\n\nIn 1913, imports supplied 25 to 30% of Britain's national income, however this figure is for all imports from all countries, colonies or not, including neighbouring European countries and the USA (a major wheat exporter). You can explore UK imports by country during the 19th century at http://ricardo.medialab.sciences-po.fr/#/country The by country figures themselves are scatty and terribly confusing due to changing names but by continent, the UK was importing far more from Europe and the Americas than from Africa and Asia.\n\nThe colonies also didn’t make much contribution to the British government’s budget, it's surprisingly hard to find detailed historical statistics for this in the 19th century, but any contribution was fairly small. There's been some histographic debate over the importance of Britain's colonies to the prosperity of Britain, but no one indicates that colonies made a major contribution of the colonies to the British government revenue. The strongest I've seen is that India paid for its own \"defence\" (it's a bit weird to describe \"keeping India under British control\" as defence), and made a small contribution beyond that.  (Gartzke, Rohner, 2011).\n\nThe economic historian Deirdre McCloskey (2006) made the following summary:\n\n>The cost of protecting the Empire devolved almost entirely on the British people. (A century earlier the British had likewise paid for the defense of the first empire, in what is now the United States; the colonials refused to pay as little as a small tax on tea for imperial defense.) British taxpayers 1877-1948 paid for the half of naval expenditure that was for imperial defense, a by no means negligible part of total British national income each year.\n\n...\n\n>Did acquisition of Empire, then, cause spurts in British growth? By no means. Indeed, at the climax of imperial pretension, in the 1890s and 1900s, the growth of British real income per head notably slowed.\n\nOther examples of the relative unimportance of colonies is how France had its boom years, its *Trente Glorieuses*, post WWII as it was losing its colonies, as did Japan and Italy when they had given up hope of having their own.\n\n**How important is trade anyway**\n\nFinally, how important is trade to a large country's economy anyway? As I mention above, imports in 1913 supplied about 25-30% of Britain’s income. Which is not be sneered at. But British GDP per capita more than tripled from 1700 to 1913 (see Maddison again). And this was predominantly down to technological change, and a large growing domestic market – British population increased too, doubling over the 19th century. Britain’s [terms of trade]( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_trade) fell during the Industrial Revolution, despite rising exports, indicating the cost-reducing nature of technological change (in less technical terms, each unit of Britain’s exports brought a falling amount of imports, e.g. Britain was exporting tonnes of iron for fewer and fewer tonnes of American wheat or Argentinian beef, but as iron production efficiency was increasing so much, Britain was still getting rich).\n\n\nThere are arguments that trade was still important to the British Industrial Revolution because the larger markets made British manufacturers more likely to innovate and invest. I'm a bit sceptical about this as British innovation during the Revolution doesn't seem to have been that dependent on scale, inventions were more like one person or a small workshop tinkering with and building on an existing technology, nothing like the scale of R&D going into new technologies like new medicines or self driving cars today. But this awaits a more comprehensive study.\n\n\nSo that's an answer to your question 1.2, I'm afraid I can't answer your questions about the financing of WWI or the loans afterwards. \n\n**Sources**\n\n\n\nhttp://ricardo.medialab.sciences-po.fr/#/country\n\n\n\nMaddison Project Database, version 2018. Bolt, Jutta, Robert Inklaar, Herman de Jong and Jan Luiten van Zanden (2018), “Rebasing ‘Maddison’: new income comparisons and the shape of long-run economic development”  Maddison Project Working Paper, nr. 10, available for download at www.ggdc.net/maddison .\n\n\"Foreign Trade: Competition and the Expanding International Economy, 1820-1914,\" Chapter 17 in Floud and McCloskey, The Economic History of Britain, 1700-Present (1981), Vol. 2, pp. 50-69; reworked in the second edition; Harley used it in the third edition by Floud and Johnson, eds. http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/graham/britain.pdf\n\n\n\nDeidre McCloskey, 2006, *Keukentafel Economics and the History of British Imperialism*, South African Economic History Review 21 (Sept 2006): 171-176. http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/imperialism.pdf\n\n\n\nL.E. Davis, RA Huttenback, 1977, *Public expenditure and private profit: budgetary decision in the British Empire, 1860-1912*, The American Economic Review, 1977 - JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1815917?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents\n\n\nOffer, Avner. 1993. *The British Empire, 1870-1914: A Waste of Money?* The Economic History Review 46 (2): 215–15. doi:10.2307/2598015.\n\n\nGARTZKE, ERIK, and DOMINIC ROHNER. 2011. *The Political Economy of Imperialism, Decolonization and Development.* British Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 525–56.\n\n\nKevin H. O’Rourke, Leandro Prados de la Escosura and Guillaume Daudin, 2008, * Trade and Empire, 1700-1870*, TEP Working Paper No. 0208, https://www.tcd.ie/Economics/TEP/2008/TEP0208.pdf", "created_utc": 1571114245, "distinguished": null, "id": "f3t0hka", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/dhrvtk/britains_riches_did_worldwar_i_financially_gut/f3t0hka/", "score": 15 } ]

[ { "body": "Ernst Jünger, who authored \"Stahlgewittern\" (translated into English as \"Storm of Steel\") probably comes close to fitting the bill. He volunteered to join the German army in August of 1914, and he was \"active\" in combat between April 1915 through August 1918. He participated as one of the shock troops* during the Spring Offensive, and in August of 1918 he was wounded and sat out the last 3 months of the war recuperating.\n\nSo he was in the military from very close to the start of the war through its end, and he had a whole lot of combat experience (which he wrote about extensively in his book), although he wasn't \"on the front lines\" through the entirety of the war. I think that's about as good as it gets.\n\n\\*EDIT: This originally read \"Storm Troopers,\" which /u/DuxBelisarius helpfully pointed out as a mistranslation of \"Stosstruppen,\" which is more accurately translated as \"shock troops.\" The \"Storm Troopers\" (\"Sturm Abteilung\") were Hitler's brown-shirts during his later reign.", "created_utc": 1457378122, "distinguished": null, "id": "d0r2lx9", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/49cxpc/do_we_know_of_anyone_who_survived_the_entirety_of/d0r2lx9/", "score": 18 }, { "body": "I've given some answers previously, which should help:\n\n* [Were there any soldiers in WWI that served from 1914-15 to the end, and survived?] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/46z2w3/did_any_soldiers_in_ww1_serve_from_191415_spend/)\n* [Chances of survival for a 1914 BEF Regular] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3d213j/i_am_an_infantryman_in_the_1914_bef_what_do_the/)\n* [Surviving 1914] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3g1aeo/how_much_percent_of_all_men_who_were/)\n* [Chances of survival for a 1914 Poilu?] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3jnts4/i_am_an_infantry_soldier_in_the_french_army_at/)\n", "created_utc": 1457385591, "distinguished": null, "id": "d0r8566", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/49cxpc/do_we_know_of_anyone_who_survived_the_entirety_of/d0r8566/", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "In the beginning it was largely done in secret and was fairly informal and were small things that flew under the radar. It became more formalized and rigorous as time went on, the the covert nature became harder to hide. The effort was exposed around 1930. After It was exposed, Germany already had regained power and economic vitality, and rearmament became much easier after Hitler withdrew from the League of Nations in 1933 when he took power. There is some discussion, and legitimate discussion, that the rearmament was basically and largely a \"look the other way\" problem from the get go. There were various reasons for this idea, and most of them derive from economic theory and power balancing among nations (in this case, Russia was fast becoming powerful, a leaning towards diplomacy rather than aggression and war in the aftermath of WWI). ", "created_utc": 1524665702, "distinguished": null, "id": "dxxynzd", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/8etnmc/how_was_germany_able_to_build_up_such_a_large/dxxynzd/", "score": 11 } ]

[ { "body": "[SMS Goeben](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMS_Goeben)\n\nThis German battlecruiser was caught in the Med at the beginning of the War and sailed for safe harbor in the Ottoman Empire. Germany handed her over to the Turks, but her officers and most of her crew remained German. In defiance of orders, they bombarded Russian positions and fired on Russian ships in the Black Sea, thus bringing to a boil the long-simmering tension between the two countries and causing Russia to declare war.\n\nEDIT: Spelling", "created_utc": 1365997883, "distinguished": null, "id": "c9fdwmf", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ccwtf/why_did_the_ottoman_empire_enter_world_war_i_on/c9fdwmf/", "score": 50 }, { "body": "A very interesting question. The area of Ottoman history is one that in recent years has seen a lot of attention. A few historians have tried to tackle your question. I highly recommend *The Ottoman Road to War in 1914: The Ottoman Empire and the First World War* by Mustafa Aksakal. \n\nIt has been a a year or so since I read it, but I seem to recall the Ottomans struggling to ally with Britain at first. The Ottomans were traditionally friendly with the UK (mainly because the British were intent upon Russia not gobbling up Ottoman provinces and upsetting the balance of power.) The alliance between Russia, France, and Great Britain spoiled Ottoman plans to join the Entente because it would have entailed surrendering territory to Russia.\n\nGermany meanwhile had steadily built up relations with the Ottomans in the early twentieth century. Plans for a Berlin-Baghdad railroad were in place. Of all the Great Powers, Germany seemed least likely to ask for territorial concessions from the Ottomans.\n\nAs another redditor has already mentioned, the SMS *Goeben* incident also pushed the Ottomans into the Central Powers camp. It's important to remember, however, that it wasn't just that the Germans gave the Ottomans the ships. The killer is that the Ottomans had already paid for two ships from the British but these were confiscated and not refunded. Not exactly great PR for the British when Istanbulites heard that one.", "created_utc": 1366002028, "distinguished": null, "id": "c9ff6z4", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ccwtf/why_did_the_ottoman_empire_enter_world_war_i_on/c9ff6z4/", "score": 39 }, { "body": "Didn't Germany also send men to the Ottomans to help modernize their army? All that influence militarily, industrially (the railroad mentioned) as well as the Germans wanting the Ottomans to fight the British in India and their colonial holdings. Doesn't seem like a bad deal from the Ottoman point of view.", "created_utc": 1366005614, "distinguished": null, "id": "c9fg56o", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ccwtf/why_did_the_ottoman_empire_enter_world_war_i_on/c9fg56o/", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "You may be interested in [my response to this question on Bulgaria's role during the Great War](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cfv1ck/bulgaria_and_romania_are_two_nations_often/eudvmjk/?context=3), although there is of course much more to be said, especially about the long-term consequences of the war in Bulgaria.", "created_utc": 1613571403, "distinguished": null, "id": "gnrl0fr", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/ll5hy0/what_was_the_role_of_bulgaria_in_both_world_wars/gnrl0fr/", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "So this document doesn't look like a formal military or government one. It looks like it's some kind of index card from the Milwaukee Chapter of the War Mothers of America. The WMoA were a non-profit group started in 1917 to assist the war effort in any way they could. They did things like letter writing campaigns, fundraising, comforts funds and worked with the Red Cross. It was a way for women associated with soldiers, as it was made up of wives and daughters and sisters as well as mothers, to take part in the war effort. \nThe form itself is presumably some kind that applicants would be able to fill out about their son, or husband/whatever, when they joined. Just an early form of database for people to use. It doesn't have his service number, which I find quite interesting, as that would have been an important piece of information to record. \n\n\"Name of Pal\" I would assume is just that. The name of a friend to whom mail or inquiries could be sent or forwarded for information. If a soldier were illiterate something like that could be quite useful. I guess kind of like a military Next of Kin.\n\nThere's not a ton of information about the WMoA out there, but the Hathi Trust has digitised the book of the [Proceedings of the First National Convention of the WMoA, 1918.](https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89077201184&view=1up&seq=44) It might have some further info if you can be bothered scouring it.", "created_utc": 1566952162, "distinguished": null, "id": "ey9ti4m", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/cwbodg/what_does_this_mention_of_a_name_of_pal_in/ey9ti4m/", "score": 8 } ]

[ { "body": "Storm of Steel, by Ernst Junger, could be a perfect source for her. It's a written account from a German veteran of the first world war.", "created_utc": 1523065830, "distinguished": null, "id": "dwy44cg", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/8aeb5e/books_that_describe_the_experiences_of_german/dwy44cg/", "score": 4 }, { "body": "It isn't a book, but you might refer your student to Otto Dix's excellent paintings and drawings depicting the lives of the soldiers engaging in trench warfare. It is really moving stuff. \n\nhttps://www.waggish.org/2011/otto-dixs-war-sketches/", "created_utc": 1523075710, "distinguished": null, "id": "dwyc3pt", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/8aeb5e/books_that_describe_the_experiences_of_german/dwyc3pt/", "score": 4 }, { "body": "An easily accessible book is Peter Englund's *The Beauty and the Sorrow: An Intimate History of the First World War* which is divided into more than 200 short chapters following individual soldiers, civilians etc. during the First World War. Several German soldiers and civilians are profiled in the book and is worth looking into for the life of a German soldier.", "created_utc": 1523059894, "distinguished": null, "id": "dwxyvfv", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/8aeb5e/books_that_describe_the_experiences_of_german/dwxyvfv/", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "Hey, I answered this question before! [Here!](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2eam38/what_did_germany_hope_to_gain_from_entry_into_wwi/cjxmjrx)\n\n-----\n\nThis was actually a pretty controversial subject for a lot of people because the *Fischer Thesis* tackles this directly -- and Fischer happened to be a German historian in post-WW2 Europe. He published in 1961 a book titled *\"Griff nach der Weltmacht: Die Kriegzielpolitik des kaiserlichen Deutschland 1914–1918\"* which was published in English as \"*\"Germany's Aims in the First World War.\"* His thesis was based off of documents which were recently released, notably the *Septemberprogramme*, or \"September Program\" which was a document drafted by the German government in September 1914 which described what their demands would be in event of victory.\n\nThey were, by all accounts, extremely aggressive and it shocked a German populace which at the time saw the First World War not as a war of German aggression but Germany's response to her neighbors aggression universally. Fischer, a German at that, would use this document as his prized horse to make the conclusion that the First World War was started by Germany under the pretense of the assassination in Sarajevo for expansionist gains. Such an accusational stance isn't taken as literally this day (many people, including me, disagree with the overall Fischer Thesis because its conclusion. That being, Germany starting a war based on war goals it drafted AFTER the war started doesn't fly) but the document it's based off of is certainly legitimate and gives an overall tone of their intentions. What I'm getting at is the pendulum is certainly in Fischer's direction but not many people buy it, if that makes sense?\n\nYou can [actually read it here](https://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/dokumente/hollweg/) for the German speakers. The cliff notes, for you non-German speakers, are this:\n\n1. All fortifications from Dunkirk to Boulogne will be destroyed.\n\n2. The ore rich area of Briey will be annexed outright. Coastal strips in the North would also fall under German control.\n\n3. War debts shall be imposed on France so large that she is incapable of rearming herself for 15-20 years\n\n4. The French will cease all trade with Great Britain and will be reliant on the Germans economically.\n\n5. Either the outright annexation of Belgium or the seizure of lands up to Antwerp and making the rest a \"vassal state\"\n\n6. Luxemburg integrated into the empire as a \"Germanic State\" (think how Prussia, Bavaria, Wurttemburg, and Saxony were quasi-independent states in the Empire)\n\n7. The creation of a Central European economic sphere (think EU almost) of the German client states in the West and the newly formed states created in the East from a supposed Russian defeat as well. All client/buffer states of Germany, of course. Translated it states *\" including France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Austria-Hungary, Poland and tolls. Italy, Sweden and Norway. This association will not have no common constitutional supreme superficial equality of its members, but actually under German leadership, must the economic dominance over Central Europe stabilize. \"*\n\n8. The annexation of all Central African colonies controlled by Belgium and France -- basically creating a continuous state across the continent.\n\nThis is, in essence, calling for a European empire with Germany at the head and a seizure of large swathes of Africa (Germany's \"place in the sun\"). This was, as I said, very controversial because in a world still recovering from the Second World War many, especially Germans, ESPECIALLY the Germans, saw too close of a correlation between that and the Nazi's just 20 years prior to this books publishing. There was as you imagine quite a lot of emotional backlash.\n\nNow, there is no such document describing the war goals for Russia but we don't need one -- because the Germans beat the Russians and signed a favorable treaty. It's called the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. [Here is a map of the territorial gain of Germany.](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Armisticebrestlitovsk.jpg) [A more in depth map.](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Map_Treaty_Brest-Litovsk.jpg) The Ukraine would be declared an independent state (but basically under Germany's thumb as a buffer state), Germany would gain control of the Baltics, the Russians would pay billions in gold marks. This treaty in many ways conforms to the goals and intents stated above by Germany with respect to the West.\n\nThis treaty would also be cited as an example to refute those who cried out against the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles. If you didn't want Versailles you shouldn't have done Brest-Litovsk was basically the line of reasoning at the time. ", "created_utc": 1419895444, "distinguished": null, "id": "cn8rm32", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/2qqp2r/what_was_the_endgame_of_central_powers_in_world/cn8rm32/", "score": 34 } ]

[ { "body": "Interesting question. I am going to talk about mostly the historical decision that led to it, rather than the practicality as that is sufficiently addressed. It's going to be a bit dry.\n\nOne must understand that the theory and the subsequent policy of expansion into South-East Asia is a thought that predates the Russo-Japanese war. In fact, it is a thought that was born primarily during the time after the Meiji reforms.\n\nMainly, 南進論, the theory of southern expansion. (The expansion into Manchuria, China and anti-communism had a separate origin) It was under the same train of thought of Pan-Asianism that was so prominent in Japan after the Meiji reforms. As in, with Japan now secure and now modernized, we should start expanding our sphere of influence (By diplomacy or force) into the Greater East Asia!\n\nThe origin of the theory came about around end of the Shogunate era, heralded by Sakuma Jyousan. That the Japan should develop colonies in South-east Asia.\n\nThe theory later gained popularity in the aftermath of the Satsuma Rebellion. That Japan should expand into more territories in order to compete with the west, and that it should be included among the new policies of the Meiji government.\n\nIn this era, it was actually mostly proposed by civilian economic philosophers rather than the military. Proponents such as Yokoo Tousaku (Who famously claimed Iwo Jima as Japanese territory in 1887), Taguchi Ukichi, Suganima Teifu (Who was a Economy Historian) were all economists that suggested that expanding into the southern regions will benefit Japan.\n\nAmong those argue for the expansion, capturing Taiwan as a economic base was suggested practically. Especially during the First Sino-Japanese War, Kawakami Souroku, a Japanese lieutenant general at the time famously written a letter to the Diet suggesting to capture the island for use as a colony. (I am biased towards this though, and I must say I am personally thankful for that decision.)\n\nRight after the Russo-Japanese war though, the theory failed to gain more prominence among the military factions. At the time the \"Theory of Northern expansion 北進論,(mainly into China, Manchuria, and Soviet Siberia) was the dominant thought among the military advisers and the southern expansion policy was not pursued after acquiring Taiwan. Not to mention, the dominant thoughts regarding the expansion is mostly limited to economic expansion, such as trading, and immigration.\n\nAlthough as a side note, during the Philippine Revolution in 1898, the Imperial government was contemplating on supporting the independence to secure it as a potential expansion, but later decided against it due to internal conflicts among the military factions about a proxy war with America.\n\nIn the aftermath of World War 1, the Imperial government acquired the south-east islands that were owned by the Germans. Although, at this point the main theory is still dominated by economists and by extension economic expansion.\n\nHowever, this all changed in the aftermath of the Manchurian incident. In the aftermath of the incident, and the worsening relationship between the Imperial government and the US and the UK, Southern expansion by force was finally an option now.\n\nOn 1936, in a meeting between the ministers and prime minister Hiroda Kouki. The decision was made that the empire's main policy would be \"Using diplomacy, and force if necessary, to maintain the empire's standing in Eastern Asia, at the same time expansion into the Southern seas\". This decision heavily influenced the new focus on the Navy, which while a main force of the armed forces was never the focus during Japan's expansion into China.\n\nIn 1940, with Nazi Germany's blitz into the Neatherland and France, therefore causing their colonies to be in disarry. And the isolation of British colonies in South-east Asia.The army decided to open up a new front in order to bring in more resources for the war in China, while halting the advances. The war in China at this point has been going on for years and the fighting seems dragged on.\n\nAnd that brings us into the actual military expansion that started 1940, starting from the France owned colonies of Indochina.\n\nAnd with that in 1941 and Nazi Germany's force into Soviet Russia, the Northern expansionists proposed a open war with the soviets despite the Soviet-Japan neutrality pact. (See? Things that happen across the continent has effects!) They had huge internal conflicts with the Southern expansionists. However, following the loss off military support both from the Army and the Navy, the Northern expansionists quit their government positions.\n\nAs a side note, Nomohan incident happened anyway because the Kwangtun Army decided to attack the soviets, without orders from the main Government. They wanted to pull off the same thing during Manchurian incident to force support from the government, but this time they took a bite too hard to chew and had to face Zhukov and his tanks.\n\nWith the Southern expansionists fully in force in June, and the subsequent American embargo in July that followed almost immediately. The military expansion into South-East Asia became inevitable. And war with the USA and UK closes in.\n\n---\n\nThe northern expansion theory came about in around the same time, and gained prominence mainly through the fight against the soviets. There was virtually no significant resource that could be gained with a war in that direction.\n\nThe main rivalry between the Navy and the Army was also formed over the disagreement between which doctrine to follow. With the army suggesting a northern route, and the Navy suggesting a southern route. The army later past 1940 suggested an equal expansion, but was soundly rejected by the Navy with good reasons. With the American embargo on oil, the Imperial war machine could only last 1-2 year at most with their reserve.\n\nThe theory really only remained in force in the Army, and even then only partially after 1940.\n\n---\n\nSources:\n\n帝国南進策 - Empire's policy of southern expansion, 副島八十六, 1916\n\n大日本商業史 - Japan's trading history, Suganuma Teifuu, 1892\n\n南洋 - The southern seas, Inoue Masani, 1915\n\n防衛庁防衛研究所戦史 - Military history, The defense ministry research center, 1958\n\n昭和史 - History of Showa Era, Tooyama Shigekazu, 1959\n", "created_utc": 1417859285, "distinguished": null, "id": "cmmtss3", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/2oepam/why_did_japan_want_to_expand_so_much_between/cmmtss3/", "score": 14 }, { "body": "There are two sides to this; the practical and the ideological. The practical reasons for their attempts to dominate SE Asia are pretty easy to understand. Japan is in almost every respect a beautiful but incredibly resource poor country. It lacks significant reserves of all the things a real industrialized economy of the mid-20th century needs. That meant it had to import a great deal of it's resources from outside, including food. For a country like Japan, who modernized while seeing the rest of SE Asia first dominated then mostly colonized by European powers, this was perceived as a real threat. The early 20th century was not like today; although international trade was important, the inability to have secure control over vital resources meant that you were at the whim of policy from other countries even on the ability to produce basic necessities. Today's globalized economy means that one has to go to great lengths to lose access to such resources, but in the early 20th century it didn't even take maliciousness to happen. Maybe a war happens somewhere and your trade partner needs those resources themselves? The point is it hampers your ability to decide your own destiny.\n\nSpeaking of destiny, this is the ideological part. The Japanese in the early 20th century definitely felt that they had a destiny. I think that comparing it to Manifest Destiny is pretty appropriate, in that it placed Japan as the (self-imposed) protectors of the people of Asia, and thus the Japanese were destined to LEAD (i.e. rule) SE Asia. ", "created_utc": 1417854536, "distinguished": null, "id": "cmmsvq9", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/2oepam/why_did_japan_want_to_expand_so_much_between/cmmsvq9/", "score": 2 }, { "body": "This is primarily going off of memory. The source I relied on the most was this was Dillemas of growth in prewar Japan; other sources provided as needed.\n\nI feel that much of the atmosphere of the 1930s was shaped by the 1920s. 1920s for Japan was an experiment in liberal democracy. For instance, universal male suffrage for those over 25 was introduced in 1925. The country was also undergoing economic changes: it came out of WW1 stronger than it went in; for example, their foreign exchange reserves between 1913 and roughly 1921 grew by over 400%; their stock of long-term assets in that period grew by 250%; and the net worth of their banks grew by 55%. They had a rapidly growing economy during and immediately after WW1.\n\nConsidering that, Japan was for most of the 1920s nothing really phenomenal. The banking sector, for instance, did not see huge growth and in fact many small banks were either closing or shutting down. The Back of Japan released this review of the economic situation in the 1920s: http://www.boj.or.jp/en/research/wps_rev/rev_2009/data/rev09e02.pdf\n\nThe economic situation was quite dim then, because as you can see the country was struggling with low growth and deflation. This, by the way, led Japan to being one of the first nations to abandon the gold standard completely (some countries, who had previously done away with it, went back to it as a remedy for economic problems).\n\nMuch of the reason for the economic troubles could be explained by the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923. It caused devastating damage in Tokyo and much of Japan, and later financial instability can be linked to economic losses caused by that disaster. Further, during the Great Depressio, there were a number of corruption scandals that were brought to light. The most famous is the Teijin Scandal of 1933, which involved the Prime Minister himself in shady stocks dealings with the Bank of Taiwan. In general, there was little trust in the liberal democracy.\n\nThe military was also facing done difficulties. There were concerns that Japan would not be able to defend itself. Kato Takaaki, for instance, said in an interview for the New York Times that Japan's Navy is hopelessly behind the times (I don't have a link, but if you search for him in their archives you'll find the interview). Kato Takaaki, by the way, would serve as Prime Minister in the early 1920s. Part of this was related to the Washington Treaty, which limited the size of the Japanese Navy, but even then there were concerns that their ships in general weren't adequate in quality.\n\nThese economic problems and military woes ate the perfect storm; however they are simply one piece of the puzzle. The Japanese did indeed use heavy military spending to fight off deflation and show growth (I THINK Patrick Hugh stated that Japan's military in the 30s took about 25% of GDP; however, I am not 100% on that, but I am confident about every other statistic here [because I have those ones written down]. For comparison, the modern US military is about 5% of GDP). This of course would explain the military expansion, but unfortunately not entirely.\n\nJapan in the 30s also had a huge problem with secret societies. The most infamous is the Sakurakai, who would stage numerous coups and assassination attempts. Part of their motivation was eliminating corruption; the Teijin Incident, then, was a huge factor. However, the Japanese government also couldn't control its army; the Kwangtung Army invaded Manchuria in 1931 entirely on its own desire. Part of this could be explained by the large influence of the military in Japanese politics; nearly every single prime minister was either from the army or the Navy. The army and Navy had somewhat of a rivalry for the government budget, and this may have influenced the Sakurakai because as far as I know it was composed mostly of army officers.\n\nLastly, there was a genuine concern, at least by the elite (PMs, Admirals, and Generals; go figure on that one!), for their national security. After WW1, the British cancelled their alliance with the Japanese. This was mostly at the urging of the United States, who did not trust the Japanese. We also have the Washington Treaty, which put limits on the size of the Japanese Navy.\n\nIn sum, Japan sought to expand overseas because many felt that the internal growth of the 1920s was a failure; the reason for wanting to grow was a perseved threat from overseas. Unfortunately it could be argued (as someone else posted here) that those threats only existed because is their actions. Not a bad point, but Great Britain's refusal to renew their alliance was seem by the Japanese that they had to fend for themselves.\n\n(I don't v think you should take this as a final answer; I primarily study economic history [I'm not professionally trained, just well read], so obviously my answer will focus in that).", "created_utc": 1417857526, "distinguished": null, "id": "cmmthd9", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/2oepam/why_did_japan_want_to_expand_so_much_between/cmmthd9/", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "I have \"The Price of Glory: Verdun 1916\" by Alistair Horne, which is also located in the recommended books and resources list here on AskHistorians.\n\nWhile the book focuses on Verdun obviously, Horne also gives some insight about development of the French army in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian War. A lot of which helped explain to me the doctrine of the French army just prior to world war one.\n\nI am afraid I don't think I have any books on specific battles in World War One outside of that, so I am hoping someone else will chime in.", "created_utc": 1523996405, "distinguished": null, "id": "dxj2jpe", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/8czlbp/looking_for_book_recommendations_world_war_i/dxj2jpe/", "score": 4 }, { "body": "Gallipoli by Alan Moorehead is an excellent book, it covers the entire campaign and is probably 'the' book on the battle ", "created_utc": 1524001054, "distinguished": null, "id": "dxj7ptd", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/8czlbp/looking_for_book_recommendations_world_war_i/dxj7ptd/", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Peter hearts the first world war, it's not about any specific battle but about the whole war\n", "created_utc": 1523998557, "distinguished": null, "id": "dxj51st", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/8czlbp/looking_for_book_recommendations_world_war_i/dxj51st/", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "Similar questions get brought up in this sub pretty frequently, and I have written about it [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/azhdnq/at_what_point_did_they_refer_to_the_great_war_as/ei8pz56/), [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/axbp1v/was_world_war_2_always_called_world_war_2_or_did/ehubzs7/), and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/7mghxb/when_was_world_war_i_given_the_name_world_war/dru11js/). The former two answers are largely based on the latter answer, with some updates and modifications. These previous answers address at least part of your question.\n\nTo summarize once again: contrary to popular belief, the terminology \"Great War\" wasn't very long-lasting, at least not in North America. The term \"World War\" was interchangeable with \"Great War\" in the U.S. and Canada while the war was still ongoing. \"World War\" first appeared in print to refer to the war on August 2, 1914, in the *Pittsburgh Press*, and became [increasingly popular as the war went on](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=World+War%2CGreat+War&year_start=1914&year_end=1941&corpus=5&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CWorld%20War%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CGreat%20War%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2CWorld%20War%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CGreat%20War%3B%2Cc0). When the war ended, most American newspapers referred to the conflict as either generically \"the war\" or else the \"World War\" in their headline, while relatively few used the term \"Great War\" in their headline. A few papers split the difference and used the term \"Great World War\". \n\nOn the first anniversary of the end of the conflict, the U.S. War Department issued [a press release](https://www.nytimes.com/1919/11/19/archives/world-war-now-official-title-of-struggle-with-teutons.html), reported in the November 19, 1919, edition of the *New York Times*, which stated that the War Department would thereafter refer to the conflict as the \"World War\" in all official communications and documents. American newspapers followed suit, and by the end of 1920, \"World War\" was pretty much universal in its usage by the American press, while the term \"Great War\" had fallen out of favor. By the mid to late 1920s, \"Great War\" had fallen out of use in the U.S. almost completely.\n\nIn the interwar period, there were occasional predictions and jokes of a second world war, and so the terms \"First World War\" and \"Second World War\" popped up every now and again. The actual conflict known as WWII was first referred to as the \"Second World War\" as soon as Germany invaded Poland in September 1939, first in *Time* magazine, in their September 11, 1939, issue, and again a week later. Earlier that year, in June, *Time* had coined \"World War I\" and \"World War II\" in hypothetical terms, in predicting the outbreak of WWII. \n\nBy the end of September 1939, the term \"Second World War\" was ubiquitous enough in newspapers and on radio that a reader of the *New York Herald Tribune* wrote a letter to the editor, published on September 24, 1939, complaining about the usage of the term since the U.S. was not yet involved in it and it seemed like it might predispose the U.S. to being dragged into the conflict. A similar letter by a reader of the *Detroit Free Press* was published in May 1940. (See my second response above for quotes and details.) \n\nBy the end of 1940, a year before the U.S.'s entry into the war, the name was common enough that the *Salt Lake Tribune* ran a page-long article summarizing the events of \"World War II\" of that year. A Gallup Poll conducted in the first half of 1942 confirmed that the American public far and away preferred the \"World War II/Second World War\" terminology over any other term for the war.\n\nIn the U.K., the usage of the terms \"World War\" and \"World War II\" lagged behind their usage in the U.S. (Canada to some extent, too, but tracked closer to U.S. usage), but the terms were certainly not unknown. (Again, see my [second response](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/axbp1v/was_world_war_2_always_called_world_war_2_or_did/ehubzs7/) for more details.) By the early 1920s, the term \"World War\" was *the* term for WWI in the U.S., and certainly *a* term if not the more popular term in Canada. In the U.K., \"Great War\" was still preferred, but \"World War\" was a well-known alternative by the mid-1920s. \n\nSo \"Great War\" did have longer lasting popularity in the U.K. than it did in North America. While the term was pretty much completely [out of fashion in the U.S. by 1930](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=World+War%2CGreat+War&year_start=1914&year_end=1940&corpus=5&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CWorld%20War%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CGreat%20War%3B%2Cc0), in the U.K., it didn't fall out of fashion until the onset of WWII. [In the aftermath of WWII, \"Great War\" was rapidly replaced in the U.K. in preference for \"First World War\" and \"World War I\"](https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=First+World+War%2CWorld+War+I%2CWorld+War%2CGreat+War&year_start=1914&year_end=1955&corpus=6&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CFirst%20World%20War%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CWorld%20War%20I%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CWorld%20War%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CGreat%20War%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2CFirst%20World%20War%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CWorld%20War%20I%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CWorld%20War%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2CGreat%20War%3B%2Cc0), matching the American nomenclature that had essentially been in use for about 25 years at that point.\n\nThere was no such marked difference in the North American and European usage of \"Second World War\" and \"World War II\". World War II was referred to by those terms in the English language on both continents from September 1939 on, and wasn't really referred to in any other formal way by English speakers in any other way that approached those terms' popularity. Of course, the war was often referred to more informally and generically as \"the war\" until after it ended.\n\n(cont'd...)", "created_utc": 1554174134, "distinguished": null, "id": "ejx8y2k", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/b87nnu/whenever_a_world_war_happened_when_was_it_decided/ejx8y2k/", "score": 11 } ]

[ { "body": "When Henry V attacked Harfleur in 1415 he lost very few to combat, but [upwards of 1500 were sent home sick with dysentery.](http://www.agincourt600.com/7-13-september-1415-disease-and-deaths-during-the-siege-of-harfleur/) Attacking Calais, his grandfather Edward required repeated reinforcement to cover losses due to disease. *Id.* \n\nDysentery is a bad-water illness, very debilitating, certainly can be fatal, and is a natural consequence of premodern bivouacking: men and horses all crapping together with no regard for sanitation. It affected pretty much every army on campaign, and was characterized [here](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19684375) as \"more fatal than powder and shot.\" Retrospective diagnosis of overall disease casualties from 200 or 600 years ago isn't really possible, but I would nominate dysentery as the most likely cause of non-combat casualties. As the author points out, of 12,535 war deaths in the US Mexican campaign, 10,986 were due to disease from camp water pollution, presumably dysentery. \n\nHenry did, in fact, alter his strategy after his losses at Harfleur, leading his depleted force north in semi-retreat, toward the shelter of the English beachhead at Calais. He ran into the main French force at a field known as Agincourt, but that's another story. . ", "created_utc": 1485641522, "distinguished": null, "id": "dd16xbj", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/5qp1tf/world_war_i_is_said_to_be_the_first_war_which/dd16xbj/", "score": 17 } ]

[ { "body": "The person probably suffered from a defect that would reasonably be considered, even before a classification ruling after an appearance at a local board as to final disposition, to be manifestly disqualifying from any gainful military service, such as loss of a limb or limbs, blindness, or other permanent disability from birth defect or serious injury. The reverse side of the draft registration card had space for a question which read \"Has person lost arm, leg, hand, eye, or is he palpably [noticeably or clearly] physically disqualified (specify)?\"\n\nPer the [1917 Selective Service Regulations](https://centropr.hunter.cuny.edu/sites/default/files/military-project/1917%20Draft.pdf), all male citizens and aliens from the ages of twenty-one to thirty inclusive were required to register; this was later extended to all men eighteen to forty-four inclusive in 1918. Dependent upon the results of a local board classification, they were placed into one of five classes. Men in Class I were immediately available for military service, while men in Classes II, III, and IV were temporarily deferred. Men in Class V, including those persons \"totally and permanently physically or mentally unfit for military service\" or \"morally unfit to be a soldier of the United States\" were exempt altogether. In a given local board's jurisdiction, men from Class II would only be called for service when all men from Class I had been selected, men from Class III when all men from Class II had been selected, and so on and so forth.", "created_utc": 1587082924, "distinguished": null, "id": "fnn2cn6", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/g2oazq/on_world_war_i_us_draft_cards_what_would_be_a/fnn2cn6/", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "At the bottom, from left to right: Rear Admiral George Hope, General Maxime Weygand, chief of staff, Admiral Rosslyn Wemyss, Marshall Ferdinand Foch and Captain Jack Marrriott, Naval Assistant to Wemyss.\n\nPeople standing in the carriage are members of the French Army, closely associated with Foch. These are, clockwise, from top left: Commander Emile Riedinger, Lieutenant Paul Laperche (official translator appointed to Foch), Captain Joseph Martin Gallevier de Mierry\\* and Brigade General Pierre Henri Desticker, Weygand's deputy (all ranks as of 11.11.1918).\n\n\\*A small anecdote here. Although generally unremarkable officer, de Mierry will make a name for himself in 1940 as the author of the report dated 18th May and stating that the German attack on France is a desperate reaction to Allied blockade and will most likely spell doom for Germans as this would also cut them off from the shipments via Belgium and Netherlands.", "created_utc": 1543245307, "distinguished": null, "id": "eai75jc", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/a0gk0o/who_are_the_people_in_this_photograph_taken_after/eai75jc/", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Edit: Hope is on the far left. On the right is Marriott.\n\n​\n\nTaken from the wikipedia page:\n\n>Key personnel \n> \n>For the Allies, the personnel involved were all military. The two signatories were: \n> \n>Marshal of France [Ferdinand Foch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Foch), the Allied supreme commander \n> \n>[First Sea Lord](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sea_Lord) [Admiral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_(Royal_Navy)) [Rosslyn Wemyss](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosslyn_Wemyss,_1st_Baron_Wester_Wemyss), the British representative \n> \n>Other members of the delegation included: \n> \n>General [Maxime Weygand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxime_Weygand), Foch's chief of staff (later French commander-in-chief in 1940) \n> \n>[Rear-Admiral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_admiral_(Royal_Navy)) [George Hope](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Hope_(Royal_Navy_officer)), Deputy First Sea Lord \n> \n>[Captain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_(Royal_Navy)) [Jack Marriott](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Marriott), British naval officer, Naval Assistant to the First Sea Lord \n> \n>For Germany, the four signatories were: \n> \n>[Matthias Erzberger](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_Erzberger), a civilian politician. \n> \n>Count Alfred von Oberndorff, from the Foreign Ministry \n> \n>Major General Detlof [von Winterfeldt](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterfeld_(Adelsgeschlecht)), army \n> \n>Captain Ernst Vanselow, navy\n\nThe treaty only lists Foch, Wemyss and the 4 German attendees. On Weygand and Marriott I can't find any data yet. The wiki page doesn't tell me anything on that either. I'll keep looking.\n\n[http://www.servicehistorique.sga.defense.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/LaConventionDarmistice.pdf](http://www.servicehistorique.sga.defense.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/LaConventionDarmistice.pdf)\n\n​\n\nEdit: comparing Weygan's face on his page and in the photo should suffice (second from the left).\n\nAll front in (dark) Naval officer dress are from left to right Hope, Wemyss, Marriott.\n\nEdit2: German attendees: all the way in the back is the Major Von Winterfeldt. Theother three Germans I cannot be sure who is who exactly. \n\n​\n\n ", "created_utc": 1543243206, "distinguished": null, "id": "eai4t3k", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/a0gk0o/who_are_the_people_in_this_photograph_taken_after/eai4t3k/", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "This was in fact done quite a lot.\n\nYou can view very detailed trench maps at [this site](https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=16&lat=50.8399&lon=2.9469&layers=101464645&b=1) from which you can clearly see many examples of such saps being dug towards the enemy position. \n\nAnother example here around [Gommecourt](https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=15&lat=50.1430&lon=2.6446&layers=101465218&b=1) also clearly shows German saps extending towards the British trenches.\n\nThe question of course is what would you hope to achieve by the extensive digging of saps very close to the enemy? \n\nIf you were to dig a sap close enough to the enemy that you could do damage to him (presumably by lobbing grenades into his trench) then you would be close enough for the enemy to lob grenades into your sap. In fact, both Junger in *Storm of Steel* and Rommel in *Infantry Attacks* record grenade fights raging between opposing sections of trench which were very close together.\n\nYou would not be able to launch a large scale attacks from a sap as it would not be possible to move a large number of men in a short period of time towards to the enemy.\n\nSo this was in fact done, but they had limited utility.\n\nFar more useful was the ability to excavate a significant network of tunnels, particularly in areas where chalky soil predominates. \n\nExamples of such tunnels are preserved around the Vimy memorial. Lit with electricity, they enabled men to move around unobserved and unmolested by enemy fire. In the Champagne (Marne/Aisne) large caverns could be excavated to serve as depots, barracks, [hospitals](http://static.messynessychic.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/habitation-dans-les-caves-Pommery-.jpg) or even schools.\n\nAnother ancient technique was to dig mines under the enemy position, fill them with explosives, and detonate them immediately prior to an attack. The craters from such mines are still visible, of particular note being the [Lochnager crater](https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Lochnagar+Crater/@50.0153075,2.6968698,361m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x47dd58f6fc508de7:0x1f612a72b76f1ee!8m2!3d50.0155739!4d2.6973836). \n\nDetonated on the 1st day of the Somme, the effect was predictably devastating, but mining takes an awfully long time, and no matter how initially devastating, mines did nothing to solve the problems that lead to the coagulation of the front lines in the first place. ", "created_utc": 1533557115, "distinguished": null, "id": "e3p3gg5", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/94y31v/why_werent_trenches_in_world_war_i_built/e3p3gg5/", "score": 30 } ]

[ { "body": "Yes there was but it wasn't a \"big deal\". It was predominantly France who wanted this (See: Fischer, Conan. The Ruhr Crisis, 1923–1924 (Oxford U.P., 2003)). On the other side was the US who were more reconciliatory and who were increasingly having a lot of influence. \n\nUltimately, the Treaty of Versailles focused on reparations, changes in borders (Austria-Hungary was split and Germany did have to cede a lot of territory to e.g. Poland) and the creation of the League of Nations (essentially a forerunner of the UN) as a peacekeeping organisation which, despite being heavily influenced by Wilson's 14 Points, was not joined by the US (initially), weakening it considerably and meaning that again, France felt more vulnerable. This led to France being especially enthusiastic about enforcing the reparations, leading to the occupation of the Ruhr (see the Fischer reference above) - this led to incredible hardship for the German population there and did not add to the popularity of the Treaty of Versailles (to put it mildly). \n\nRemember that Russia had left WWI in 1917 and was so not part of any of the negotiations. Russia was not Russia but the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic at this stage (after the Bolshevik Uprising 1917). The UK, being on an island, was less threatened by Germany and had for example, less populist outrage over German war atrocities (France, being right next to Belgium, was for example, very very angry about German actions in Belgium and while the UK had taken in many refugees, was less angry as a whole). This is in addition to the UK having a strong Navy (which enforced the Allied Blockade of Germany, arguably swinging the war towards an Allied Win after the lack of progress on the Western Front). So the UK felt less personally threatened and while not friendly to Germany, was swayed by Wilson's 14 Points also. The UK (and the US) were instead responsible for a lot of the relief work in Germany after the war. Save the Children for example was founded to provide help to Germans affected by the Blockade. A lot for he focus in those movements (rather than high politics) was on the women and children who were suffering after the war. This is then the image of the \"child\" as the innocent victim first became a Big Deal in relief work. (See: Empire of Humanity: A History of Humanitarianism, Michael Barnett, Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, 2011)\n\nFor more details on the specific negotiations around the Treaty of Versailles/League of Nations, which I'm not an expert on, see *The Guardians: The League of Nations and the Crisis of Empire, Susan Pedersen, Oxford, OUP Oxford, 2015. \n*\nSee also: *The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany, 1915-1919. By C. Paul Vincent. Ohio University Press, Athens (Ohio) and London, 1985; pp. viii, 191. This gives more of an overview of British politics of how they felt less threatened by Germany particularly.* \n\n", "created_utc": 1481195082, "distinguished": null, "id": "daxq5a8", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/5h0aum/after_world_war_i_did_the_allied_powers_ever_talk/daxq5a8/", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "In reference to what we now know as World War I, that war was first called the \"World War\" by the newspaper the [*Pittsburgh Press* on August 2, 1914](http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=world+war).\n\nSix weeks later, the term \"*First* World War\" was used by the newspaper the [*Indianapolis Star* on September 20, 1914](https://books.google.com/books?id=w5-GR-qtgXsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Yale+book+of+quotations&hl=en#v=onepage&q=The%20Yale%20book%20of%20quotations&f=false), its first recorded use.\n\nAmerican newspaper articles routinely called the conflict a \"World War\" while it was still ongoing, as typified by publications of columns from the [*St. Louis Globe-Democrat*](https://books.google.com/books?id=DOFDAAAAYAAJ) and [*New York World*](https://books.google.com/books?id=piIWAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover). The terms \"Great War\" and also \"[Great World War](https://archive.org/details/canadaingreatw01toro)\" were also used while the conflict was still underway.\n\nWhile not its first use, the term \"*First* World War\" was also later popularized by Laurence Stallings' 1933 photography book [*The First World War*](https://books.google.com/books?id=1rqkygAACAAJ) which was kinda/sorta turned into a [movie of the same name](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0976117/) the following year. The film, in fact, was comprised of silent newsreel footage of the war narrated by author Stallings.\n\nAs for WWII, the Oxford English Dictionary says that the *Manchester Guardian* used the term \"World War No. 2\" in an article on February 18, 1919. \n\nThe first time the actual conflict that became known as WWII was referred to as the \"Second World War\" was in *Time* magazine on September 11, 1939. The term stuck around for the remainder of the conflict, with \"World War II\" being used while the war was still ongoing. And \"World War I\" was a result of that, though \"First World War\" had been around for some time.\n\nSo to recap, the terms \"World War\" and \"First World War\" were coined pretty much from the outset of that conflict. \"First World War\" was popularized by a book and movie of that name during the mid-1930s, during which time the political climate in Europe was becoming contentious and war was once again on people's minds.\n\nBefore Germany's invasion of Poland was over, the term \"Second World War\" was already coined and it and \"World War II\" were used regularly from the fall of 1939 until today.\n\nI have no knowledge of how the war is referred to outside the English-speaking world. Maybe someone else can answer that for you.", "created_utc": 1470098055, "distinguished": null, "id": "d60dilh", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/4vnv4j/the_great_war_was_later_renamed_world_war_i_when/d60dilh/", "score": 54 }, { "body": "If that helps, I'd like to point out the fact that WW1 is still referred to as the *Grande Guerre* (Great War) of WW1 quite interchangeably in French modern history schoolbooks.\n\n\nEDIT : forgot the country, silly me", "created_utc": 1470140687, "distinguished": null, "id": "d60wz3t", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/4vnv4j/the_great_war_was_later_renamed_world_war_i_when/d60wz3t/", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "Don’t want to discourage any new answers but here is an absolutely fantasticanswer to a pretty similar question.\n\nUser who originally wrote it has since deleted their account, so I can't give them proper credit sadly.\n\n\nhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ukpr4/why_is_ww1_considered_the_first_world_war/?st=jns0yj30&sh=c7d53ca1 ", "created_utc": 1540679906, "distinguished": null, "id": "e8kla1d", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/9rxtiy/why_did_wars_such_as_the_seven_years_war_not_get/e8kla1d/", "score": 13 } ]

[ { "body": "Some soldiers didn't: Panzerkampfwagen noted the French mutiny in which hundreds of thousands of French troops refused to go back to the front lines. Nothing happened to them because it was too large a mutiny (at least, at first - eventually the ringleaders were singled out for punishment) and as Auguststraw noted, the Kiel revolt really put the brakes on the German naval plans. Also, the entire Russian army pretty much refused to fight in 1917 - mass desertions were common, soldier participated in anti-war riots, and even after the Romanovs were no longer in charge, Kerensky hamstrung himself by keeping Russia in the war, thus allowing the Bolsheviks an opportunity to topple the Nationalist government he headed.\n\nBasically, there were several factors involved in the continued war effort at play in individual soldiers: \n\nFirst, there was Nationalism - the idea that you would fight for your country no matter what because you loved it. Nationalism is very powerful in motivating people to fight in the first place. Think of your national anthem, your coinage, your public buildings: at least in America, many of these are designed (at least initially) to instill in you, the individual, a sense of belonging and loyalty to an entity which transcends family, locale, and region. That sens of belonging motivates people to defend their country in much the same way it motivates them to defend their friends or family.\n\nSecond, there were concepts on manliness which are no longer as prominent today as they were in the early 20th century; accusations of cowardice would literally haunt a man for the rest of his life - he could lose friends, family, jobs, be disinherited, and largely ostracized for even the perception of cowardice (see the film \"The Four Feathers\" for a sense of this). Many men - especially the older generation - saw the war as a great sport or a way to prove manliness and transition from boyhood to manhood. Here's a really well done BBC animation about the first two aspects I've covered: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/launch_ani_wwone_movies.shtml\n\n\nThird, there was a 'crusade' mentality alive on *both* sides of the conflict; German and British propaganda played upon the divine guidance of God in fighting this war as well as the devilish nature of the opponent. See these: http://www.crestock.com/blog/design/german-propaganda-posters-from-the-20th-century-129.aspx\n\nFourth, some people needed the money - it sounds crazy, but many knew that their families were better with military pay than with any factory job; working class men from England and Ireland, for example, were often shorter and lighter than their middle- or upper-class counterparts due to malnutrition and disease. Army pay, though not great, was certainly better than the on-again, off-again low paying jobs they may have held before. During the 1916 uprising, many Irish jeered and insulted Patrick Pearse because he and his \"sinn feiners\" (Pearse wasn't a member of Sinn Fein) threatened the pay that mothers and wives of the Irish Volunteers received while their men were off to war.\n\nFinally, there was fear of execution; failure to go over the top meant that you could be court martialed (or sometimes shot on the spot) for failure to fight. Many soldiers suffering from what we now recognize as PTSD (or \"shell shock\" in WWI parlance) were executed because they became hysterical, catatonic, or violent when ordered to return to the front. The flip side of PTSD is also the addiction to danger; some people were addicted to violence and so sometimes volunteered for dangerous duty over and over again. This aspect of PTSD played a large role in the behavior of the Black and Tans in Ireland, for example.", "created_utc": 1380730169, "distinguished": null, "id": "ccjla5d", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nkt08/why_did_soldiers_keep_on_fighting_during_world/ccjla5d/", "score": 36 }, { "body": "Deserter soldiers that were found out were generally looking at some pretty grizzly punishments. I'd say that's definitely one reason.\n\n[Exhibit A: Field punishment](http://www.historytoday.com/sites/default/files/tommy_main.jpg)\n\n[Exhibit B: Executions](http://trish-m.hubpages.com/hub/Firing-Squad-at-Dawn-Executions-in-World-War-One)\n", "created_utc": 1380722214, "distinguished": null, "id": "ccjiirn", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nkt08/why_did_soldiers_keep_on_fighting_during_world/ccjiirn/", "score": 6 }, { "body": "The French Army actually suffered from a series of mutinies in 1917. The French Army had suffered huge casualties and morale was very low. \n\nHowever, the military authorities arrested tens of thousands of soldiers, possibly just on random selections, and conducted court martials. Quite a few soldiers were sentenced to death but I'm under the impression that very few soldiers were actually executed. The main punishment was imprisonment. There was always that threat of execution though.", "created_utc": 1380722946, "distinguished": null, "id": "ccjiqgd", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nkt08/why_did_soldiers_keep_on_fighting_during_world/ccjiqgd/", "score": 9 } ]

[ { "body": "When the first world war began the german high command knew that they would fight a war on two fronts. They therefor planed for this inn advance and concluded that since Russia was so large it would take a long time for them to mobilize and they decided that this would give the german army enough time to destroy the french army and deal the killing blow to France before facing the russians. To do this the invasion of France had to be quick. They further concluded that since the french-german border was so well fortified they had to go through Belgium and the Netherlands(this was later changed to just Belgium). When the war began they immideatly invaded Belgium and 7 August the fortress at Liége fell to the Germans. The belgians fell back to their other fortified cities, Namur and Antwerp and three german armies(750 000 men) moved quickly after them. At the same time the french launched a large counter-offensive in Alsace-Lorraine, but they were driven back by german machine gun fire and suffered heavy casualties. The german counter-attack saw some 20 000 french captured by the germans. French attacks in the Ardenne was as disasterous and Lanrezacs armé(the french fifth army) began retreating from Namur. 23 August the BEF came into contact with the German 1st army at the Mons Conde Cannal and the germans pushed them back, but took heavy casualties. After these initial engagements the french and british decided to fall back towards Paris and regroup there. The retreat was well organised and they rarely lost large amounts of men and equipment. The germans tried to attack in the south, around Nancy, without any luck. Two german armies continued towards Paris where the french and british had reorganized and were ready to meat them. The germans moved to the east of Paris, but bad communcation between the armies ended in a hole in the line. The BEF was incidentally where this hole formed and advanced, driving a wedge between the armies. Fearing being surrounded the german 2nd army retreated and forced the 1st army to follow. They fell back towards the Aisne river where they crossed the river and dug inn with trenches and barbed wire. The french followed them but were driven back and the front ended in a stalemate as the french and british also dug in. Neither of the sides had commited men north of this position and to try to break the deadlock both sides tried to outflank the other side, but since both sides moved northwards they always met resistance and dug inn with trenches and barbed wire. The race northwards ended when they hit the channel coast. Inn the south the situation had developed similarly and the entire western front ended in a stalemate. \n\nDuring this time the french army did not equip their soldiers with shovels and therefor had problems digging inn and both the french and british armies lacked as many machine guns as the germans, but the largest problem was probably that the french commanders ordered their armies to fall back. When the germans followed it hindered the french and british from properly digging inn.\n\nAlthough the western front ended in a stalemate by the winter of 1914 the eastern front continued to be a war of mobility and it never ended in a stalemate. And why should it? the eastern front was enormous and there were no more men in the east than in the west. \n\nIf you have any questions i would be glad to answer and thank you very much for your patience. \n\nSources:https://www.worldcat.org/title/world-war-one-a-short-history/oclc/695008475&referer=brief_results \n\nNote: I used a norwegian translation of the book, but could not find it, so i linked to the original", "created_utc": 1500847028, "distinguished": null, "id": "dkmf3a4", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/6oo3s0/what_were_combat_tactics_like_in_early_world_war/dkmf3a4/", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "There were a number of plans for amphibious assaults on German islands in the North Sea and even the Baltic coast of Germany, formulated in 1914-15, but these came to nothing as it was chosen to focus on knocking the Ottoman Empire out of the war instead. In 1916-17, planning focused on moves to outflank German lines in Flanders, but these were cancelled due to German coastal defences and the failure of land-based offensives these assaults were to link up with. Finally, in 1918, the RN raided the German-controlled ports of Ostend and Zeebrugge, with the aim of rendering them useless as U-boat bases. For more information on these, see my answers [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/45l3ap/was_landing_soldiers_behind_enemy_trench_lines/czywz8v/) and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7se8ot/i_was_listening_to_the_podcast_on_the_battle_of/). There were also a number of raids made on targets along the German North Sea coast by RNAS (and later RAF) aircraft operating from seaplane and aircraft carriers, which I've covered [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7qvb5k/why_didnt_the_royal_navy_attack_along_the_german/).", "created_utc": 1565375151, "distinguished": null, "id": "ewg6sla", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/co5fi1/did_he_british_ever_plan_a_direct_naval_invasion/ewg6sla/", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "There’s a lot of good material regarding WW1 in the FAQ [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/wwi#wiki_lead_up_and_causes_to_the_first_world_war). I think the “Lead up and causes” section would be most helpful to you.\n\nThere are two particularly good responses in that section [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3qr56y/has_emperor_franz_joseph_ever_reflected_on_his/cwi3zy7?context=3), and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12szey/what_would_you_say_are_the_most_notable_reasons/c6xwegb). The first post by u/kieslowskifan discusses what Austrian Emperor Frank Joseph thought about WW1 after it ended, and the second by u/BeondtheGrave details some of the main causes of WW1.\n\nHopefully these will help you understand why Germany shares a lot of the blame, I’m sorry I’m not skilled enough to answer directly.", "created_utc": 1537466971, "distinguished": null, "id": "e6bxgza", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/9hdvm8/why_are_the_germans_considered_the/e6bxgza/", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "David Stevenson's book *1914-1918* is the best overall book I know of. As for documentaries, *The First World War* is available on youtube and is easily the best modern one. Start with episode one, To Arms!, and I'd also check out the BBC's 1964 series *The Great War*.", "created_utc": 1468522766, "distinguished": null, "id": "d5cbfcw", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/4suxr9/what_documentarybook_could_give_me_the_best/d5cbfcw/", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "“The World Remade: America In World War I” by G.J. Meyer is a fantastic book on this subject. Not only does it discuss the AEF, but it also goes into great detail about the country as a whole during 1917-1918.", "created_utc": 1564183877, "distinguished": null, "id": "ev2udrw", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/cia1ue/book_recommendations_for_america_in_world_war_i/ev2udrw/", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "Speaking only for some of the Allied powers, I can say that it happened almost immediately. There had already been a large trade in books and other educational materials for children about the war even while the conflict was still raging (most of it quite limited in its scope and depth, as you may expect), with things like alphabet books proving strangely popular -- see [this British one from 1914](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/alphabet-abc-britain-wwi-propaganda), for example, or [this French one from 1918](https://imgur.com/a/73Wnr). There were also extremely condensed and sanitized accounts of the fighting in major campaigns released for young readers, as well as a just unbelievable number of novels and story collections based on child-friendly heroes doing their bit, usually with titles like *The Famous Twins at Cambrai* or *Mary and Rose with the Serbian Retreat*. These are just hypothetical names, I should be clear -- I regret that I don't have any of these books in front of my just now, and my notes on this subject are in my other office. In any event, the goal of all this wartime material aimed at both the education and entertainment of children was primarily patriotic; there was (I would say understandably) no attempt to look at the conflict from a neutral and distant perspective, and absolutely nothing in the way criticism to be offered for one's own nation's role in the ongoing war. \n\nThe war's conclusion saw swift attempts to make the whole thing cohere in a way that would suit lesson plans, but this extremely self-serving perspective would linger for quite some time. The materials that appeared suggest some interesting (and not always positive) things about the goals of those producing them.\n\nTake [*The Great War in Verse and Prose*](https://archive.org/details/greatwarinversea00wethuoft), for example, which was released in 1919. This volume was compiled by the prominent Canadian educator J.B. Wetherell for use in Ontario schools, and it would eventually see distribution throughout the country more broadly. The volume was designed for the use of Ontario students of all ages, with selections of what was then considered to be the war’s greatest English poetry included alongside extracts from major speeches, articles, military and diplomatic communiqués, and other mostly non-literary prose. H.J. Cody, Ontario’s Minister of Education, describes the volume’s intent in his introduction: \n\n> \"The selections of Verse and Prose in this book set forth the varying and successive phases of the War, and seek to remind, to inform, and to inspire. The teachers will use them as vehicles of moral and patriotic instruction. The pupils will keep them forever in their hearts and minds\" (xx). \n\nIt may seem surprising now to encounter the suggestion that an elementary school pupil would keep forever in her heart and mind an extract from one of H.H. Asquith’s debates in the House of Commons, or a judiciously chosen passage from Raymond Poincaré’s address to the Paris conference, but such hopes are indicative of the tenor of the times. There had been attempts to force the war into an historical context from its very beginning, with some writers suggesting that it was the culmination of all previous history and others declaring it the opening stage of something entirely new. Countless attempts were made to connect it to previous conflicts, with obvious cases like the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 and the Napoleonic War rubbing shoulders with less-obvious ones like the War of Spanish Succession or the Hundred Years' War. Students being confronted with a text such as this were not only encouraged but actively mandated to consider the war within this broader context of what was hailed as a British-led liberal democracy standing up once and for all to centuries of Teutonic \"militarism.\" There is no attempt made in materials such as this to encourage critical thinking, to challenge established narratives, or to reflect on the sort of problems (e.g. colonialist mentalities, secret diplomacy, propaganda, etc.) that have become *de rigueur* subjects in the classroom. It is a book that begins with Kipling and ends with the lyrics of \"God Save the King;\" its purpose should be clear. \n\nWith that goal in mind, the strange contours of the texts included in this particular volume begin to make sense. The large emphasis on documents commemorating and celebrating Lord Kitchener, for example, reinforces the then common view of the war as being another chapter in the ongoing story of Empire, continuing the successful colonial project that had found its greatest flowering in the century just concluded. Relatedly, the overwhelming preference in this anthology for texts taken from statesmen and generals reflects the still dominant view of war as a thing to be considered first from the top down -- a view with which I am by no means unsympathetic, but you can easily see the imbalance this creates given the near-total lack of material in this collection that looks at the war experientially rather than just strategically or politically. \n\nThis is nowhere more apparent than in the bloody-minded determination to include what Wetherell believed to be essential poetry related to the war, and it would be hard to find a part of this collection -- especially when it comes to the calculated impact on student readers -- that differs more from modern approaches. With the emphasis on formal and patriotic work by authors like Rudyard Kipling, Sir Henry Newbolt, Laurence Binyon and F.G. Scott, we see an extreme focus on the ideas of the war rather than its actual conduct. It's true that some actual combatant poets make their way into these pages, with both Rupert Brooke and Julian Grenfell being included, but their short-lived experience of the war before their notorious deaths was in no way typical of the average fighting man, and even less typical of the sort of trench-produced poetry that has come (regrettably) to dominate modern understandings of the war. One should not be *surprised* to find no Siegfried Sassoon or Robert Graves in here, but it's still worth noting all the same. The absence of Wilfred Owen and Isaac Rosenberg is less noteworthy, given their near total obscurity at the time, but Sassoon and Graves had at least been prominent poetical voices in the nascent Georgian scene prior to the war. They have been excluded here because of what they said, not because nobody knew they were saying it. \n\nAnyway, this anthology is just one of many that came out in the war's immediate aftermath, and the ones found throughout the various Commonwealth countries all had similar tones to them. I can't speak for those in (for example) France or Germany, but I'd be very interested in hearing from someone who could. The point of such materials and lesson-plans in a Commonwealth context was to reinforce students' sense of the superiority of British liberal democracy, to confront them with the wider tapestry of history into which the war fit, and (without even the pretense of apology) to crow a little about having won the war in the first place. ", "created_utc": 1518377060, "distinguished": null, "id": "du3bnmg", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/7wt7hn/how_long_after_world_war_i_did_it_take_until_the/du3bnmg/", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "Much of the frontline areas along the former Western Front were treated, in retrospect, similarly to the Exclusion Zone around Chernobyl. The \"Zone Rouge\" was largely fenced off, with villages relocated and with farming stopped within the zone. The zone has been used for hunting and for forestry purposes, as vegetation grew back fairly quickly. Today, 100 years later, the zone is heavily forested, which is in a stark contrast to how it would have been in 1914, as mostly open farmland. A map of the Zone Rouge and more lightly damaged areas can be found [here](https://www.warhistoryonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/1280px-Red_Zone_Map-fr.svg_.png). \n\n\nThere is cleanup of the millions of artillery shells that still litter the frontlines (both explosive and poison gas shells). There are so many shells in the Red Zone and neighboring areas that they regularly turn up on farms - the haul is known informally as the \"Iron Harvest\". The *Department du Deminage* is the French agency, established in 1946, that handles unexploded ordinance, and they remove something like 900 tons of it a year. The rough estimates are that at rate, it will take maybe 300 years to fully clear the ordinance out of the zone. On top of that, the copious amounts of ordinance have caused toxins such as arsenic to leech into the soil and groundwater, which could take many many more centuries to be removed. \n\n\n\"Red Zone: France’s Zone Rouge Is A Lingering Reminder Of World War I\" National Geographic. [https://www.nationalgeographic.org/news/red-zone/](https://www.nationalgeographic.org/news/red-zone/) \n\n\n\"The bombs beneath us: Unexploded ordnance linger long after wars are over\". Washington Post. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/13/the-bombs-beneath-us-unexploded-ordnance-linger-long-after-wars-are-over/?noredirect=on&utm\\_term=.4c77feeac652](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/13/the-bombs-beneath-us-unexploded-ordnance-linger-long-after-wars-are-over/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4c77feeac652)", "created_utc": 1530832782, "distinguished": null, "id": "e1v06on", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/8w93q5/what_happened_to_the_western_front_frontlines/e1v06on/", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "First of all the U.S. did not have the largest standing army in the world; that much is a farce. In fact following the Civil War the U.S. went a massive *de*militarization and did the same exact thing following the First World War as well. That's probably one of the biggest things about American military history early on; *we did not have a large standing army*; be it ideological or financial reasons it varies from historian to historian but regardless within a few years after 1865 our army size was down to about 25,000 men. Compare this to, say, the French and Germans in the Franco-Prussian War (1871) and they had 500,000 and 300,000 active regulars respectively with ~400,000 and ~900,000 reservists respectively who were pre-trained (think \"weekend warriors\"). \n\nYou are more or less correct; the world did not take us very seriously. See this post below where I go into depth on this topic:\n\n* [At the time of the civil war, how did the US army compare to european militaries?](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2dycst/at_the_time_of_the_civil_war_how_did_the_us_army/)\n\nThe U.S., in short, was busy learning lessons from the Napoleonic Wars while Europe was moving into a style of war more akin to WWI/WWII (e.g., what we associate with \"modern\" warfare); this is mainly because, well, the Civil War was America's first real experience with the Western style of warfare since 1783. We don't know whether or not Helmuth von Moltke the Elder (the military genius behind the rapid victory in the Franco-Prussian War!) actually referred to the American experience as *\"two armed mobs chasing each other around the country, from which nothing could be learned\"*; we just know that it's actually something that holds a lot of truth in it and really summarizes perceptions of their capacity (or lack thereof) to fight. Specifically I want to point out this quote from my post:\n\n> US Officers were also largely amateurs. While lower level officers in the South were certainly experienced to some regard with military life because of the large reliance on local militias both sides lacked experienced higher echelon officers who were experienced in staff work, field command, larger unit maneuvers and logistics. The only real experience with this was in General Scott's campaign in the Mexican-American War which had about 12,000 men total. The only real requirement for being an officer [in the American Civil War] was that you had the funds to support your men and the will to lead them or if you knew someone who was and jumped on ship.\n\nTheir officers were largely untrained and unskilled and their doctrine was, in essence, trying to copy paste what Napoleon did but without light infantry and cavalry or grand batteries. Granted they began to get themselves together by 1864 but that's *three years* of suffering on the job experience of getting their butts handed to each other. I really recommend reading through my post thoroughly as it goes over the major points pretty well. \n\nA fantastic source on this is *With a Sword in One Hand and Jomini in the Other: The Problem of Military Thought in the Civil War North* by Carol Reardon. It's short but it tackles these issues well.", "created_utc": 1424367419, "distinguished": null, "id": "coqi9tr", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/2wfc1t/what_did_european_powers_think_of_the_american/coqi9tr/", "score": 28 } ]

[ { "body": "We're currently in the process of revising the World War I booklist, partly to fill in the gap you've noticed. While I'm not familiar enough with the literature to recommend books that take a wider view of the war in the air, I do have to recommend David Hobbs' *The Royal Navy's Air Service in the Great War*. It's an excellent overview of the work of the RNAS during the war, and highly readable for newcomers. It's very detailed, covering every aspect of the operations of the RNAS, both on land and at sea. It's well worth a read if the topic interests you, though unfortunately it is very much focused on the RN's operations.", "created_utc": 1569526673, "distinguished": null, "id": "f1jqpa1", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/d9o2wa/any_book_recomendations_on_aerial_warfare_in/f1jqpa1/", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "1) The first declaration was by Austria-Hungary on Serbia. Something they wouldn't have done without German support.\n\n2) Germany declared war on Russia and France.\n\n3) Germany invaded the neutral country of Belgium in the hope for a quick victory over France. Their invasion was brutal and shocked the (western) world. Although not all stories were true tales of crimes against civilians and acts of barbarism were widespread in the media. The fact that Belgian neutrality was guaranteed by the Germans only made matters worse.\n\n4) The UK also guaranteed Belgian neutrality and combined with their concerns about German ambitions led to the declaration of war by the UK. Something the Germans didn't expect.\n\n5) They lost in the end making it hard to spin another narrative. (The narrative would be that due to Germany geographical position they don't have the luxury of other countries. UK has the sea, France has strong natural borders, Russia is vast. Germany has neither of these and is surrounded on all sides. They can't bide their time like the English, defend like the French nor tacticly retreat like the Russians. Quick offensive action was their only way out and if the rights of sovereign neutral nation have to be trampled, tant pis.\n\nThey are rightfully seen as the aggressor but that doesn't mean they bear all the guilt. The web of alliances, Jingoism, the Russian mobilisation and 19th century style real-politik played their part as well.", "created_utc": 1518186851, "distinguished": null, "id": "dtzhut2", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/7wbczo/why_was_germany_seen_as_the_aggressor_in_world/dtzhut2/", "score": 12 } ]

[ { "body": "Hi, the transcription of the images is as follows:\n\nImage 1 (envelope):\n\n>Jennie [?Ramsden]\n\n>748 atwell st [I'm not familiar with the US postal system so I don't know if there's any significance in the first character on this line]\n\n>Pittsburgh\n\n>Pa.\n\n\n\nImage 2 (letter one):\n\n>Camp [?Luthus] Vail\n\n>Dear Anna, Beth and Virginia:\n\n>this is from your big brother\n\n>Tom who is now a soldier boy.\n\n>I am feeling fine and wish you\n\n>all the same. I have lots to eat\n\n>and plenty of water so I won't\n\n>have to [?etial] [?Jenny's] every meal\n\n>I will send you some pictures\n\n>in about a week, and maybe\n\n>a few other little things. Write\n\n>and let me know how you\n\n>all are and don't forget [your/yore]\n\n>big loving brother, I still\n\n>love you all as much as\n\n>ever and hope you all\n\n>love me,\n\n>your big brother\n\n>Tommy\n\n>P.S. Tell the [presumably pa]rent I will write\nlatter\n\nImage 3 (letter two):\n\n>Dec 31, 17\n\n>Dear Jennie\n\n>I reaved your letter\n\n>and was glad to \n\n>see that all is well\n\n>and tom is working\n\n>every night after school\n\n>Well I see that \n\n>Santa Claus was\n\n>good to all of [Jowine?]\n\n>Well Louis [?Frigy] and\n\n>the cat are they still\n\n>living yet. Does George \n\n>Beamer come over\n\n>yet. Tell him to write\n\n>I wrote to him and he\n\n>did not answer me\n\n>Well did Not join the\n\n>army yet. Are you\n\nImage 4 (letter 2 part 2)\n\n>having good sled\n\n>riding there. How is\n\n>Jessie and [went/wert] getting\n\n>along now. We are still\n\n>[?jend] up yet. We arnt \n\n>aloud out. Tell dick\n\n>to write anyway. I cant\n\n>write nether. Well we\n\n>are going to sine the \n\n>pay roll today. and\n\n>monk and Dicke get\n\n>there ford yet. Well \n\n>I will close now\n\n>From James Madine\n\n>write soon\n\nI'm not overly familiar with cursive but I do have some transcription experience. There's a few place and person names I'm not sure about and a few slang terms. If anyone more experienced at reading this wants to contribute then feel free to correct me.\n\nAs you correctly guessed, these are letters from two different people, 'Tommy', who is at [possibly] Camp Luthus Vail and writing to his sisters, and James Madine, to whom the envelope belongs and who is from Pittsburgh and is writing to Jennie Ramsden. Madine makes multiple spelling errors which would imply he is less educated than Tommy.\n\nAre these letters from a family member or did you just happen to find them?", "created_utc": 1519592022, "distinguished": null, "id": "duthl9a", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/8074w7/i_recently_acquired_letters_that_were_sent_during/duthl9a/", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "World War I technically ended in 1919.\n\nGermany signed an armistice with the Allies in November 1918 which marked only the end of actual fighting, but not the war itself. The war is considered still ongoing until the terms of surrender are formalized and signed. That occurred in 1919 during the Paris Peace Conference which resulted in the Treaty of Versailles.", "created_utc": 1431018960, "distinguished": null, "id": "cr1ks87", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/356zk7/why_do_war_memorials_in_britain_commemorate_world/cr1ks87/", "score": 40 } ]

[ { "body": "As far as I was aware it was a trial that never went any further. Apart from being able to thrown further (and a possibly erratic flight path) I'm not sure what the difference was.\n\nHere's one article:\n\nhttp://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=KCC19150818.2.38\n\nAnd a report from a Melbourne newspaper at the time:\n\nhttp://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/1552805\n\nAnyone in Singleton want to go have a look?", "created_utc": 1423674127, "distinguished": null, "id": "coi9lho", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/2vjmvb/did_the_australian_army_really_use_boomerang_hand/coi9lho/", "score": 20 }, { "body": "Boomerangs weren't always designed to fly back to the thrower. There's multiple types. There's the iconic one that will fly back and the hunting style that has a longer end that flies in an arc http://www.jagalingu.com.au/images/gallery/bb_jumullun_may_11_resize_0007.jpg. Good for hucking at running prey. I'd guess if there was a boomering with a grenade on it it would be more the latter allowing you to throw it and have it curve in the air.", "created_utc": 1423720188, "distinguished": null, "id": "coizv0b", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/2vjmvb/did_the_australian_army_really_use_boomerang_hand/coizv0b/", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "The only examples that I can think of are in Serbia and in Occupied Belgium and France.\n\nIn Serbia, bands of civilians and soldiers, called 'komitadjis', fought against the failed Austro-Hungarian invasion in 1914, and against the Central Powers occupation from Sept. 1915 onwards. Fighting bands like these had already formed in previous years, during the Balkan Wars, and some even earlier in the Bosnia Crisis.\n\nIn Belgium and Occupied France, there were underground resistance groups that spied on the Germans and passed information to the British and French. They also helped to get Allied POWs back to friendly territory, either across the lines or via neutral Netherlands. ", "created_utc": 1430439499, "distinguished": null, "id": "cqugwna", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/34giqr/during_world_war_i_were_there_any_active/cqugwna/", "score": 10 } ]

[ { "body": "My research specifically tackles the use of British tanks and tank crews on the Western Front, so while I can give insight, it will only be regarding the British crews and tanks. \n\nIt is correct that British Mark I tanks were the first to see combat at Flers-Courcelette in 1916. There were French tanks being developed and tested in 1916, just as the British had been developing their tanks over the first two years of the war, but two factors helped the British earn the honor of being first on the field. Firstly, Commander Douglas Haig ordered the tanks in 1916, and his enthusiasm for using them was a major factor in putting the tanks on the field at Flers-Courcelette. Secondly, the French spent longer refining their tank designs and developing greater variety of designs. The British developed and used their main design (Mark I, Mark II, Mark III, Mark IV, Mark V, and Mark V\\*) without many changes, and only later developed a lighter tank (the Whippet). In contrast, the French developed both heavy and light tanks concurrently, thanks to the investment of several different companies (like Renault and Schneider). \n\nWhen you say the tanks were kept “relatively” secret, this is a key point: the tanks were secret, but their existence was known among the general army before they saw action at Flers-Courcelette. For men in the infantry, it was possible to put in for a transfer to “the tanks”, or the Heavy Section of the Machine-Gun Corps as they were known in 1916. One man, Wilfred Bion, specifically mentions putting in for a transfer to the tanks “because it was the only way to penetrate the secrecy surrounding them.” The Machine-Gun Corps already contained a Motor Branch, which held the armoured cars of the British Expeditionary Force, and some men were recruited from the armoured car divisions to undergo tank training. The assumption was that men with familiarity of combustion engines could be trained in tank mechanics and operations more quickly. There is evidence also that the *Motor-cycle* magazine, which had a readership predisposed to mechanical and engineering interests, ran recruitment notices specifically for the Heavy Section of the Machine-Gun Corps (the early tanks). On another tack, men from the British artillery divisions were also approached for the Heavy Section: since the tanks were being outfitted with machine guns and heavy guns (a six-pounder Hotchkiss) and would require gunners, recruiters felt that men with previous artillery experience would already possess much of the necessary gunnery training and would thus require less training to be effective tank gunners than the average soldier.\n\nThe references made don’t refer specifically to tanks as we know them, and the information available to the average British soldier only indicated that “tanks” were another form of armoured car (as they were intended to be). In the end, recruitment followed a few different paths: the early administrators wanted to recruit mechanics, men with mechanical knowledge, and artillery gunners for the Heavy Section, but there was also the chance for infantrymen or men with no mechanical knowledge whatsoever to apply and transfer into the Heavy Section. Men from the Machine-Gun Corps were the first ‘batch’ of recruits since recruiters could approach them more easily and they had some of the necessary training, but the Heavy Section was not overly choosy in its early months.\n\nOnce selection was over, training began. The official tank training camp was formed at Bovington, Dorset, where the Tank Museum now stands today. The Tank Museum is really the best place to learn more about early British tanks, as they serve as an archive of the Heavy Section/Tank Corps/Royal Tank Regiment and have skilled staff who organize and publish the loads of material they possess. A newspaper article from Harold Littledale gives some explanation of the day-to-day process of tank training, but there was a nearly equal emphasis on both practical training and coursework. This was a result of the shortages affecting the Heavy Section early on: very few tanks were available for training, since most of the available tanks had to go to their sections and prepare to go to France. Once in France, there was another tank camp established to continue training, and crews grew more accustomed to the environment of the front lines.\n\nThe short answer to your last question is that tank training did not involve other branches of the military or any other men outside of the Heavy Section. It’s easier to think of the Heavy Section as a subset of artillery for administrative and training purposes: the mechanical requirements of their tanks (and their guns) occupied much of their training time, and working alongside infantry would gain them very little without knowing and seeing the terrain over which they were meant to cooperate. Artillery gunners practiced simply by shooting out to sea (for example, at Lulworth Cove) and didn’t have infantry around to ‘coordinate’ with; in the same way, the tanks practiced by driving over hills, shooting at targets while both moving and stationary, and practicing the signals which tanks would use to communicate between themselves. It wasn’t secrecy that demanded this kind of separation (though before Flers-Courcelette and for some time after, Bovington Camp was well-guarded and outsiders were rarely allowed in), but simply the mechanical demands of the tanks and the resources available to the BEF at large. Once the tanks reached France, they had more opportunities to work with the infantry more closely, but true coordination between tanks and infantry didn’t come to fruition until well into 1917. \n\nI hope this helps answer most of your questions, but to encourage your research, here’s the books and sources I used and recommend:\n\nR., Bion, Wilfred. The Long Week-End 1897-1919 : Part of a Life, Routledge, 2018. (I accessed this via ProQuest, so it may not be in the public domain.)\n\nWatson, William Henry Lowe. A Company of Tanks. (available from Project Gutenberg: [https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44451](https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/44451)) \n\nLittledale, Harold. “With the Tanks”, in *The Atlantic Monthly* (available from their archive: [https://www.unz.com/print/AtlanticMonthly-1918dec-00836/](https://www.unz.com/print/AtlanticMonthly-1918dec-00836/)) \n\nAnd again, I will repeat my encouragement of the Tank Museum’s resources. They have a website specifically created for the centenary of the First World War, and have some blog posts about recruitment: \n\n[http://tank100.com/training-combat/recruiting-heavy-section/](http://tank100.com/training-combat/recruiting-heavy-section/)\n\n[http://tank100.com/training-combat/recruiting-heavy-section-part-2/](http://tank100.com/training-combat/recruiting-heavy-section-part-2/)\n\nThere’s a mention of Ernest Swinton in those posts, who has a biography published as “Eyewitness” (available on archive.org: [https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.210464/page/n7](https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.210464/page/n7)) to provide some reference. \n\nAnd last but not least, a separate image showing the *Motor-cycle* recruitment page (from May 1916). It mentions the Heavy Section, but does not give any details about what the Heavy Section was. ([https://s3.amazonaws.com/gwfattachments/monthly\\_04\\_2014/post-1494-0-81217300-1396475956.jpg](https://s3.amazonaws.com/gwfattachments/monthly_04_2014/post-1494-0-81217300-1396475956.jpg)) I don’t know if there’s a way to access the archives of the magazine for free, but it’s likely there is an archive somewhere I haven’t been able to find.", "created_utc": 1539626475, "distinguished": null, "id": "e7tjl7q", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/9o14to/how_were_the_first_tank_crews_selected_and/e7tjl7q/", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "The Lusitania claim should be easily shown false on the face of it. The ship sank in May, 1915. The US didn't declare war until April, 1917. If the US had intentionally sent the ship to her death for an excuse to join the war... why would they then wait two years? (I've heard people say that the British wanted it sunk to sway American opinion. That at least makes slightly more sense, I guess, but it is still a pretty baseless conspiracy theory as far as I'm aware).", "created_utc": 1383829784, "distinguished": null, "id": "cd8sjzx", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/1q3939/are_these_theories_about_the_causes_of_world_war/cd8sjzx/", "score": 9 }, { "body": "In very brief terms, Britain feared what they understood as Prussian expansionism in Europe and beyond. The British sought to protect the product of what had been years of aggressive expansion across continents, that which they claimed Germany hoped to achieve. What is even more discomfiting is that Imperial Germany's invasion of Belgium came to represent a moral case for war against Germany (See for instance Adrian Gregory's *The Last Great War*, 2008). The international image of Belgium as a brutal colonial power *par excellence* changed very quickly. That historians continue to address the causes/reasons for war in 1914 suggests how unclear and often contradictory they are. ", "created_utc": 1383829311, "distinguished": null, "id": "cd8sgok", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/1q3939/are_these_theories_about_the_causes_of_world_war/cd8sgok/", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "There are two recent books that cover your criterion, David Stone's *The Russian Army in the Great War: The Eastern Front, 1914-1917* and Dominic Lieven's *The End of Tsarist Russia: The March to World War I and Revolution*. Stone's book is a synthesis of recent scholarship on the eastern front and emphasizes the intersection of military matters with tsarist Russia's strained political system. Lieven, a notable scholar of the empire, reverses this and focuses more upon politics. Stone was [interviewed at New Books in Military History](http://newbooksinmilitaryhistory.com/2015/06/12/david-r-stone-the-russian-army-in-the-great-war-the-eastern-front-1914-1917-up-of-kansas-2015/) and the interview gives you a good idea of his book's contours. Similarly, Lieven gave [a lecture at the LSE](http://www.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=1733) that also provides a window into his thoughts on the empire and its dim prospects for the future. \n\n ", "created_utc": 1437155067, "distinguished": null, "id": "ct6shq8", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/3dmzic/books_about_the_russian_army_and_empire_during/ct6shq8/", "score": 5 }, { "body": "*In Wars Dark Shadow* and *Passage Through Armageddon* by W.Bruce Lincoln. The first details the Russian history leading up to the war and the second is a history of the Russians in WWI and the Revolution.", "created_utc": 1437159613, "distinguished": null, "id": "ct6vlmf", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/3dmzic/books_about_the_russian_army_and_empire_during/ct6vlmf/", "score": 3 }, { "body": "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/384kqh/whats_some_good_reading_on_the_eastern_front/?\n\nThis thread right here should be what you're looking for!", "created_utc": 1437152957, "distinguished": null, "id": "ct6r1ap", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/3dmzic/books_about_the_russian_army_and_empire_during/ct6r1ap/", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "I'm not sure I'd classify the French navy as small. At the outbreak of war they had 4 dreadnoughts, 6 semi-dreadnoughts, and 15 pre-dreadnought battleships. They also had another 35 cruisers of various types. That's not that far behind the US's 33 battleships and 39 cruisers.\n\nThey didn't show up at Jutland due to the 1912 Anglo-Franco naval agreement. The British had identified the Germans as the most likely naval enemy, and wanted an overwhelming force of British ships in the North Sea to counter the German Navy. So basically they agreed to allow the French to patrol the Mediterranean while the British would cover the North Sea.\n\nThe French never entirely abandoned the Atlantic and always kept destroyer squadrons based there. But they did move all their heavy ships to the Med to fulfill their part of the agreement. ", "created_utc": 1462896728, "distinguished": null, "id": "d302fgk", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/4ioypn/why_was_french_navy_so_small_during_world_war_i/d302fgk/", "score": 19 } ]

[ { "body": "If you look at Field Marshal Viscount Allenby's Palestine campaign with the Egyptian Expeditionary Force (EEF), you can see the beginnings of the mobile warfare tactics of WWII. In place of tanks and armored cars, Allenby had the Desert Mounted Corps. The DMC had a mix of cavalry, mounted infantry, and artillery, and could act as a fast-moving combined-arms exploitation force. At Beersheba, there was a deception campaign to fool the Turks into believing the Commonwealth forces were still arranged against Gaza, while some of the infantry and the DMC slipped east to attack Beersheba. This was helped by the German and Turkish belief that Beersheba was too far from water sources for a large force to attack. Allenby then used the DMC to maneuver around the Turkish left flank where the defenses were weaker. Allenby's plan made good use of artillery and machine guns to suppress Turkish defenses. The Australian and New Zealand Lighthorse mostly attacked dismounted with success, but the final 'cavalry' charge was made by mounted Lighthorsemen, to the surprise of the Turks and their German advisers (they anticipated the Lighthorse would dismount to attack). (The depiction of the charge in the movie *The Lighthorsemen* is magnificent, if not 100% historically accurate.) Exploitation of the collapse of the Turkish left flank by the Anzac Mounted Division forced the Turks to abandon their positions at Gaza.\n\nAllenby also made good use of his aircraft for reconnaissance, to interdict Turkish supply lines and to harass retreating units. His integration of aircraft, mobile combined-arms force, and aggressive exploitation were, for the time, revolutionary. You asked about communications, and this was a problem throughout the campaign. Wired comm systems only worked well when the line was unmoving, and the range of visual (semaphore, etc) was limited and generally exposed the signalman to enemy fire. Allenby moved his headquarters close to the front line from Cairo, where his predecessor had kept his staff. Likewise, his subordinate commanders, particularly Sir Henry George Chauvel, commander of the Desert Mounted Corps, kept their HQs more forward. Chauvel established a 'fighting HQ' (effectively a TAC in modern US parlance) so he could stay up with the mobile forces. The commanders then used a combination of dispatch riders, wired communication and messages dropped from aircraft.\n\nPreston, R. M. P. *The Desert Mounted Corps: An Account of the Cavalry Operations in Palestine and Syria 1917–1918.*\n\nBruce, Anthony. *The Last Crusade: The Palestine Campaign in the First World War.*\n\nNuño, Geronimo . *Incomplete Victory: General Allenby And Mission Command In Palestine, 1917-1918*", "created_utc": 1454346754, "distinguished": null, "id": "czjvc0s", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/43npk0/how_was_the_nontrench_warfare_of_world_war_i_was/czjvc0s/", "score": 5 }, { "body": "/u/RonPossible gives good idea of what manoeuvre warfare was like in the Middle East; I've given answers as well on pre-trenxh warfare fighting in the west, and strategy and tactics in the Eastern Front if you're interested.\n\nI can also say that there was in fact aerial reconnaissance in WWI; in manoeuvre warfare it was important at Tannenberg, the Marne and the Serbian Campaign of 1915. Fighting had also come a long way since Napoleon, with units advancing in loose order, typically with machine gun and direct/indirect artillery support, as had been previewed in the Russo-Japanese War. By 1916, the Germans and Russians at least had begun forming shock units trained in infiltration tactics, and the Gorlitz-Tarnow and Brusilov Offensives are testimony to how sophisticated artillery methods could be.\n\nEDIT:\n\n* [WWI Infantry Tactics prior to Trench Warfare] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3rtu5m/what_kind_of_tactics_did_world_war_1_infantry_use/)\n* [How did Strategy and Tactics on the Eastern Front differ from on the Western Front?] (https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3xab7m/its_often_mentioned_that_the_eastern_front_in_ww1/)", "created_utc": 1454352770, "distinguished": null, "id": "czjzm90", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/43npk0/how_was_the_nontrench_warfare_of_world_war_i_was/czjzm90/", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "> Did many Americans, like Theodore Roosevelt, immediately side with Britain & France from the outset of World War I?\n\nThis is almost something that I can address but I am not sure if that would be the appropriate response. I've written a paper recently on American propaganda in WWI where I argued that most Americans were coerced into supporting allied cause. They supported the Allies but neutrality was still heavily supported. \n\n> Did many American's feel this way, even if they wanted to remain neutral?\n\nAmericans were split at the time. Some supported the allies, some wanted to stay neutral, some volunteered to go to Europe, some condemned German Imperialism, etc. There was no clear answer but there was a debate and mixed feelings about European war. [Michael Neiberg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38I3z54vEAk) mentioned that most Americans were getting their news from the Allied side, mainly Britain. And because of this the opinion towards Germany started to shift. There were rumors of atrocities (true and false) that pained Germans as the brutes so many Americans were already against the 'Prussianism' and so on, it was seen as a threat to democracy and the world order. \n\nIn 1916, Wilson got re-elected and his campaign was \"He kept us out of war\", but it was a close race. It seems that majority of the American public condemned the Germans but weren't too eager to get involved into European conflict. From what I've read about this time period, it seems that Republicans were more eager to draw the line and support Allies in a more pro-active way. But the public feared that electing a Republican was going to mean war with Germany and possibly Mexico. \n\nI can't write about direct reasons of American involvement, it's not something I've studied specifically but two things stand out Zimmermann Telegram and weakening Russian position that put more pressure on the Allies. \n\nWith that said I can write about what followed and how public opinion has changed. Shortly after the declaration of war, Wilson issued an executive order to create a Committee on Public Information. The initial task was to 'censor' any dangerous news that could compromise the military (Army and Navy). British and French already had a better grip on 'unfavorable' information. The American government wanted to follow the same route. \n\nHere is where it gets interesting. Instead of doing straight up censorship, Wilson made George Creel to be the chairman of CPI. Creel was a writer and journalist, he was a loyal supporter of Wilson and he had personal correspondence with him every now and then. Creel proposed to Wilson to disregard censorship, but to focus on promotion of democratic values instead. He also wanted to create a centralized news agency that was closely working with the military. As a result the division of news was born, it worked with the military and provided all war news to the rest of the country. \n\nBut it didn't stop there, the Committee grew larger by recruiting pro-war/pro-mobilization volunteers from various fields (writers, professors, advertisers, artists, etc.) And this is where the public opinion started to change from mixed/neutral to largely pro-mobilization. \n\nWithout getting into too much details, I'll highlight some of their accomplishments. Most propaganda posters in US from that time period were drawn by professional artists who were recruited by CPI. Newspapers all over the country were reporting on the same story from original source (CPI). If there was a campaign that needed fundraising (Red Cross, Liberty Bond, etc.) CPI was behind it and they employed volunteer speakers all over the country. It is estimated that 400,000,000 people were reached out and heard these speeches. The speeches were given in schools, factories, theaters, churches, etc. \n\nThe important thing to note is that after declaration of war the country with the help of the government and CPI went into the full frenzy mode. The public opinion and perception of war was altered. Before US entered the war, the public had a mixed opinion, there were debates, literature published, articles published, pamphlets distributed. Socialists, anarchists, pacifists, etc. were more vocal. But after American entry and propaganda we see mob violence, slacker raids, shaming, etc. It is actually quite remarkable what was going on in those years.\n\nI am not sure if I've addressed your answer properly but here it is. \n\n---\n\nCreel, George. How We Advertised America. New York: Arno Press, 1972.\n\nCapozzola, Christopher. Uncle Sam Wants You: World War I and the Making of the Modern\nAmerican Citizen. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.\n\nHasian Jr. Marouf A. “Freedom of Expression and Propaganda During World War I:\nUnderstanding George Creel and America’s Committee on Public Information.” Free\nSpeech Yearbook 36:1 (1998): 48-60.", "created_utc": 1464053707, "distinguished": null, "id": "d3h69jj", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/4korgr/did_many_americans_like_theodore_roosevelt/d3h69jj/", "score": 4 }, { "body": "> of course, 3 years later, the sinking of American supply and trade ships by German submarines leading to a declaration of war.\n\nCould a World War I expert address that? I thought Tuchman's _The Zimmerman Telegram_ was a good argument that the Zimmerman Telegram was the proximate, and a major, cause, and that sinking of American ships had happened before without causing a breach. But that's not a recent book and it might have been superceded, hence my question.\n\n", "created_utc": 1464040979, "distinguished": null, "id": "d3gxx8o", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/4korgr/did_many_americans_like_theodore_roosevelt/d3gxx8o/", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "That's an interesting question. In the case of the Western Front, it's a pretty straightforward answer at first: trenches were generally assigned by sector, so you'd have a chain of command of your own national army in charge of one particular section of trench, and you'd have other national armies at your side. This formation was remarkably well-preserved due to the static nature of trench warfare, and as a result, Allied commanders would generally find themselves serving among other units of their own army. Here's a map of a 1915 battle to give you a better sense of what this would look like - note the Germans have unity of command, while the Allies are divided primarily into three sectors of their front line. https://fffaif.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/fromelles-map-7_sml-location-of-armies-on-the-western-front-30-june.jpg\n\nWhen the Americans joined the war, there was contentious debate on where to put those reinforcements. General Pershing, the commanding officer of the American Expeditionary Force, insisted that Americans be led by American commanders, but the exhausted French and British wanted them to fill gaps in the depleted Allied lines. Pershing's insistence meant that only 14,000 American troops were in France at the end of 1917, and precious few had seen combat. In order to compromise, Pershing agreed to allow some units to serve under French and British commanders, on the condition that every American unit arriving thereafter would serve under US officers. For the first half of 1918, therefore, most action in which the Americans fought was under the ultimate command of French or British officers, and it wasn't until the battle of Saint-Mihiel in September of 1918 that a large scale American army went into action on its own. The American case, however, is the exception to the rule - by and large, combatants on the Western Front stayed within the sectors administered by their own army.", "created_utc": 1436876212, "distinguished": null, "id": "ct2toa8", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/3d8qxa/during_world_war_i_did_allied_troops_of_different/ct2toa8/", "score": 9 } ]

[ { "body": "There was exactly one. Or two if you use a broader definition. The Civil War generation had aged into retirement by then, but [Peterr Hains](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6vzgb6/are_there_any_records_of_someone_who_was_a/dm45u6w/) returned to service.", "created_utc": 1516417678, "distinguished": null, "id": "dsyatwh", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/7rm95k/were_any_american_civil_war_veterans_actively/dsyatwh/", "score": 16 } ]

[ { "body": "At first no, it was a mobile battle when the war started. Attacks in Belgium were fast paced, up to the First Battle of the Marne, the war was normal and generally speaking did not spell the doom that the next four years would bring. \nThe Western front became a stalemate for years, 10% of fighting men were killed which was double the stats in previous wars. The new technological advances, weather, and disease brought this on. It wasn't until 1918 - late in the war - did the lines start to sway and become reduced. The armies would move onto trenches that hadn't been occupied for years, often seeing skeletons of their former pals muddled into the dirt or their grave markers gone from wear and weather. For four years however, yes, the Western front was hell, it rained, it rotted, the gas would seep into the ground so you wouldn't even be able to get low during artillery strikes, rats and bugs would invade every crevice of every piece of clothing to the point that special devices were used to boil them off uniforms. The war was truly a new one, and a horrible one.\nSOURCES:\nThe First World War, John Keegan.\nA Doughboy With the Fighting 69th, Albert K. Ettinger.", "created_utc": 1482203139, "distinguished": null, "id": "dbeppki", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/5j04f4/was_the_western_front_of_world_war_i_really_a/dbeppki/", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "An extremely provocative question indeed! I'm currently working on a project about World War I, so I thought I might share some of the things I learned.\n\nI think it is important to differentiate between the war that, yes, many European nations wanted, and the war they ended up getting. Nobody wanted a four and a half year war with Millions of casualties.\n\nThe expecation was generally that of a short war, comparable to the last wars in continental Europe, the Franco-Prussian-War (19 July 1870 – 10 May 1871, but basically over by October), the Austro-Prussian War (14 June – 23 August 1866), or the Second Schleswig War (1 February – 30 October 1864). Each war plan (such as modified Schlieffen on the German side, Plan XVII on the French side, Plan A and Plan G on the Russian side) specified a war measured in weeks or months, but never years.\n\nAs to who else wanted War, you can find very influential hawks in every country. For example, Sergey Sazonov, foreign minister of Russia, was one of them, saying in November of 1913: \"The German Kaiser is so peace loving that we ourselves will have to determine the time for war.\"\n\nI don't have quotes from France, England and Serbia on hand, but the consensus from what I read is that every single country had hawks who wanted a short, victorious war.", "created_utc": 1377623893, "distinguished": null, "id": "cbwdms1", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/1l5wuh/was_germany_in_the_wrong_in_world_war_i/cbwdms1/", "score": 4 }, { "body": "The answers so far deal mostly with the question asking who started the war. That's obviously a valid and often discussed approach, but I think not really applicable here. Even if you follow Niall Ferguson and argue that London carries a major responsibility for its failure to limit what could've been a small war to the Balkans, you're still left with the fact that the German strategy demanded that they mobilized and attacked first. In other words, no matter who gets the blame for causing the war diplomatically, Germany will always (rightfully) be seen as the aggressor as the Schlieffen-Plan depended on the quick mobilization of the German army and a fast and decisive strike towards Paris.\n\nGiven this, I think it's rather pointless to argue about the question who *started* the war, as Germany would've been the attacker in almost any scenario imaginable. So the point is rather mood.\n\nMore interesting is the question whether the Germany army behaved like \"bad guys\". This, too, is only answerable hypothetically, as the Allied forces never invaded German land. How the BEF or the French would've treated German civilians if they had taken, say, Stuttgart or landed in Hamburg is impossible to say.\n\nGermany deserves blame for the atrocities and warcrimes in Belgium and Northern France, but so does pretty much every country that ever fought a war. ", "created_utc": 1377615959, "distinguished": null, "id": "cbwamm8", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/1l5wuh/was_germany_in_the_wrong_in_world_war_i/cbwamm8/", "score": -2 } ]

[ { "body": "Not a question I'll be able to answer, but as a clarifying question, when you say \"territorial units,\" do you mean as in regiments/units associated with a particular location like the Scots Guards and the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry, etc., or do you mean in the technical sense of the British [\"territorial army\"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Reserve_\\(United_Kingdom\\))?\n\nThe latter is the term that the British use for reserve units. If you mean the former I suspect this question might be confusing to anyone more familiar with the technical usage.", "created_utc": 1507568588, "distinguished": null, "id": "do4m7v6", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/758x5l/did_the_german_army_of_world_war_i_have/do4m7v6/", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "It's a roll of Concertina Wire. Effective barrier against infantry and vehicles.\n\nBasically it's barbed wire rolled in a circle to make it hard to ignore and easier to set up. 3 of them in a pyramid shape are the standard configuration.\n\nSource: I've set up plenty of this\n\nAdditional Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concertina_wire", "created_utc": 1411412156, "distinguished": null, "id": "ckpjhws", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/2h4iih/i_have_seen_footage_from_world_war_i_and_there/ckpjhws/", "score": 20 }, { "body": "Some more details would help. Was it smooth or did it have a rough shape? How thin was the tube compared to the hole? Did it look heavy or just unwieldy? Was it one solid thing or a composite? Did it have handles mounted? How big was it in relation to the soldiers? Where were the soldiers, near trenches or somewhere else? Were they under fire or just hasty?\n\nMost obvious in WW1 is a roll of (barbed) wire.", "created_utc": 1411409483, "distinguished": null, "id": "ckpi2bo", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/2h4iih/i_have_seen_footage_from_world_war_i_and_there/ckpi2bo/", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Did it look like anything on this page?\n\nhttps://www.google.com/search?q=demolition+wire+reel+world+war+I&safe=off&espv=2&biw=1325&bih=741&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=g2EgVJqKA8qQyATHuoCYCQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg#safe=off&tbm=isch&q=demolition+wire+reel", "created_utc": 1411408485, "distinguished": null, "id": "ckphj8p", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/2h4iih/i_have_seen_footage_from_world_war_i_and_there/ckphj8p/", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "I found [this](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2e55o7/how_far_did_the_front_line_move_on_the_western/cjw9r12) threat that is really enlightening on the subject. I'm still trying to dig through it and am hoping there are other comments that can inform on this from different angles, but anyone interested should probably take another look there too.\n\n", "created_utc": 1412372717, "distinguished": null, "id": "ckzqhbu", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/2i82qs/how_close_was_germany_to_winninglosing_world_war/ckzqhbu/", "score": 4 }, { "body": "America declared war in April of 1917, and I think their major involvement (i.e. 'boots on the ground') began in February-April of 1918. \n\n\nWhen America first declared war, things were going reasonably well for the Germans. Russia had signed an Armistice several months before, meaning that the Germans could finally focus their men and material for an offensive in the west. In the west, the German Army was resisting the Nivelle offensive and the attacks at Arras, as well as establishing a brief air superiority over the Allies. It might be a stretch to say they were winning, and I don't want to fall into the old \"defenders had it easy\" myth, but I think the Germans had a realistic shot at winning the war at this point. \n\n\nThis situation changed fairly drastically when the U.S. entered but, generally speaking, it meant that the window for a German victory was closing due to the fresh manpower and material. I might as well note that the material contributions of the US are a bit exaggerated, despite what you may have heard about the Liberty aircraft engine. Nonetheless, had the war gone on longer, America's manufacturing sector would have been a major advantage to the Entente. \n\n\nAdditionally, America's entry inspired two of the most iconic offensives of the war: the drive towards Passchendaele and the German Spring Offensive. One of the main goals of Passchendaele was to secure better ground from which to launch an offensive. This was a minor objective to the the overall goal of the offensive (sweeping through Belgium to win the war). It inspired the Spring Offensive for the reasons I mentioned above: the Germans saw the window of victory closing, so they decided to throw what they had at Paris end the war. American forces were vital in stopping this offensive, mostly due to the fresh manpower I mentioned above.\n\n\nFinally, I've heard it argued that Churchill claimed that the two sides were preparing for peace in 1917 since neither side saw decisive end to the war in sight. America's entry shut down these early talks by giving the Allies an opportunity to really win the war. Sort of in \"What If\" territory, but that seems to be the direction of OP's question.\n\n\nIn terms of equipment: the Americans were generally behind the rest of their allies. Very little aviation, tanks, machine guns, or other things useful in the technology heavy war. The American SPADs, S.E.5as, and Renault tanks were all provided by the French or British.\n\n\nEven in terms of small arms, the famous Springfield M1903 and M1911 pistol were in fairly short supply. American troops were often supplied with the M1917 \"American Enfield,\" which was a British design (not related to the SMLE, by the way) retooled to fire American ammunition. For pistols, many secondary or reserve troops were issued the M1917 revolver. For more on American preparation for the war, see how many American weapons are called the \"M1917\" (I can think of two more off the top of my head). \n\n\nSo American entry changed the war pretty drastically, mostly at the strategic level by forcing the Germans into an offensive and providing the Entente with more soldiers, which increased the odds for the 100 Days offensive (the counter offensive to the German Spring offensive) succeeding. The material advantages of having the US as an ally were not really seen in World War One, but it may have been a factor if the war had continued much longer. \n\nEdit: the Netherlands was unoccupied during the war.\n\n\nSources:\n\n\"A Storm in Flanders\" by Winston Groom \n\n\"The Great War in the Air\" by John Morrow, for the American material contributions\n\n\"Passchendaele: The Untold Story\" by Robin Prior and Trevor Wilson\n\n\"The Gun\" by Chivers, for the American small arms info.\n", "created_utc": 1412386490, "distinguished": null, "id": "ckzw2pr", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/2i82qs/how_close_was_germany_to_winninglosing_world_war/ckzw2pr/", "score": 8 } ]

[ { "body": "Not to discourage further discussion, but [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3vfr31/how_widely_accepted_in_academia_are_the/) excellent answer by /u/DuxBelisarius details some of the books problems and shows how it downplays German responsibility. ", "created_utc": 1542002617, "distinguished": null, "id": "e9jexbj", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/9w9ann/to_what_extent_was_germany_responsible_for_the/e9jexbj/", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "At the beginning of WWI, the major Entente Powers (France, Britain, and Russia) made an agreement that none of them would make peace with the Central Powers (Germany and Austria-Hungary) without the others. During the Napoleonic Wars of the previous century, one problem with the coalitions is that one of the powers of the coalition, after being defeated on the battlefield, might come to a separate peace with Napoleon. This allowed him to dismantle coalitions piecemeal. Hence why the Entente Powers made the arrangement. \n\nDuring the war, this agreement had the effect of benefiting the Entente in that when one was struggling (France in 1914 or Russia in 1915), the others knew that they still wouldn't leave the war. \n\nHowever, in March of 1917, Russia's Tsar was overthrown. This revolution resulted in the establishment of something called the Provisional Government. It was a pseudo-democratic government that had a tenuous hold on power and was forced to make allies with such groups as the Bolsheviks. The Provisional Government, which included some who had been near to centers of power in the Tsar's regime, chose to continue the war. This is for a number of reasons, such as a desire to win the lands agreed upon throughout the war (such as the Dardanelles), desire to maintain the support of the other democratic powers, etc. \n\nUnfortunately for the Provisional Government, their bid to remain in the war failed. They launched an assault in 1917 which served only to cause an increase in the number of soldiers leaving the front. With the government having failed to solve one of the primary grievances which led to the March Revolution, there was again a simmering level of resentment. Therefore, in November of 1917, the Bolsheviks took the opportunity to overthrow the Provisional Government and establish their own government. It is a rather interesting affair, but two of the primary results for this topic are that the Bolsheviks were unabashedly supportive of leaving the war and the November Revolution led to the Russian Civil War. This war was fought between the Reds (Bolsheviks) and Whites (anyone who considered themselves to be against the Bolsheviks).\n\nAs the Bolsheviks remained in power in early 1918, they began talks with Germany for pulling out of the war. It seems that a goal of theirs was simply to stall until the revolution spread to Germany (something they believed was inevitable). However, during this period, the German's caught on and began swallowing up vast quantities of Russian territory while facing an almost non-existent Russian army. This forced the Bolsheviks to change course and on March 3rd of 1918, signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. This treaty gave the Germans, among other things, the lands in Russia that they had seized. \n\nAll of this resulted in three things which would lead to Russian losses after the war. First, Britain and France (with the addition of the US) remained supportive of the forces loyal to the old Provisional Government. As the Russian Civil War continued, they supplied and even sent forces in support of the Whites. Hence, the Western democracies were not at all allied with the Bolsheviks. Second, Britain and France felt betrayed by their ally leaving the war in spite of the original agreement not to make a separate peace. They felt that making such a peace meant that any promises made were nullified. Finally, the Bolsheviks had ceded control over much of western Russia to a foreign power.\n\nWhen in November of 1918 the armistice was signed and peace talks later began, one of the key points was what to do with the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. Interestingly, the treaty was accepted by the Allied Powers (Britain, France, Italy, and the US). However, since the beneficiary of the treaty had then been defeated, the Allies felt that they could determine what would happen in those ceded lands. Therefore, a number of states were created using the lands lost by Russia in the Brest-Litovsk agreement, including Ukraine, Poland, and White Russia. Throughout the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks were able to take some of these back (Ukraine & White Russia), but not others (Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, & Estonia). \n\n**TL;DR** \n\nThe treaty that the Bolsheviks made with the Germans to leave the war in 1917 was upheld by the Allies in 1918, but the lands were used to create new states out of the former Russian lands. \n\n**Sources**\n\nGilbert, Martin. *First World War.* London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1994.\n\nKeegan, John. *The First World War.* New York : A. Knopf, 1999.\n\nMarshall, S L A. *World War I.* New York: American Heritage Press, 1971.", "created_utc": 1465997916, "distinguished": null, "id": "d4a4x2t", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/4o69so/why_did_the_russian_empire_lose_territory_after/d4a4x2t/", "score": 6 } ]

[ { "body": "This is because the Germans weren't actually always on the leading edge of military technology. In some areas, they were - submarines, for example. However, when it comes to tank design, the Entente was just better. The British laid the early foundations for tanks, and put their designs on the field. Examples include the famous [Mark IV]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_IV_tank) and the less famous but more effective [Whippet](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_Mark_A_Whippet). The French later invented something crucial for making tanks effective - the turret - which was used on the [Renault FT](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_FT).\n\nProbably the most used German tank was the [A7V](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A7V). Whilst the Whippet and the Renault were light tanks, fairly speedy and easy to produce, the A7V was a behemoth pillbox - more akin to the first British tanks. It faced all the same problems as those early British tanks - it was slow, broke down easily, had trouble going over terrain, etc. However, the British invented the tanks before the Germans and thus had more time to work out the kinks, whilst the Germans got to the tank game late. Seeing that their tanks were largely useless, the German leadership favoured the development of anti-tank weaponry over the development of tanks.", "created_utc": 1358582362, "distinguished": null, "id": "c7zo1te", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/16uxk1/why_didnt_the_germans_produce_more_tanks_during/c7zo1te/", "score": 22 } ]

[ { "body": "The UK in 1914 was a world power having bases and territory directly and indirectly under its control on every continent. \n\nGermany also had land (though much smaller then the UK) on several continents.\n\nThere where battles that took place outside of the trenches and the middle east. For example the [Siege of Tsingtao](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Tsingtao) was in the Pacific while the [Battle of Coronel](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Coronel) was in South America.\n\nThus we can see Battles taking place in South America, Africa, China, Europe, and the Middle East. By any definition that is world wide combat. \n\nHowever it is also considered a world war because it involved thanks to Empire every continent and almost all the major power of the day. The US, Russia, Germany, France, UK, Italy, and Japan where all involved.", "created_utc": 1399033721, "distinguished": null, "id": "ch7o52h", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/24j50j/does_world_war_i_actually_deserve_the_title_of/ch7o52h/", "score": 20 }, { "body": "The majority of the fighting took place in Europe (the Western and Eastern fronts, Italy, the Balkans, Gallipoli), but non-European Ottoman territory saw plenty of combat, too (Egypt/Palestine, Arabia, Mesopotamia, the Caucasus). The naval war stretched around the world, with German commerce raiders active in the Pacific and Indian oceans early in the war, and major battles at Coronel and the Falkland Islands. On land, the German colonies saw varying degrees of conflict: most of Germany's colonies fell very quickly, but Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck led a successful guerilla campaign in German East Africa which lasted until the end of the war.\n\nStill, *most* of the fighting was in Europe. But there's another reason to call WWI a *World* war--belligerents from all over the world participated. Tens of thousands of soldiers from the British Commonwealth, as well as the British and French colonial empires, fought in Europe and elsewhere. Other belligerents included Japan, the United States, and a [long list of others](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_World_War_I). \n\nReally, I think the question to ask is whether the First World War actually deserves the title of *First*.", "created_utc": 1399035326, "distinguished": null, "id": "ch7okkl", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/24j50j/does_world_war_i_actually_deserve_the_title_of/ch7okkl/", "score": 10 }, { "body": "The term 'world war' only entered English, most likely from the German term 'Weltkrieg', which means world war, a handful of years before the First World War. Contrary to what the term would lead you to think it didn't mean a war fought across the globe. According to the Oxford English Dictionary the definition of world war was a war involving the world's major nations. Under that definition it was obviously a world war as the world's major nations were involved. \n\n\n", "created_utc": 1399046126, "distinguished": null, "id": "ch7styc", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/24j50j/does_world_war_i_actually_deserve_the_title_of/ch7styc/", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "I'm going to attempt to answer this. That said, I'd like to preface my response with the suggestion that nationalism outside of Germany (specifically in Central Europe) played just as important a role as German nationalism. \n\nGermany as a unified state is a new concept, only going back 150 years. During the days of the Holy Roman Empire, the area we think of as Germany consisted of a patchwork of kingdoms, duchies, principalities, and free cities numbering in the hundreds. These territories were consolidated over time, and when Napoleon dissolved the HRE in 1806, he continued to redefine the borders of states within Germany. After Napoleon's defeat, the Congress of Vienna (1815) clearly defined 39 German states existing in a loose confederation. \n\nOf course, despite its division into many different states Germany was still largely ethno-culturally homogeneous. If you were to speak to a citizen of any of these 39 states, they would in all likelihood speak German as their mother tongue and identify themselves as German. The main division between the German states had to do with religion: Catholic or Protestant. \n\nIf you go south a little bit to Austria, things begin to change. Although Austria was ruled by a German elite, it was a supranational empire with no fewer than 11 subject nationalities. Unlike other states, who tend to expand through colonization or military action (and thus have some degree of ethno-cultural consistency), the Austrian Empire was the product of dynastic marriages that had accumulated large swathes of territory over the centuries. The only thing that these disparate peoples had in common was an allegiance to the ruling house of Habsburg. \n\nAfter 1848 (the year in which Europe was rocked by a series of attempted revolutions inspired by the French one), the Austrian Emperor Franz Josef tried to walk a fine line between preserving the power of the monarchy and keeping his subject nationalities happy to prevent more revolutions. The Compromise of 1867 (the *Ausgleich*) that elevated Hungary to equal status with Austria and created the Dual Monarchy is one example; another was the new rule requiring bureaucrats in Bohemia to speak both Czech and German, which provided native Czechs with an advantage when entering the civil service. \n\nActions like these angered Germans in the Empire, who felt threatened by the concessions granted to other nationalities. Coupled with German unification to the north, this gave rise to a Pan-German movement, a nationalist, right-winged, anti-semitic movement that wanted to shed the non-German parts of the Empire and join with their Teutonic brothers to the north. The Pan-German movement would later be a great inspiration to Adolf Hitler, who saw its leader, Georg Schonerer, as a hero. This aspiration was eventually realized during the *Anschluss* of 1938, in which the rump state of Austria was willingly absorbed into the Third Reich. \n\nBut going back a little bit. Nationalism also contributed to the outbreak of WW1, both in Germany and the Balkans. Prussia seized Alsace-Lorraine from the French during the Franco-Prussian war leading up to the German unification. Alsace-Lorraine had changed hands a number of times over the years and had both a French and German population, so both France and Prussia saw themselves as having a legitimate claim to it. The Prussian takeover of Alsace-Lorraine earned them France's lasting enmity and gave France a *revaunchist* motivation for war with Imperial Germany. \n\nIm the Balkans, Austria-Hugary's annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina quashed Serbian aspirations for a greater Serbian state incorporating those territories. Slavs within Bosnia saw the Austrians as foreign oppressors, and the Black Hand (which assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo) was a Serbian-linked Slavic nationalist group.\n\nItalian nationalism and an irredentist desire to seize Austria-Hungary's last remaining Italian possessions (Trieste and the Tyrol) also provided an incentive for them to remain neutral at the outbreak of the war and then join the Entente against their former allies. \n\nFast forward to the war itself. Every nation carries in it the seeds of its own destruction. For Austria-Hungary, its multiculturalism was one of those seeds, though it would take the external strains of WW1 to see them grow. During the war, Entente propaganda began to characterize Austria-Hungary as \"the prison of nations\", and nationalists such as Tomas Masaryk advocated for the dissolution of the monarchy. In his 14 Points, Woodrow Wilson stipulated that, \"The people of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development,\" effectively sanctioning the partition of the Empire into national states. \n\nAustria-Hungary dissolved into these new nation states after WW1. This proved problematic: although the various parts of the Empire had been dominated by certain nationalities, cross-pollination had occurred over the centuries. Consequently, there were large enclaves of other nationalities within these new Central European states. This would result in terrible clashes along ethnic lines that have persisted up until this day. These divisions within Central Europe made it susceptible to the Third Reich.\n\nAnother factor was the anti-communist hysteria after WW1. Many in Europe feared the creation of new communist states out of the wreckage of Austria-Hungary. In Vienna, armed members of the Red Guard (an extreme branch of the communist party) tried to storm Parliament and ripped the white stripe out of Austrian flags. In Germany, the Sparticist Uprising pitted the interim government against a communist force to decide the future of the state. Failed communist putsches like these made for fertile ground for facist leanings within the new states of Europe.\n\nTo recap, nationalism in Germany and in Central Europe was contributed to both world wars for the following reason:\n\n- German unification led to direct conflict with its neighbour to the west, France, whom it would oppose in both world wars\n- Central Europe was not homogeneous in terms of its ethno-cultural makeup, meaning that the goals of one nationality in the region would often clash with another's\n- these divisions in Central Europe meant that Austria-Hungary had to make concessions to its subject nationalities, fuelling German nationalism within Austria-Hungary and providing a precursor to National Socialism\n- the collapse of Imperial Russia during WW1 and the rise of the Soviets gave rise to a fear of communism that helped make Europe amenable to facist tendencies, further enabling the rise of the Nazis (though it's worth noting that at their start, they were a fairly minor party in the Weimar Republic) \n\nI may go back and try to refine this answer a little bit, but I hope this goes part of the way to answering your question. \n\n*Source: \"The Fall of the House of Habsburg\", Edward Crankshaw. \"Last Days of Imperial Vienna\", Robert Pick.*", "created_utc": 1518360824, "distinguished": null, "id": "du2xyjp", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/7w861p/why_did_german_unification_and_ensuing/du2xyjp/", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "Sorry for the late reply, /u/Georgy_K_Zhukov notified me of this thread a few days ago but I haven't had a chance to properly respond till now.\n\nYour question is, believe it or not, not that easy to answer. Australian (as well as New Zealand) involvement in the First World War has more recently become a subject of contention with some such as Stevan Eldred-Grigg arguing that Australia and New Zealand should never have been involved in a war on the European continent and that any benefits garnered from Dominion involvement in the war were the result of foolishness that costs tens of thousands of lives. Despite this contention, the Dominions were always going to be drawn in due to their links with Great Britain and I think those arguing against Dominion involvement are doing so from a modern view point rather than properly taking into account the contemporary political landscape of the time that shaped the actions of the Dominions.\n\nThat said, as you might expect, the war had some major impacts on Australia's political and cultural landscape.\n\nAustralia gained territory from its involvement during the war, the German colony of New Guinea. Captured by Australia at the very beginning of the war, The Australian Prime Minister William 'Billy' Hughes, greatly desired to retain German New Guinea as an Australian mandate after the war ended. This was a source of great contention during the Paris Peace Conference as US President Woodrow Wilson desired to place German colonies under the control of the League of Nations with administration devolved to states as trustees. Hughes would have none of this. In Hughes' eyes, Australian annexation of German New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and the Bismarck Archipelago was integral to the future security of Australia. Hughes envisioned utilising these island chains as forward defences against future threats. It was the Japanese in particular that Hughes was concerned about, that old fear of the Yellow Peril and Hughes wasn't afraid of voicing his concerns at the Paris Peace Conference...with the Japanese delegation in the room. \n\nWilson was not happy about this, allowing Australia to lay claim to German colonies below the equator would give Japan a precedent for laying claim to the Caroline and Marshall Islands, something Wilson was not keen on seeing due to fears of future Japanese aggression in the region. Hughes argued strongly against Wilson's proposal, stating that Australia was best suited to administer the territories due to its status as a democracy. Ironically, Hughes also argued that Australia was also best suited to guarantee the safety and the rights of the indigenous populations. Hughes and Wilson could not find a solution to Hughes' demands and after several days of negotiations, Wilson lost his temper. At their next meeting, Wilson asked whether Australia and New Zealand were preparing to present an ultimatum. Hughes, fiddling with his hearing aid (a tactic he used both to stall and infuriate his opponents) answered \"That's about the size of it, Mr President. That puts it very well.\" Wilson, infuriated, demanded know whether Hughes expected the 5 million he represented to stand up against the 1200 million represented by the conferences other delegates. Hughes' response has become something of legend. Responding to Wilson, Hughes said \"I represent sixty thousand dead,\" referring to Australia's KIA during the war. This response positioned Hughes as a folk hero, the David that stood up to the American Goliath. Wilson eventually gave in to Hughes, more important matters demanding the attention of the delegates and Australia was granted the mandate over the German colonies below the equator, New Zealand was granted the mandate for Samoa and Japan the mandate for the islands above the equator. Nauru was granted to the British with Australia receiving 42 percent of Nauru's phosphate production, an act that would eventually condemn Nauru to exploitation and poverty.\n\nThese small territorial gains are really the only ‘benefits’ that Australia attained from its involvement in the First World War and the annexation of such a small amount of territory was, arguably, hardly worth the cost of 60,000 lives. Joan Beaumont does suggest that Australia’s involvement in the war did position it to oppose the racial equality clause of the Treaty of Versailles. This clause would have enshrined the equality of all races, allowing non-White nations to operate globally without any humiliating distinctions. Japan in particular was eager to see this clause added and ratified. Australia and the United States were vehemently against it. Australia during this period was a deeply racist country with government immigration policy designed specifically to keep non-Whites from immigrating to Australia (this policy endured until after the Second World War when the need to encourage immigration began to erode the White Australia policy). Hughes was afraid that the ratification of the Racial Equality clause would erode the policy and allow Japan to infiltrate the Australian economy. Hughes appealed to California, the centre of US resistance to the Racial Equality clause and this prompted Wilson to oppose the clause alongside Hughes. The clause was left out of the final Treaty and Japan left Paris, humiliated and angry. There is an Australian documentary series called Immigration Nation that examines this and suggests that Hughes’ efforts against the Japanese infuriated the Japanese to such an extent that future Japanese aggression stemmed from their failure at the Paris Peace Conference. I believe this to be a stretch but contemporary experts at the time did write that Hughes’ behaviour may fuel Japanese ultra-nationalism. Had Australia not been involved in the war, Hughes may not have been positioned to oppose the inclusion of the Racial Equality Clause, the passing of which would have affected Australia’s domestic immigration policy.\n\nThe long term negative effects of the war on Australia heavily outweighed the perceived benefits. 20 percent of all Australians who served overseas were killed in action, 160,000 more were wounded. This left a deep and lasting mark on Australian society. The societal conflict that was sparked by the 1916 Conscription Referendum did not disappear when the war ended. Anti-conscriptionists and pro-conscriptions, volunteer and shirker, Catholic and Protestant. These camps continued to clash after the war, prolonging the social turmoil that the war had wrought on Australian society. Joan Beaumont writes that this turmoil continued until at least the start of WW2 when the new Prime Minister Robert Menzies was accused of being a shirker because he didn’t enlist during the First World War. Menzies’ mother came to his defence, arguing that Menzies’ two brothers had already enlisted and his family had urged him to remain in Australia. The war had also seen German-Australians interred for the duration and upon the end of the war, these ostracised Australians were either forced out of the country or willingly left, no longer feeling welcome or safe. Additionally, the security apparatus created during the war to combat the perceived radicalism of the socialist Left remained largely intact, the threat of Bolshevism prolonging the fear. That many of the radical Left had been fervent opponents of conscription led to post war clashes between socialists and ex-soldiers. This continued well into the Depression and saw the creation of secret armies for the defence of Australia against the influence of Bolshevism though Beaumont is quick to point out that these organisations were nowhere near the level of those that existed during the period of Weimar Germany. \n\nI hope that has answered your question, I realise that you wanted to know about the benefits Australia gained from being involved in the First World War but unfortunately those benefits are far outweighed by the cost in lives and the social turmoil that the war wrought on Australia.\n\nSources:\n\nBroken Nation by Joan Beaumont\n\nThe Official History of Australia during the War of 1914-18 by Charles Bean\n\nThe Great War by Les Carlyon\n\nThe Great Wrong War by Stevan Eldred-Grigg\n\n\n", "created_utc": 1496368655, "distinguished": null, "id": "dicglz4", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/6e7dwb/how_did_australia_benefit_from_its_engagements_in/dicglz4/", "score": 6 }, { "body": "Pretty broad question here.\n\nWhen you speak of benefits, what kind of benefits are you referring to? Military? Cultural? Economic? Political? I don't want to seem deflective, but the answer you get is going to be highly dependent upon the context around your question. Some of these contexts interweave, and there's plenty of scope here for a thorough answer on most of those, but the answer you get will vary depending on what you're asking for.\n\nAt a high level before any specifics get attended to however, there is a preface I can offer straight away - in almost any kind of professional or formal context, benefits analysis and any conclusions arriving from that analysis is invariably subjective to a degree, even if that analysis is based on objective data or information. This is largely because the advantage, gain or positive impact that constitutes the benefit is largely a perceptive value.\n\nThat said, if you can provide the context as to what kind of benefits (or lack thereof) you're enquiring about, that'll help myself and other flaired (or non-flaired) Australian redditors here answer your question, as that subjective perceived benefit is going to vary more wildly depending on whether you're talking about military, cultural, political or economic benefits.", "created_utc": 1496237347, "distinguished": null, "id": "di9q58p", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/6e7dwb/how_did_australia_benefit_from_its_engagements_in/di9q58p/", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "[One of the flaired users here has a very good post on this.](http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/elx71/because_im_tired_of_seeing_people_repeat_baseless/c1946pz) However it's still a debated topic. \n", "created_utc": 1392056823, "distinguished": null, "id": "cfbugtd", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/1xj7tc/why_was_germany_blamed_for_world_war_i/cfbugtd/", "score": 11 }, { "body": "> Austria seemed to do pretty fine after WWI.\n\nYou should not forget though that the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was dismantled and Austria and Hungary severely punished in the Treaties of [Trianon](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_trianon) and [Saint-Germain-en-Laye](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Saint-Germain-en-Laye_%281919%29)", "created_utc": 1392062055, "distinguished": null, "id": "cfbx07i", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/1xj7tc/why_was_germany_blamed_for_world_war_i/cfbx07i/", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "There are essentially two phases to German commerce raiding in WWI. The first was carried out by cruisers and auxiliaries that were based in the German colonies. However, these were hunted down relatively soon after the declaration of war. In 1915-17, we see the second phase, consisting mainly of converted merchant ships which tried to run the British blockade. \n\nThe main raiders in the first phase of the war were the cruisers that had been based in German colonies before the war. In addition to von Spee's squadron based at Tsingtao, the cruiser *Königsberg* was based in German East Africa, while the *Karlsruhe* was in the Caribbean. They were joined by a number of passenger liners which were given guns; *Kronprinz Wilhelm* was armed by *Karlsruhe*, *Prinz Eitel Friedrich* by von Spee at Tsingtao and *Cap Trafalgar* by the gunboat *Eber* off Brazil. The liner *Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse* was the only raider of this phase to be in European waters at the start of the war. Armed in German waters, she slipped out before the British established an effective blockade.\n\nOf these, the cruisers *Emden* and *Karlsruhe* had the greatest effect. *Emden* was detached from von Spee's squadron before it crossed the Pacific on the route to the Falklands. She operated in the eastern Indian Ocean, capturing or sinking 23 merchants, a French destroyer and a Russian cruiser, before being sunk by HMAS *Sydney*. *Karlsruhe* operated against British shipping in the South Atlantic, capturing 16 ships, but would be sunk by an internal magazine explosion in November 1914. *Königsberg* captured one merchant, and sank the British cruiser *Pegasus*, but would be forced into the delta of the Rufiji river by engine issues. She was quickly bottled up by the British, and sunk by British monitors in July 1915. \n\nFor the most part, the liners were more able to remain at sea. *Cap Trafalgar* was caught and sunk by the British armed merchant cruiser *Carmania* off the Brazilian island of Trinidade on the 14th September 1914 (ironically while *Cap Trafalgar* was disguised as *Carmania*). *Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse* captured two merchants, but was herself sunk by HMS *Highflyer*. *Kronprinz Wilhelm* managed to capture 15 ships. However, British patrols caught her tender (carrying coal and supplies). Low on fuel, and suffering from engine problems, she was forced to seek internment in the USA. A similar fate would befall the *Prinz Eitel Friedrich*. She sank eleven ships in the Pacific, but would seek internment in March 1915.\n\nFollowing this, the German Navy was forced to change tack. With no ships left outside Germany, any raiders had to run the British blockade. Aware that this would catch most cruisers or liners, they began to give merchant steamers hidden armaments, in the hope they could sneak past the British patrols. These ships would also have more efficient engines than liners, and hence a longer range. The first such ship was the *Meteor*, which made two sorties, primarily as a minelayer. On the second, a British patrol caught her, and her crew scuttled her. In December 1915, the most successful of these raiders, the *Moewe* made her first sortie. She laid two minefields, one off the Orkneys, sinking the battleship *King Edward VII*, and the other off the Gironde. She continued into the Atlantic, before returning to Germany in March, having captured 57,776 tons of shipping. *Moewe*'s second sortie came in November 1916, slipping out of the North Sea disguised as a Swedish ship. She made another patrol of the Atlantic, narrowly avoiding a British cruiser, and being damaged by the armed merchantman *Otaki*. She sank 24 ships, totalling 119,600 tons, on this cruise, but would not make another sortie. Also leaving Germany in November 1916, the *Wolf* slipped out of Kiel, carrying 465 mines and (in an innovation for auxiliary cruisers) a seaplane. She laid a number of minefields off key ports in the Indian Ocean and western Pacific, and raided Allied shipping in the region. She sank 14 ships, while her minefields sank another 13. The last successful raider was the *Seeadler*, leaving Germany on the 21st December 1916. Somewhat unusually for a raider, she was a sailing ship. On Christmas Day, she was stopped by a British AMC, the *Patria*, but managed to escape serious inspection. *Seeadler* patrolled the Pacific, capturing 28,000 tons of shipping, before she was wrecked on the island of Mopihaa on the 31st July 1917.\n\nNot every raider managed to escape Germany. In February 1916, a raider (confusingly also called *Wolf*) ran aground and sank while leaving Kiel. Later that month, on the 29th, the *Greif* was encountered by the British AMC *Alcantara*, as the RN had been pre-warned by radio decrypts and a submarine sighting. However, *Greif* was able to close. Fire was opened at a range of 800 yards, with the German ship initially doing heavy damage. However, the AMC *Andes* and the light cruiser *Comus* were close to the battle, and reinforced Alcantara. *Grief* was soon sunk, but *Alcantara* would join her, having been hit by a torpedo fired by *Grief*. The last raider, the *Leopard*, was stopped by the boarding vessel *Dundee* on the 16th March 1916. While *Dundee* was heavily outgunned (she was armed with two 4in guns, compared to five 5.9in and four 3.4in on the German ship), clever positioning on her captain's part allowed her to do heavy damage to *Leopard*. Reinforced by the armoured cruiser *Achilles*, the British soon sank *Leopard*.\n\nThis description of the experiences of German raiders should show some of the reasons why the Germans made comparably few attempts to use surface raiders. Without a network of bases at which ships could rearm, refuel and refit, they lacked the ability to make effective long patrols. The scale of Allied patrolling made prolonged action hard to achieve. Similarly, the British blockade meant that attempting to reach the main shipping routes was difficult. Finally, the Germans had comparatively few ships that could operate in this way - cruisers were more useful with the fleet, while freighters were useful for trading with the Scandinavian neutrals, or as blockade runners. Submarines had none of these issues. For much of the war, they could evade British patrols in the North Sea, which had little effective way to find a submerged submarine. Subs could sit in shipping lanes for prolonged periods without fearing Allied retaliation, unlike a surface raider. Submarines also gave little warning to a merchant target. As a result, the main way in which the Germans fought the commerce war was with submarines.\n\nSources:\n\n\n*Castles of Steel: Britain, Germany and the Winning of The Great War at Sea*, Robert K. Massie, Pimlico, 2005\n\n*Fighting the Great War at Sea: Strategy, Tactics and Technology*, Norman Friedman, Seaforth, 2014\n\n*German Commerce Raiders 1914-18*, Ryan K. Noppen, Osprey, 2015\n\n*Blockade: Cruiser Warfare and the Starvation of Germany in WW1*, Steve R Dunn, Seaforth, 2016\n\n*History of the Great War - Naval Operations*, Julian S Corbett and Henry Newbolt, Longmans, 1920\n\n*History of the Great War - The Merchant Navy*, Archibald Hurd, John Murray, 1921\n\n*Review of German Cruiser Warfare 1914-1918*, Admiralty, O.U. 6337 (40), 1940\n\n", "created_utc": 1511559671, "distinguished": null, "id": "dqaipox", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/7f9vhv/why_didnt_the_imperial_german_navy_make_more/dqaipox/", "score": 4 } ]

[ { "body": "During Word War I, our case for going to war wasn’t nearly as strong as in World War II. The war was in some ways “forced”. There was a lot of protest.\n\nTo avoid this during World War II, a very robust system for “Conscientious Objectors” was set-up. You wouldn’t have needed to necessarily disappear at all to avoid war. You could take a non-combat role, go to work at a CCC camp, etc. There were CO’s during WWI, but not as many. Ironically though because the case for war was much stronger there was much less resistance than in WWI.\n\nAlso during WWI, only 10% of those registered (about 25 million) for the draft were drafted, so outright evasion would have been dumb unless your number actually got called.\n\nAfter WWII, Truman pardoned all draft resisters / evaders. There were 373,000, of which about 5% convicted until they were pardoned.\n\nSorry I couldn’t answer all of your questions, hope that sheds some light.\n\nSOURCE: The Military Draft Handbook by James Tracy\n\n\n\n\n", "created_utc": 1514755649, "distinguished": null, "id": "ds0fgl1", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/7napzl/how_difficult_would_it_have_been_for_an_american/ds0fgl1/", "score": 32 } ]

[ { "body": "British cavalry were armed with rifles (as opposed to carbines) from 1903. This didn't completely supersede their swords or lances though. \n\nThe rifle would be carried in a 'bucket' on the saddle like [this](http://www.paoyeomanry.co.uk/Yeomanry/LeicsYeo/Horse%20Furniture/ww1saddle3.jpg) along with a [sword](http://www.paoyeomanry.co.uk/Yeomanry/LeicsYeo/Horse%20Furniture/ww1saddle.jpg).\n\nLancers were still equipped with a 9ft lance, as seen in this photo of the 16th Lancers on the march in Autumn 1914. http://www.1914-1918.net/PIX/IWM/Q_56309.JPG \n\nIn the early stages of the war, both were used. For instance, the 9th Lancers fought with both rifle and lance at the Battle of Mons on 24th August 1914. As part of a flank guard action, a squadron of 9th Lancers charged the Germans as they advanced on a village, which won their commanding officer Capt. Grenfell a VC. \n\nIn the same battle the 9th Lancers also engaged the Germans on foot with rifles, along with the 18th Hussars.\n\nSo at the beginning of the war at least, the weaponry cavalrymen were equipped with would be 1908 Pattern Cavalry Troopers sword and/or a 9ft ash lance, and a bolt action Lee-Enfield Rifle. Like you said, I imagine that cavalry officers would have revolvers instead of (or perhaps in addition to) their rifles, although I don't know about that for sure.\n\n", "created_utc": 1391630605, "distinguished": null, "id": "cf7w4p1", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/1x3c5z/how_was_cavalry_armed_at_the_start_of_world_war_i/cf7w4p1/", "score": 7 } ]

[ { "body": "The Ottomans *did* sign a separate peace in the end. While the fighting on the Western front was ended by the 11 November Armistice, the Ottomans had already signed the Armistice of Mudros on 30 October.\n\nI'm not aware of any efforts at a separate peace on either side once hostilities had begun. None of the disasters on either side was so bad as to consider capitulation until very late in the war. In the end the actual things that prompted the Ottoman armistice was the collapse of the Salonica Front and the separate peace with Bulgaria at the end of September 1918. Talat Pasha on hearing the news replied \"Boku yedik\" \"We've eaten shit.\"\n\nEnver Pasha was forced out on 4 October and the rest of the Committee of Union and Progress were out within a couple weeks. Talat, Djemal and Enver Pasha would shortly thereafter flee to Germany.", "created_utc": 1516296366, "distinguished": null, "id": "dsvjts6", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/7rat5x/during_world_war_i_did_the_allies_ever_consider/dsvjts6/", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "They didn't. They won at Gallipoli forcing an evacuation of the commonwealth forces, defeated a British expeditionary force at Kut in 1915-16, defeated the initial Russian advance into the Caucuses in 1914, held the line at Gaza for six months in 1916-17 winning the first two battles of Gaza.\n\nIt wasn't until 1917 that the Ottoman fronts in Mesopotamia and in Southern Palestine collapsed leading to massive British advances into Ottoman territory.\n\nThey lost quite a lot of battles, some disastrously, but I don't think you can by any means characterize it as \"almost all\".", "created_utc": 1460827423, "distinguished": null, "id": "d25e75w", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/4f2cji/why_did_the_ottomans_lose_almost_all_of_their/d25e75w/", "score": 35 } ]

[ { "body": "I'm going to try to recount the murders shown in the first season, so that maybe some folks who have historical knowledge, but haven't necessarily seen the show can comment.\n\nThus, I warn you, spoilers ahead:\n\nThe basic premise, is that a decorated soldier returns home from the First World War, assumes control of his family's gang, and begins to try to improve the gang's in the world rather aggressively. A major plot fulcrum in the first season is that some of the gang's men have bungled a burglary accidentally stealing number of machine guns and other arms and a large quantity of ammunition from a local armory. The government sends a member of special branch to retrieve them, who turns out to be rather ruthless fellow fresh from northern Ireland. He, among other strategies, sends a female spy into the neighborhood in the hopes of infiltrating the gang. \n\nIt's not clear to me exactly what time frame the season covers, but I think it's several months. In that time, I can recall the show depicting seven homicides, but if someone else remembers one or more that I missed, please don't hesitate to jump in and add it. \n\nOne Italian immigrant is killed by a local man, who is not then a part of any gang, when he experiences an episode of PTSD.\n\nOne member of the IRA is killed by informant, who is not targeting the IRA, but happens to despise that group.\n\nTwo members of the IRA or killed in the course of trying to make a deal with the gang. Everyone is trying to doublecross everyone, and the informant is again involved. A sting goes wrong, and the informant and the gang leader have to kill the two IRA members who are attempting to kill them.\n\nOne member of the gang and the leader of a rival gang are shot at the outset of what seems likely to become a major gunfight. Because the second person killed is the leader of the rival gang, the battle is avoided as his forces disperse.\n\nAnd lastly the informant is killed by her handler, basically over romantic tension, though there are of course tinges of honor, duty and betrayal of country. ", "created_utc": 1414324835, "distinguished": null, "id": "clk40di", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/2kcgq7/the_tv_series_peaky_blinders_shows_a_huge_number/clk40di/", "score": -3 } ]

[ { "body": "In short, no. \n\nTo practically avoid enlistment there was no necessity to renounce citizenship. Men abroad, whether legitimately (i.e having emigrated with a passport released by Italian authorities, which presupponed that their status related to military conscription would have been known) or unbeknownst to Italian authorities, were called to arms. For obvious reasons, those who had emigrated in a clandestine manner were expected to show up; the others usually weren't, even if the Italian Army offered them the chance to come back and serve in the war. \n\nThe living conditions were pretty miserable and - to be fair - there were close to no extra benefits. During the first months, there wasn't even extra accomodation provided during license, which means that one (de facto volunteer) who had come back from the Americas but had no immediate relations in Italy, would find himself forced to spend the two weeks license living in the streets.\n\nSome of these would later enlist with the US Army, which provided much larger benefits, including the especially hefty insurance prize, roughly equivalent to 50,000 Lire paid in one installment (which was enought to purchase a small parcel of land) - a thing many volunteers would proudly declare to their families as their main reason to go to war.\n\nAs for the others, those would have made up a large chunk of the men charged for desertion by the Italian Military Courts (470,000 for not showing up - of which 370,000 living abroad) but these courts were busy with other 400,000 men charged for other violations (including almost 200,000 for desertion). And the military courts and authorities considered more urgent to pursue those men who were actually within their reach, since those were the most directly susceptible to discipline measures, the most suitable as examples, and those who could be sent back to the frone.\n\nIn fact the military courts had such a hard time dealing with the many reported violations that proceedings against Italians abroad were substantially shelved. It is also to be noted that, while the cost of a transatlantic voyage was high before the war, by 1915 it could have been prohibitive for many Italian emigrants, who could claim impossibilty to come back as an exhonerating element.\n\nAnyways, there were still roughly 50,000 cases open when in Semptember 1919 the Government of Francesco Saverio Nitti declared a general amnesty (with the exception of some major violations). \n\nThis would have cleared anyone living in the US as well - even if frankly it would have been unlikely for their case to be open at all, or considered relevant by the authorities.\n\n\nAs for what your great grandfather might have done, and believed at the time, I really can't say. Italian propaganda originating from the Italian government was close to non existent within the States; with sporadic initiatives left to affluent Italian-American individuals. I am not aware of specific targeting local communities with threats of any kind that would have likely been counterproductive.\n\n\nSources - in Italian only -\n\nMonticone, A. - *Plotone di esecuzione*\n\nRochat, G. - *La grande guerra*\n\nMelograni, P. - *Storia politica della grande guerra*", "created_utc": 1531170774, "distinguished": null, "id": "e230yqc", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/8xem70/during_world_war_i_were_italian_immigrants_living/e230yqc/", "score": 3 } ]

[ { "body": "Luke Jordan and many other men like him ended up in a Development Battalion because they were considered temporarily unfit for any other unit. \n\nTo be classified as fit for duty, the ideal would be to have a man classified as Class A: Free from disease, physically fit (able to perform a day's labor, walk five miles, have normal hearing and eye-sight) and more or less be able to function and serve as a normal servicemen whether in a combat unit or in a logistical or other types of support units. Before we dive deeper into what made a person unfit and thus eligible for a development battalion, we need to ask ourselves the obvious question.\n\nWhat exactly was a Development Battalion?\n\nAt the time of the publishing of Major E.B. Johns' book *Camp Travis and its part in the world war* (1918/1919), he states that there were 51 of these battalions spread across the United States to improve, to *develop*, men to be fit for service. Men who had already been assigned to units but were found to be incapable of serving in a normal unit where removed and placed in a development battalion if they hadn't already been placed there immediately. \n\nWhat made a man unfit to serve and made them eligible for a development battalion? There were many different categories. For example, you could be an individual who simply can't adjust to military life. You could also have a curable injury, disability or disease (such as a venereal disease) which keeps you from performing to your full extent but isn't serious enough to warrant an immediate discharge. You could be illiterate or be an immigrant who can't write or speak English that well, in which case you were put in an educational section where you would be taught how to write and speak proper English so as to function well in a military context. You also had men who were conscientious objectors being sent to these battalions as well as \"alien enemies\" - nationals of the Central Powers who were drafted into the American Army.\n\nWe get an example of how it could look like for a man to end up in a development battalion. From Johns:\n\n> The man came in the first draft from East Texas, and \nin his physical examination it was found that he had a bad \nleg and was unfit for service. He was sent home but not \ndischarged. With the next draft, back came the man. \nStill nothing had been done to his leg, and still he was unfit \nfor service. Again he was sent home, but he still could \nnot be discharged. Third draft, back comes the man to \nCamp Travis, bad leg worse and less fit for service than \never. This time, however, he was sent to the development \nbattalion. There he was turned over to the physicians \nand surgeon, who made a thorough and comprehensive \nstudy of his case. An operation was decided upon. This \nhad now been performed and the man is recovering rapidly \nin the Base Hospital. After three weeks of convalescence, \nthese operative cases are brought back to the development \nbattalion where they are given the particular physical \ntraining suited to their needs.\n\nWhen put in a development battalion, you would have been evaluated and placed in a section that suited your personal issue. If you were illiterate, you'd be placed in an educational section where, as mentioned before, you'd be instructed in the English language. If you were physically unfit, like the East Texas man previously mentioned, you'd be placed with other men in your own situation and given physical training suited to your particular needs. Specific help was given to those who required it, as shown above in the case of the East Texas man or as in the case of the 16th Battalion at Camp Travis that was made up of men with orthopedic issues. Those men who had flat feet were actually given special shoes to solve some of their problems as well as physical training.\n\nJohns again:\n\n> Various exercises have been devised to strengthening the weak muscles. A man walks up an incline on his tip-toes and down on his heels; he walks on a little trough contrivance that makes his feet turn in, and in this way and others the trouble with his feet is corrected. \n\nIf against all odds you failed to develop or improve your condition, whether it be mentally or physically, you would be discharged. \n\nNow, since I'm not familiar with Luke Jordan, I wouldn't be able to tell you why he ended up in a development battalion or what his particular battalion consisted of. Every camp had their own battalions and they were all numbered the same way (so there could be several 7th Development Battalions, for example). Either way, I hope this helps you understand Luke Jordan's war time service.\n\nSources:\n\n*The Medical Department of the United States Army in the World War, Volume XIII. Section IV, Development Battalions* (1927).\n\n*Camp Travis and its part in the world war* by Major E.B. Johns (1918/1919).", "created_utc": 1474576596, "distinguished": null, "id": "d7xyg85", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/540pxe/does_anyone_have_information_on_the_7th/d7xyg85/", "score": 10 }, { "body": "Another good reference (I was going to answer, but Bernadito beat me to it) is: \"Report of the Surgeon General to the Secretary of War\", 1919, Volume II, especially pages 1031 and following. The development battalion appears to have been sort of a combination of a remedial physical training battalion and a \"medical holding\" unit and a general training unit for service members who were not currently fit for full military service. On 9 May 1918, the War Department issued General Orders # 45, which directed the establishment of such units at every large camp or cantonment. The whole function of them was to rehabilitate less than fully-physically fit soldiers, or to recommend assignments for them in duties which did not require full physical fitness. It is noted that \"about 15\" camps developed such units which were felt to be very effective (more definitive numbers may be found in subsequent Surgeon General Reports, but I don't have time right now to do the research. In these units, troops were rapidly classified and either promptly discharged or given courses in physical development (under the supervision of medical officers) with the goal of enabling them to perform at least limited military duties. Some of these units had special companies for soldiers with VD, where they were kept until treated or diagnosed as non-treatable. About 225,000 soldiers were assigned to these units, of which 34% were VD, 13 % Orthopedic, 2% mental conditions, 5% heart complaints, and 24% \"miscellaneous physical conditions\". Of interest is that 22% were classified as \"non-English speaking, illiterates, morally unfit, conscientious objectors, draft evaders, and enemy aliens\"--- so it wasn't used solely as a medical rehab unit, as originally envisioned, but as a holding/training unit to evaluate and improve military capabilities of soldiers with many deficiencies. Only 18% were returned to full military duty (Class A), 20% to limited overseas duty, 19% to limited stateside service, and 36,000 were discharged from the Army. Just under a 1000 deserted, and 1356 died. I have not found any references to the battalions being numbered, so have not been able to look up the 7th Development Battalion. I suspect that information on this may be found in the book series \"The Medical Department of the U.S. Army in the World War\", but I don't have that at hand right now. I hope that helps a bit.\n", "created_utc": 1474607236, "distinguished": null, "id": "d7yif6k", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/540pxe/does_anyone_have_information_on_the_7th/d7yif6k/", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "For your answer please look at the post by u/lord_mayor_of_reddit in [\"The Great War was later renamed World War I. When did this change happen? Was WWII called such from the start?\"](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4vnv4j/the_great_war_was_later_renamed_world_war_i_when/).", "created_utc": 1532201047, "distinguished": null, "id": "e2smqk2", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/90qzlz/at_what_point_in_time_did_people_begin_to_refer/e2smqk2/", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "I can provide a little bit of information regarding the first question, specifically Verdi.\n\nThe impact that Verdi and Wagner had on opera is twofold. Firstly, they each inherited a national opera writing style whose conventions each composer experimented with, resulting in new, distinct ways of looking at opera and writing musical drama. The use of the word “national” here is a bit of a misnomer, as each of these composers began writing opera before Italy and Germany were even countries, which leads me to my second point: both Verdi and Wagner were in some way involved in the unification movements of their respective countries, both literally and as cultural icons. Wagner was actually an outlaw for a period of time due to his involvement in the failed 1848 revolution and Verdi’s [Va, Pensiero]( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS6L_9xUT5E) from his early opera Nabucco was under consideration by the newly formed Italian Republic to be their national anthem. The nationalist overtones of the piece were not lost on the Italian public.\n\nBefore Verdi came along, operas written in the Italian Romantic style were expected to follow a specific pattern thanks in no small part to the works of Rossini, which set the standard for what an Italian opera was supposed to be. There will be certain types of characters. Certain characters sing certain arias at certain times. For example, there will be a morally upstanding tenor and soprano and they will most likely love each other, and the soprano will most likely be dead by the end of the opera. Set pieces (the big, main arias) would stand musically separate from the drama directly before and after. Even the very structure of the set pieces was dictated by convention. Think about how your average Hollywood action movie is set up. We can expect certain things to happen at certain times, thanks to the conventions set by pervious, popular action movies.\n\nVerdi was notable in the history of Italian opera for his subversion of conventional opera story-telling. His characters were unconventional, his arias were not as sharply delineated from the rest of the drama, and the form of these arias would also be experimented with. And all this with catchy, crowd pleasing music.\n\nTake Rigoletto, one of Verdi’s most famous operas today. The opera opens with an entrance aria not for the main character Rigoletto, but for a supporting character. Rigoletto isn’t morally upstanding, he’s actually a pretty terrible person. Further, he’s a baritone and not a tenor. The prima donna is not a love interest, but rather, Rigoletto’s daughter. Almost the entire length of the opera is scored with music, and is not punctuated with breaks between recitative and set pieces, as would be expected in a more conventional opera.\n\nSources and further reading:\n\n [Carolyn Abbate, Roger Parker, “Young Verdi” and “Young Wagner” from A History of Opera: The Last Four Hundred Years”]( https://books.google.ca/books?id=nmHxlX4E-eQC&pg=PT265&lpg=PT265&dq=abbate+parker+young+verdi&source=bl&ots=hOQuM4bw7V&sig=IMWOSgkz20HEF7HmH3MvJnSxEkg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj8oeetzeTTAhVL7oMKHfOLDu4Q6AEIUjAG#v=onepage&q=abbate%20parker%20young%20verdi&f=false)\n\n\n[James Hepokowski, “Genre and Content in mid-century Verdi: ‘Addio, del passato’ from Cambridge Opera Journal]( https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-opera-journal/article/genre-and-content-in-midcentury-verdi-addio-del-passato-la-traviata-act-iii/CD75F0301736510D3B4E2108D22CC94C)\n", "created_utc": 1494395046, "distinguished": null, "id": "dhd4au6", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/6a9o7p/need_help_from_music_historians_regarding_wagner/dhd4au6/", "score": 3 }, { "body": "I can't say much about opera. Are you working in German? Perhaps there would be a question about the pianist [Paul Wittgenstein](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wittgenstein_(Pianist)? Of all the musical events surrounding WWI, I have found his story to be one of the more interesting. Having lost his right hand in the war, he developed playing techniques for playing with only the left hand and asked composers to compose pieces for it. Maurice Ravel wrote perhaps the most famous, a concerto. Which stands nicely with Ravel's own homage to friends lost in the war, Le Tombeau de Couperin. ", "created_utc": 1494379896, "distinguished": null, "id": "dhcu3nw", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/6a9o7p/need_help_from_music_historians_regarding_wagner/dhcu3nw/", "score": 2 }, { "body": "I think you could do a lot with #1 about the advent of Romantic opera - arguable Verdi and Wagner completely changed the game with not only their style, but with the sheer scope of their operas. The size of cast, orchestra, length, and so on, which is prevalent amongst other Romantic works. Not to mention Wagner's styles of leitmotif, and his prevalence for through-composing, which is some of the first times through-composition has ever been seen in opera, and had huge influences in later music, which is still being seen today. Not to mention the idea of leitmotif being a massive influence on films - John Williams and Star Wars, for example borrowed heavily from the leitmotif of Wagner. ", "created_utc": 1495265187, "distinguished": null, "id": "dhswbdl", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/6a9o7p/need_help_from_music_historians_regarding_wagner/dhswbdl/", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "All Quiet on the Western Front is terrific.", "created_utc": 1395416274, "distinguished": null, "id": "cg8bdn7", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/20zqtm/can_you_recommend_accurate_historical_fiction/cg8bdn7/", "score": 6 }, { "body": "No one is going to ban you. :)\n\nI don't really get what you are searching for, do you want fiction or accurate history? ", "created_utc": 1395415573, "distinguished": null, "id": "cg8b24u", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/20zqtm/can_you_recommend_accurate_historical_fiction/cg8b24u/", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Not really sure how accurate but Ken Follet's \"Fall of Giants\" is fantastic. ", "created_utc": 1395417041, "distinguished": null, "id": "cg8bqc8", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/20zqtm/can_you_recommend_accurate_historical_fiction/cg8bqc8/", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "You've all been so helpful, those are the exact responses I needed. Thank you so much, I simply could not find much on Great War cavalry charges. Thanks for the links too, I'll definitely keep reading about it. Never knew there were successful charges on other fronts. Makes perfect sense now that I think about it.", "created_utc": 1504101255, "distinguished": null, "id": "dmbtfqq", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/6wwxc0/what_were_cavalry_charges_like_during_world_war_i/dmbtfqq/", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "To add a bit more history to /u/jschooltiger's great write-up, for those not familiar with Juneteenth, the recent announcement of the date's designation as a federal holiday likely feels a lit bit out of the blue. However, Black Americans have been advocating for this to happen for decades. The most notable activist is likely a woman named Opal Lee. \n\nFrom a [recent piece](https://www.npr.org/2021/06/17/1007498876/how-juneteenth-became-national-holiday) on her advocacy efforts:\n> At the age of 89, Lee decided her new life mission was much like that of Granger: \"I knew I just had to spread the word about Juneteenth to everybody.\" The best way to do that, she figured, was to help get Juneteenth accepted as a national holiday.\n> \n> She decided to start with a walking campaign in cities along a route from her home in Fort Worth, Texas, to Washington, D.C. It wasn't a straight line. Over several weeks, Lee arrived in cities where she'd been invited to speak and walked 2½ miles to symbolize the 2½ years that it took for enslaved people in Texas to learn they were free.\n\nIt's also worth stating the establishing Juneteenth isn't the end of the work around holidays as a symbol. Confederate Memorial Day is an official state holiday in Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Kentucky official recognizes Confederate Memorial Day and Jefferson Davis (president of the Confederate states) Day on the same day.", "created_utc": 1624138578, "distinguished": null, "id": "h2d4tkh", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/o3hkld/an_explainer_of_juneteenth_and_a_celebration_of/h2d4tkh/", "score": 19 }, { "body": "Thank you for this! \n\nI do have a question as a non-American. \n\nI’ve only heard of “Juneteenth” for maybe the last two years. When did the moniker “Juneteenth” come into extistence? \n\nWas it always called that, was it known as something else, or is “Juneteenth” a new name for it? \n\nThank you!", "created_utc": 1624118330, "distinguished": null, "id": "h2c1vi5", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/o3hkld/an_explainer_of_juneteenth_and_a_celebration_of/h2c1vi5/", "score": 60 }, { "body": "Oh, its been around. Here's an ad from [1928 New Orleans Times Picayune](https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=AMNEWS&req_dat=1006416A1778A0F0&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Aimage%252Fv2%253A1223BCE5B718A166%2540EANX-128BA30587FF90D7%25402425414-1289F8FF49FB3F22%254015-1289F8FF49FB3F22%2540/hlterms%3A%2522juneteenth%2522)", "created_utc": 1624128938, "distinguished": null, "id": "h2cmppi", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/o3hkld/an_explainer_of_juneteenth_and_a_celebration_of/h2cmppi/", "score": 18 } ]

[ { "body": "Let's be careful with our wording about Juneteenth. I've seen lots of tweets today that weren't. It's a *celebration* of emancipation—but it's the *anniversary* of neither the beginning of liberation, nor the date when slavery finally was ended in the US.\n\nIt celebrates when when enslaved people *in Texas* were told of the January 1, 1863 Emancipation Proclamation. Those in two other states wouldn't be free until December 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment was ratified by enough states.", "created_utc": 1592627150, "distinguished": null, "id": "fvesmw4", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/hc39p5/a_celebration_of_juneteenth_and_africanamerican/fvesmw4/", "score": 22 }, { "body": "I love this subreddit so much", "created_utc": 1592585950, "distinguished": null, "id": "fvcrfvo", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/hc39p5/a_celebration_of_juneteenth_and_africanamerican/fvcrfvo/", "score": 90 }, { "body": "Happy Juneteenth! I'm wondering if anyone has book recommendations for a few different topics. I don't really have a specific question so I don't think it would work as its own thread - I just want to know more!\n\n1. When I went to the African American Museum of History and Culture a couple years ago, I remember reading on some of the didactics that the North had its own racist motivations/debates and complex economic motivations leading into the Civil War. Obviously not a surprise, but, not something that's really taught in high school . Any suggestions for a good deep dive into racial and economic complexities in the North, especially ones that forefront Black perspectives and agency? \n2. We've seen an outpouring of information about and recognition of the racial terrorism and massacres that occurred in the US in the time between the end of the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement. For example, I recently read a FB thread about the Kirk-Holden War of 1870, and of course there's the growing reckoning around the Tulsa Race Massacre. Any book recommendations that speak more to this history of racial terrorism and suppression during Reconstruction and time before Jim Crow?\n\nThanks! And mods, let me know if this is better placed elsewhere (daily questions?).", "created_utc": 1592586468, "distinguished": null, "id": "fvcshct", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/hc39p5/a_celebration_of_juneteenth_and_africanamerican/fvcshct/", "score": 28 } ]

[ { "body": "I have some I can recommend, however, in order to make a better recommendation, can you just tell me a bit about what do you want to get out of it.", "created_utc": 1538423080, "distinguished": null, "id": "e6ziqtv", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/9kis2t/what_are_some_readable_relatively_short_books_for/e6ziqtv/", "score": 4 }, { "body": "If you are interested at all in the religious history of African Americans, I'd recommend Canaan Land: A Religious History of African Americans.\n\nOne of my professors assigned it in my History of Christianity class, and while it's relatively short, it's not wasted with any filler.", "created_utc": 1538489227, "distinguished": null, "id": "e711hk8", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/9kis2t/what_are_some_readable_relatively_short_books_for/e711hk8/", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "I can’t say I’ve come across much on same-sex relations between slaves, but there is a little on such relations and on relations between master and slaves in Thomas A. Foster’s Rethinking Rufus: Sexual Violations of Enslaved Men which came out last year with University of Georgia Press. Most of the book is dedicated to heterosexual exploitation, but Chapter 5 delves in the more difficult subject. I should also mention that his work is not specifically about the U.S., but about slavery across the Americas. \n\nSexual exploitation is of course, a very difficult subject to examine within plantation life in the U.S. Those who owned people in bondage were reluctant to speak on the matter because it of course contravened the \"Christian\" and \"paternalist\" doctrines that were supposed to guide their actions, despite it being a pretty regular affair. Even in slave narratives, autobiographies that were meant to document the brutal experience of slavery, sexual exploitation was considered too taboo a subject for publication and was not as regularly discussed as we know it must have occurred. Harriet Jacobs is one of the few former slaves to write about this issue in her slave narrative (I highly recommend checking this one out - https://docsouth.unc.edu/fpn/jacobs/jacobs.html) In addition, for male slaves who wrote the majority of these accounts, to fail to protect your wife, sister or mother was an emasculating and shameful thing, so many chose not to discuss it. This of course, is doubly so for same-sex exploitation on the plantation.\n \nFoster’s chapter delves into this subject in the most depth I’ve seen, but he has to extrapolate and draw his conclusions primarily from art where the black male body is objectified or in particular passages where odd or atypical language is employed to describe relations between people with the same sex. One example would be where he refers to research by Vincent Woodward, who argues that Frederick Douglass himself was raped by the slave-breaker Mr. Covey because of the way he recounts the experience in his narrative in coded language: \n“THE foregoing chapter, with all its horrid incidents and shocking features, may be taken as a fair representation of the first six months of my life at Covey’s. The reader has but to repeat, in his own mind, once a week, the scene in the woods, where Covey subjected me to his merciless lash, to have a true idea of my bitter experience there, during the first period of the breaking process through which Mr. Covey carried me. I have no heart to repeat each separate transaction, in which I was a victim of his violence and brutality.” \nFoster’s chapter also makes a structuralist argument, namely that the condition’s on the plantation (violence, close quarters, exploitation) would lead logically to some sort of same-sex sexual exploitation, even if we cannot calculate exactly how much. He makes the case that some male slaves, particularly domestic ones such as valets, would have been more likely to be subject to such assaults.", "created_utc": 1590048144, "distinguished": null, "id": "frbn284", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/gnpaio/historians_of_african_american_history_has_there/frbn284/", "score": 62 } ]

[ { "body": "Check this post out. They're are some recommendations in there that might help you...https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4bucdq/best_book_for_learning_us_history/", "created_utc": 1596590341, "distinguished": null, "id": "g0ecbyz", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/gza7q9/which_books_would_you_recommend_as_the_very_best/g0ecbyz/", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "OP, this is a great question. I wish more prospective history teachers, whoever they expect their students to be, would ask it. As I'm sure you know, one of your struggles will probably be fitting black history into a set of standards and materials that almost couldn't possibly be more about white dudes. My chief area of study as been the intersection of the white political world and slavery, so I can't help you out too much with things after 1865, but the decades before are often the whitest and dude-iest of the set and that's my usual stomping grounds.\n\nTraditionally, slavery is something that just happens into being around 1830 when the *Liberator* hits. There's long been a powerful bias against taking slavery seriously as a political issue before then, doubly so for taking it as a vitally important one. Even the Missouri Compromise has been approached more as an esoteric dispute between congressmen than a huge national issue.\n\nLet's turn that around. The central problem of slavery, from which its distinctiveness flows, is that the slaves don't want to be slaves and will do whatever they can to make their lives more bearable. Slavery is a labor system, but it's also a political system built to control and defeat that impulse. Enslaved people breaking tools, abusing livestock, running away (even if only to get away for a few days), working slowly or poorly, and so forth are all engaged in acts with inherent political salience even if they don't for the most part have a real expectation that they will lead to revolution. \n\nThe enslavers know it. In the United States, they're also in constant, intimate contact with the enslaved. They are frequently outnumbered in their own homes, in whole counties, regions, and in a few entire states. Surrounded by a population who they understand, for all their protests to the contrary, as alien and opposed, leaves them profoundly insecure and drives the development of a distinctive political culture increasingly at odds with what goes on in the rest of the nation. Slavery places the enslaved in an almost infinitely vulnerable, insecure position as individuals. The slave system must reckon with their tremendous potential power as a people. \n\nThat's no trifling task and the enslavers worked themselves into a fury to keep on keeping on. It was their constant project, from probably the 1660s onward. We usually periodize slavery by trends in white opinion. From that POV, the 1830ish turning point is *ok*. We underrate the degree of white antislavery sentiment in the decades right after independence...except in the South where we radically overrate it. (We always neglect the degree of black antislavery sentiment because we imagine the political world as white.) There is *a* change around then, but it largely represents white radical thought moving closer to black thought: the system is not and maybe cannot just work this all out; something needs to be done.\n\nPushing the antebellum salience of slavery as an issue backwards is a necessary corrective, and a good way to center things more on black Americans as a center of gravity in American life, but it's got its own complications. The reason 1830 is a good hinge is that there is the aforementioned shift. Just projecting the late antebellum back into the 1820s or 1790s isn't good history because the issue isn't approached in quite the same ways on both sides and the political realities they operate in are different. Traditional Antebellum antislavery, until the 1850s, is usually outside the political mainstream. Sometimes, as with the abolitionists, it can be outright apolitical. Up until 1820 or so there's still reason to believe, at least for many northern whites, that the American system really could fix slavery. It would not do so over night or even easily, but the general progress of time and the gears of Union would restrict, restrain, and reduce slavery by gradual stages. The US banned slavery northwest of the Ohio in the Northwest Ordinance, then those territories began coming in as a free (or sometimes \"free\") states. Congress voted overwhelmingly to end slave imports at its first constitutional opportunity. The northern states enacted gradual emancipation. The future looks good for freedom.\n\nThe next logical step is to ban slavery in a territory (which Congress has the clear power to do) and so further the gradual encirclement of the slave states. Enter the Missouri Controversy, wherein the South rehearses most of its 1850s rhetoric *and wins.* Missouri's slavery is intact and the antislavery side comes out with a worthless concession prize in the form of a pinky swear. That's largely how antislavery whites come to realize the existing order may not be their friend after all. So the 1830s pivot.\n\nBy contrast, the white South is much more consistent. At least from 1800 onward, most of the South, most of the time, is for slavery forever. They'll make vague gestures about how they're uncomfortable and would like it gone, but concrete action is lacking from almost the get-go. The sectional consensus is that slavery is essential and must be preserved against all hazards, internal and external. Slavery is so important, and vulnerable because of the great potential of black Americans as a group, that white dissent (what little there is) cannot be allowed to flourish either at home or abroad in the North. The narrative arc here is still one about white Americans, which obviously isn't ideal, but it at least takes black Americans more seriously. It's also one where antislavery whites spend sixty years playing catch up to proslavery whites and antislavery blacks, both of whom have a better grasp of what's really at stake. If it's not the dominant issue for white reformers (who historians tend to like) then it certainly is for white reactionaries and black Americans.\n\nMy teacher training is long in the past now and I was never very good at designing lessons. I'm also a white dude who grew up in an amazingly white community so my practical experience with your situation is nil. But I think that re-centering the narrative this way at least makes it less detached from the lives of black Americans. To expand on that, I would look into including a fair number of black voices in readings and presentations. Frederick Douglass' first narrative is a hundred pages, a good size for a possible outside reading project. For black political organization against slavery, look into Walker's *[Appeal, in Four Articles; Together with a Preamble, to the Coloured Citizens of the World](http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/walker/walker.html)*. Walker outright urges revolution. He had his work smuggled into the South to be read to actual slaves and he died under suspicious circumstances. I feel like that might really appeal to teenagers, especially combined with the snapshot of slavery in Douglass' work. Jordan Anderson's [To My Old Master](http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/01/to-my-old-master.html) is usually a crowd-pleaser, especially if you have good dramatic reading chops. I would like to recommend some black women too, but the narratives I'm most familiar with there both involve some frank talk about sexual violence that might be really difficult to handle well. I would avoid the WPA narratives because they have serious historiographical issues and have to be handled carefully. \n\nFor secondary materials, it's a bit hard to recommend much because the ideas I'm working with are the new thing in US political historiography. Finkelman's *Slavery and the Founders* and Kaminsky's *A Necessary Evil?* push slavery politics back to the Constitution and a touch before. Waldstreicher's *Slavery's Constitution* continues the theme. Fehrenbacher's *The Slaveholding Republic* is really good on how the proslavery concessions in the Constitution and the practical work of the federal government are going concerns all the way to 1860, but he's much weaker on the founding generation. Mason's *Slavery and Politics in the Early American Republic* traces the theme to about Missouri, as does his co-edited volume *Contesting Slavery*. For Missouri the go-to book has to be Forbes' *The Missouri Compromise and its Aftermath*. From about then on, you can probably rely on the usual antebellum surveys for the most part. Varon's *Disunion!* is new a pretty good. If you want just southern politics, then Freehling's *Road to Disunion* volumes can't be beat except that he takes southern qualms about slavery quite a bit more seriously than I do. Cooper's *Liberty & Slavery* is older and shorter but, I think, better argued on the proslavery white hegemony in the South. Also good on the intellectual consolidation is Clement Eaton's *The Freedom-of-Thought Struggle in the Old South*, but it's *very* crusty (original early Forties, second edition early Sixties).\n\nIf you have the resources and can fit it in, it might be worth digging out Stampp's classic *The Peculiar Institution*. The thing is ancient, but it's a great book to recommend to people who want to know a little bit about everything when it comes to American slavery and still get the big picture, at least current as to the late antebellum. It's also pretty readable for a history book. Kolchin's *American Slavery* and Davis' *Inhuman Bondage* are much more up to date and better from a strictly scholarly POV, being so much newer and broader, but they're so sweeping they might be hard to make good use of for kids: \"Wait...we're going back to the 1400s again?!\"", "created_utc": 1501788789, "distinguished": null, "id": "dl4gz98", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/6r9gh4/what_recommended_sources_and_resources_would_you/dl4gz98/", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Great question! Since others seem to have the methodology covered, I'll add a bunch of books that touch on subjects I think you can explore (listed chronologically by subject) to cover the first half of US history. Basing a unit off each of these books would give both a solid timeline of US history and engage your students with major historical scholarship, something that is otherwise totally lacking in K-12 education.\n\n***\n\nEdmund S. Morgan, *American Freedom, American Slavery* - This classic work argues that, by the dawn of the 18th century, Virginia planters had used racism as a tool to unify rich and poor whites. Slave-owning became part of the American dream as the Virginia model was exported to other colonies.\n\nMichael A. Gomez, *Exchanging Our Country Marks* examines the processes by which Africans became African-Americans, and how African inheritances shaped black life and black resistance in America\n\nJudith Van Buskirk, *Standing in Their Own Light* is a brand-new telling of the role of black soldiers in the Continental Army during the American Revolution. Upwards of 20% of the army might have been black by the end of the war. \n\nDavid Waldstreicher, *Slavery's Constitution* argues that the interest of slaveholders was the deciding factor in many of the compromises and decisions that framed the federal government.\n\nAlan Taylor, *The Internal Enemy* shows how the Revolution and the early Republic viewed and rationalized slavery, and how enslaved people used the Revolution and the War of 1812 (main focus) to pursue their own freedom.\n\nWalter Johnson, *Soul by Soul* exposes the brutal world of the Antebellum slave market. Johnson argues that the meaning and horror of being viewed and treated as property was never more apparent than on the auction block, and he thus explores the slave trade as the cornerstone of the Southern economy.\n\nThe Civil War, fittingly, gets two books. Colin Edward Woodward, *Marching Masters: Slavery, Race, and the Confederate Army during the Civil War* looks at the centrality of white supremacy and the defense of slavery in the minds of many Confederate soldiers, shattering the lame argument that so many poor Southerners would never fight for a system they weren't part of. \n\nIra Berlin, *Freedom’s Soldiers: The Black Military Experience in the Civil War* takes readers inside the regiments of the United States Colored Troops, and demonstrates that they played a far more significant role in the Union's victory than popular memory credits them with.\n\nSteve Hahn, *A Nation Under our Feet* looks at Reconstruction from a black perspective, focusing on the discussions within the freedpeople community as to what they wanted out of the new South and how they might go about getting it.\n\n", "created_utc": 1501826491, "distinguished": null, "id": "dl5amnj", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/6r9gh4/what_recommended_sources_and_resources_would_you/dl5amnj/", "score": 3 }, { "body": "Interesting post and your questions seem incredibly valid. When I finished my MA I landed a history teacher position at a charter school in New York City. I also faced similar questions in the job interview process and was left feeling stumped myself. As a white male from suburban North America, African American history in my education was basically a February discussion, and like you, I later came to see this as incredibly disheartening. As an early Americanist, I can speak little to the late nineteenth century or twentieth century. Nonetheless, here are a few thoughts:\n\n1) Even if you're teaching at the high school level, chances are your class will not only focuses on African American history. The real challenge is incorporating African Americans, their stories, customs, traditions, exploitation, **throughout** the course. Often, history textbooks only talk about African Americans when they discuss slavery in the South, Emancipation and Jim Crow, and the Civil Rights movement. Your job is to demonstrate that African Americans were integral to the development of the United States from the very beginning. Here are some sources that can help:\n\n* [slave trade database](http://www.slavevoyages.org/) A tremendous undertaking that mapped the slave trade to the Americas. Note that the vast majority of slaves were not taken to what would become the United States. I would also suggest a book like Robin Law's *Ouidah* for your own reading that demonstrates that the transatlantic slave trade was equally transformative to Africa as it was to the Americas.\n\n* [Black Perspectives](http://www.aaihs.org/blog/) A wonderful blog mostly on modern America and the African American experience full of posts from scholars about the role of African Americans in many aspects of American History. Also keep your eye on [Omohundro Institute's Octo Page](http://blog.oieahc.wm.edu/the_octo/), which posts interesting blogs relating to early American history.\n\n* Try and keep abreast of accessible African America literature. There are TONS of free sources available from all different periods. [African American \"Loyalist\" Boston King](http://blackloyalist.com/cdc/people/religious/king.htm); [Abolitionist leader and African Born Olaudah Equiano](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part1/1p276.html) you can find a summary of his [Narrative Here](http://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/equiano1/summary.html); and there are MANY more.\n\n* [The Smithsonian just opened their African American History Museum](https://nmaahc.si.edu/) and I'm sure there is tons of information there.\n\n* [The Library of Congress Digital Collections](https://www.loc.gov/collections/) must have tons on African American history is you're willing to look through.\n\n* I can recommend books for days; however, I think at the high school level you could maybe only assign one or two and I'd have to go with DuBois' *The Souls of Black Folk* or another classic like that.\n\n2) My second suggestion is to teach American History in a global perspective. The best academic historians aren't writing American history as if it occurred in a vacuum anymore and the result is tremendous scholarship on how \"global\" the United States has always been. This is incredibly important for African American history because these people represent one of the largest diasporic populations in history. It's important to link African American history in the United States with African history, Latin American History, Caribbean History, etc.\n\n3) Finally, African American history in the United States is inherently a story of struggle and resistance. This does not mean, however, that you cannot highlight the success. African Americans NEVER accepted slavery, Jim Crow, Segregation, or continued racism. This is more than a story of rebellion and protest as well. Countless scholars have demonstrated that African Americans carved out their own niches in society under slavery and during segregation. That story continues today. The story you present doesn't always have to be a story of gloom and despair; there is also a tremendous amount of triumph. \n\nAll the best in your job search and early career. Keep up the good fight. Cheers!\n ", "created_utc": 1501782286, "distinguished": null, "id": "dl4ake8", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/6r9gh4/what_recommended_sources_and_resources_would_you/dl4ake8/", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "I love \"At the Dark End of the Street\" by Danielle L. McGuire. It's about the women behind the Civil Rights movement.\n\nIt's thoroughly researched. It's wonderfully written, and highly informative. In fact, if you're just beginning on this subject or this particular portion of history, then this book is a door opener for other topics in this area. If you are unfamiliar with black women's role in the Civil Rights movement this book will correct that.", "created_utc": 1487040174, "distinguished": null, "id": "ddprrzl", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/5txfwh/what_are_some_good_books_on_womens_history_and/ddprrzl/", "score": 2 }, { "body": "Thank you 😊", "created_utc": 1487067159, "distinguished": null, "id": "ddq5tyx", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/5txfwh/what_are_some_good_books_on_womens_history_and/ddq5tyx/", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "One thing I've found recently is that in the 1850s, and even moreso after the Civil War, you see the number of African-American sailors from Massachusetts applying for protection certificates and registered in crew lists decrease pretty rapidly. \n \nAnyone else see something similar? Currently reading Bolster's *Black Jacks* and I'm sure he touches on it but haven't gotten that far along yet.", "created_utc": 1474843873, "distinguished": null, "id": "d81wnas", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/54fimh/floating_feature_african_american_history_and/d81wnas/", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "I also have a bit of a silly question for /u/FatherAzerun - When I was in high school, I was given an assignment to write about the effect slavery had on the outbreak of the American Revolution. It was a question I struggled with at the time, and am still a bit unsure about. So, might I ask, just to set my own ideas straight - what effect did slavery have on the outbreak of the American Revolution? How much of a cause was it, if at all?", "created_utc": 1424541746, "distinguished": null, "id": "cosmxc3", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/2wnuc4/black_history_month_ama_panel/cosmxc3/", "score": 6 }, { "body": "to /u/falafel1066: love the title of your dissertation. can you tell me which groups you examine? I'm especially interested if you've done research into any of the takahashi-connected groups like the \"peace movement of ethiopia\".", "created_utc": 1424542449, "distinguished": null, "id": "cosnayi", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/2wnuc4/black_history_month_ama_panel/cosnayi/", "score": 7 }, { "body": "Hi guys, thanks for doing this!\n\nI have two questions, focusing on the 20th century, so mostly for /u/LordhussyPants and /u/falafel1066\n\nWhat was the effect of the drug trade on the black community during the ‘60s and ‘70s?\n\nThe second question:\n\nThere seem to be differing ideas about the legacy of the Black Panther Party, from being criminals who inspired the increase in murders the next decades to being revolutionary dreamers who resisted the police. I was wondering what you thought the primary legacy of the Black Panther Party was.\n", "created_utc": 1424534190, "distinguished": null, "id": "cosj51o", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/2wnuc4/black_history_month_ama_panel/cosj51o/", "score": 11 } ]

[ { "body": "You may be interested in this older thread\n\n* [When and why did \"black\" names (e.g. Jaquan, Damarius) come into vogue in America?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/26y0oi/when_and_why_did_black_names_eg_jaquan_damarius/) with an answer by /u/raskolnik citing Stanley Lieberson, who’s really the authority on the sociology of names. It only partially addresses your question. \n\n* [What is the origin of certain naming trends in the African American community?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3nu9cw/what_is_the_origin_of_certain_naming_trends_in/) does not address the “La-“ part specifically but particularly /u/Gunlord500‘s comment.\n\nBoth of these seem to place these prefixes within a larger post-1960’s trend of unique naming that was particularly prevalent among Black Americans, almost certainly related to a reassessment of Black identity in the wake of the Civil Rights and Black Power movements. Which doesn’t mean they’re *not* influenced by French (there’s a long French Creole and Black tradition in Louisiana, for instance, as well as French generally signifying sophistication in English language locales), just that none of the previous posters I could related that specific association. I don’t have Lieberson in front of me but I checked Fryer and Levitt and they don’t explicitly mention the French connection (or any sort of origin for these “Black names”). One argument for an explicit French association is that several other French names (André, Chantal, Monique, Antoine, Marcus) also became popular among African-Americans around the same time. However, once these names became established, I remember Lieberson arguing, they frequently changed through morphing and remixing the familiar, so the origin point is not necessarily related to the end point. ", "created_utc": 1546740616, "distinguished": null, "id": "edck99n", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/acvkkm/does_the_popularity_of_lela_and_deda_prefixes_in/edck99n/", "score": 13 }, { "body": "I am a linguist, but not a historical one. You might find more success with this question over at r/linguistics. African American Vernacular English (AAVE) has a complex history influenced by many languages. A specialist in AAVE would probably have an answer for you.", "created_utc": 1546731834, "distinguished": null, "id": "edc7qau", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/acvkkm/does_the_popularity_of_lela_and_deda_prefixes_in/edc7qau/", "score": 12 } ]

[ { "body": "I'm not sure about slave narratives written by slaves while they were in bondage. In most of the South, slaves were not allowed to be literate because of fears they could escape easier or organize rebellions. Most slave narratives were written by editors interviewing slaves after they had escaped. However, of those narratives there are many famous ones that are great to read. \n\nOne of the most famous is *Twelve Years a Slave* by Solomon Northup. He was actually born a freeman and was kidnapped into slavery from Washington D.C. in 1841. The movie they made is alright, but the book is much better.\n\nAnother good one is *Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl* by Harriet Jacobs. This one is significant because it is one of the few narratives that gives the perspective of a female slave. \n\nAnd then of course there is one of the most famous memoirs, *Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass* by Frederick Douglass.\n\nUNC has a big southern history program and they have most of the known slave narratives for free online. Here's the link: https://docsouth.unc.edu/neh/chron.html\n\nAs for a book that is not a true slave narrative but one you might find interesting is *Celia, a slave: A True Story*. It's a history book about a slave who was repeatedly sexually assaulted by her master until she clubbed him to death. Female slaves being assaulted by their masters is a common theme in most female narratives, and Celia is probably the most famous example. ", "created_utc": 1552877608, "distinguished": null, "id": "eirzzos", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/b2bave/are_there_any_books_or_resources_about_specific/eirzzos/", "score": 1 } ]

[ { "body": "In 1969, Jean Genet, a French writer, came to the United States to interview Huey Newton and other Panther leaders. Genet, who was gay, was significantly wounded by the homophobic terms that were frequently bandied about by the Panthers. After returning to France, Genet sent Newton a message articulating his distress about the group's use of derogatory and repressive language, equating the use of the f-word to the equally reprehensible n-word.\n\nGenet's message profoundly altered Newton's perceptions of homosexuality and masculinity. In 1970, Newton and the Black Panthers began making overtures to form an alliance with the Gay Liberation movement. The Party's newfound philosophy was grounded in the rationalization that revolutionary people \"must gain security in ourselves and therefore have respect and feelings for oppressed people.\" Newton would go on to write that \"we have not said much about homosexuals at all, but we must relate to the homosexual movement because it is a real thing...\\[Homosexuals\\] might be the most oppressed people in society.\" As a means of showing respect to homosexuals, inspired by Genet's comments, and of showing commitment to the cause, Newton concluded that \"the terms 'faggot' and 'punk' should be deleted from our vocabulary, and especially we should not attach names normally designed for homosexuals to men who are enemies of the people such as Nixon or Mitchell. Homosexuals are not enemies of the people.\" In his book, *Black Power*, Jeffrey Ogbar recounts the tale of an openly gay member of the Black Panthers who operated in the Jamaica Queens branch of New York. He was accepted in the Party because \"he was truly committed; people knew that.\" Though committed, some members still used unapproved, offensive language. When confronted by a newer member for his homosexuality \"a fistfight broke out between the two. The offending Panther was soundly beaten, and it was the last time that homophobic remarks were made at the office.\" The defeat of a heterosexual male by a homosexual male effectively ended that thought that homosexuals were unmanly.\n\nThe Panthers were the first of any non-gay black organization to support the homosexual cause. The Panthers \"connected 9the oppression of homosexuals\\] to the plight of black people; and attempted--based on that connection--to build coalitions openly with lesbians and gay men.\" David Hilliard would go on to say that \"\\[the Panthers\\] were a human rights movement. It had nothing to do with race, as we were trying to move mankind to a higher manifestation, to make this world a better place.\" As he said he would earlier, Newton had any terms that could be considered derogatory to homosexuals removed from the Panthers' vocabulary, as allies in the struggle all interactions had to remain respectful.\n\nThe Black Panthers soon found themselves widely supported in the gay community. At a Panther really at Temple University, participants began chanting \"Gay, gay power to the gay, gay people! Power to the People! Black, black power to the black, black people! Gay, gay power to the gay, gay people! Power to the People!\" Much like other oppressed people, LGBTQ organizations bean emulating the Panthers; the \"newly formed Gay Liberation Front and many feminist groups...all regarded the BPPP as their inspiration and vanguard.\"\n\nSources:\n\nJeffrey Ogbar - *Black Power*\n\nHuey Newton - *Revolutionary Suicide*\n\nHuey Newton - *To Die For the People*\n\nDavid Hilliard - *Hear Our Roar!*", "created_utc": 1652470872, "distinguished": null, "id": "i8hp5v6", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/uojxeq/huey_newton_gave_a_famous_gay_rights_speech_in/i8hp5v6/", "score": 88 } ]

[ { "body": "I've heard that slaves got treated differently based on skin tone, or to put it bluntly, the paler you were the better. How much of that is true? And how did it show? And perhaps just as important, does that still show itself in modern America?\n\nJust for info I'm not an American and have tried to formulate my question as sensitive as possible according to my limited English (not my native language). Just curious.", "created_utc": 1602597398, "distinguished": null, "id": "g8oxvc4", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/jadctz/im_dr_john_garrison_marks_author_of_black_freedom/g8oxvc4/", "score": 122 }, { "body": "Thanks for doing the AMA! The subtitle of your book is \"Race, **Status**, and Identity..\" What kind of activities did free black people engage in that improved their social status? And - follow up- was that status recognized by whites locally or did they gain status only among other black people??", "created_utc": 1602599256, "distinguished": null, "id": "g8p13hd", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/jadctz/im_dr_john_garrison_marks_author_of_black_freedom/g8p13hd/", "score": 149 }, { "body": "When Liberia was established, how were free African Americans persuaded to go? Was coercion or deception involved?", "created_utc": 1602599677, "distinguished": null, "id": "g8p1um3", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/jadctz/im_dr_john_garrison_marks_author_of_black_freedom/g8p1um3/", "score": 52 } ]

[ { "body": "Hello, as a native of Maryland, this was covered to some degree in junior high school, I've also done some reading since.\n\nThe reason Maryland is so high on the list of states by percentage is that it draws on **both** major historical trends for where African Americans tend to live in the United States.\n\n1) Maryland was a slave state. Black folks have always lived in the rural parts of Maryland since the state began. Tobacco was the main cash crop and it was cultivated with slave labor. So in a way, Maryland has a large black population for the same reason that the rural deep south like Mississipi, Georgia, and South Carolina does.\n\n2) Washington DC (it's suburbs are partly in MD) and Baltimore are both large cities on the eastern seaboard. During the 20th century, African Americans left the Jim Crow south and migrated to large cities on the eastern seaboard in order to take industrial jobs and find better working conditions in a movement called the [great migration] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_%28African_American%29). So the urban parts of Maryland have a lot of black folks for the same reason that New York and Illinois does.\n\n**note: My name is a sport fencing in-joke that has nothing to do with race.**", "created_utc": 1382644948, "distinguished": null, "id": "ccyuz5z", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/1p4y9p/maryland_ranks_quite_high_3rd1_on_an_ordered_list/ccyuz5z/", "score": 5 } ]

[ { "body": "If you had asked what actually happened to his property, that would indeed be rather niche, and there might not be anyone wandering by here to answer it. But you could answer that yourself. If you went back to that local historical society, you could learn the actual address of his boarding house. With that you could go to the [Recording Division of the Clackamas County Clerk's office]( https://www.clackamas.us/recording) and tell them you want to do a deed search for that property. That might mean sitting in front of a microfilm reader or a computer terminal, or pulling very large books down from shelves. They might be too busy to give you much assistance, and want you to come back another time, there might be a fee. But you would not be the first person to do a deed search, and there should be, in the historical society or the clerk's office, someone to tell you how to do it. You should be able to track the property back to Vanderpool- though, I notice the Office says it has records going back to the \"early 1850's\". You might be told that 1851 is just beyond where their records reach. But you might find out what the house was used for in later years by looking at the property tax records of the later owners ( same Clerk's office) to see if the place continued as a boardinghouse.\n\nWhat *probably* happened to his property: he had to sell it. If a forced, quick sale, it's doubtful he would have gotten a good price, and it's possible that the town could have imposed a fine big enough to even take the proceeds of the sale from him. But if he had the money to buy the house, and money to pay for a lawyer to defend him in the trial, he might well have been able to make a more careful exit and put it with a broker, who then sent him the money later when it sold.", "created_utc": 1649814009, "distinguished": null, "id": "i4id3ak", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/u1u8aw/in_1851_a_black_man_named_jacob_vanderpool_who/i4id3ak/", "score": 9 } ]

[ { "body": "I wouldn't necessarily say that enslaved black individuals experienced life much differently from their enslaved counterparts whose enslavers happened to white Europeans. Individuals traded, purchased, stolen, etc. were still enslaved, after all, and their experiences could vary based upon the labor they were forced to do and who their enslavers were, and how they chose to treat individuals they claimed to have own. The common thread was that regardless of who enslaved them or what labor they performed, they were still denied agency and freedom. Enslaved peoples in Native American societies resisted in similar ways that others outside the Native societies did (fleeing, working slow, breaking tools, refusing, and rebellion).\n\nThat isn't to say, however, that every tribe in the 5 Civilized Tribes adopted chattel slavery the same way at the same time. Historian Barbara Krauthamer writes, \"The history of slavery in the Indian nations is very much a part of southern history and U.S. history\" because of how the practice of chattel slavery infiltrated Native American societies with its European ideas of racial hierarchy. This differed from how slavery was used in Native American groups before the arrival of Europeans (these forms of Native enslavement were still brutal). The Tlingit, Chinook, Navajo, Sioux, Pawnee, Comanche, and Cherokee all participated in some form of enslavement with most of the enslaved coming from raiding parties or as prisoners of war. Sometimes these prisoners were tortured and executed. Other times they were enslaved or adopted into the kinsgroup and their enslavement was not based on race nor was it transgenerational. Their labor not only helped their enslavers group but it also further weaken a rival (by taking women or able-bodied men).\n\nKrauthamer explains in *Black Slaves, Indian Masters: Slavery, Emancipation, and Citizenship in the Native American South\"* that the Choctaw and Chickasaw, while still navigating their own existence in pre and post-revolutionary America, they were also intimately familiar with European practices of enslavement. They themselves were victims of it for generations before the rise of enslaved Africans sharply increased with the rise of the Atlantic slave trade. Choctaw would often raid Chickasaw areas and sell them to the French while Chickasaw would respond in kind and sell enslaved Chocktaw to the British. This would happen as well if a group stole enslaved Africans as they came to view the sale of individuals as a commodity, as a step towards the commodification of African bodies and their labor (in contrast to taking slaves from warfare or raiding). This included participating actively in the slave trade and working as hunters of runaways. One report stated \"The African men held by Chocktaw warriors endured physical hardships and violence\" that was equal to French and European enslavers.\n\nIn the Chocktaw and Chickasaw societies, for example, enslavement continued after the Emancipation Proclamation and after the end of the Civil War. Separate treaties had to be made in order to secure the freedom of enslaved Africans and African Americans in 1866. The Cherokee, for example, emancipated their enslaved in 1863 but denied them total citizenship. In Cherokee society, slavery was never passed on to the children and was often temporary. This played a role in the U.S. District Court case in 2017 in which descendants of African slaves held by Cherokee successfully filed to earn their right back as members of the Cherokee nation. Post emancipation, freedmen of the tribes had different experiences than their freed counterparts enslaved by whites. Many tribal freedmen and women also wanted citizenship in the tribal governments they had toiled under and these were similar (albeit still different) to citizenship struggles that their free counterparts faced in other parts of America. As these tribes continued to establish their nations, nationality, and racial interpretations, they often adopted anti-black/African language and actions. Historian Fay Yarbrough states\n\n>\"Throughout the nineteenth century, the \\[Cherokee\\] Nation aligned itself evermore closely with whites by adopting a racial ideology that distinguishedblack from nonblack rather than white from nonwhite. This hierarchydid not mirror the racial thinking of whites themselves, as reflected inmainstream American society and law, which defined whites in opposition to all nonwhite people, including Indians; rather, Cherokees soughtto redefine “Indian” as more “white” than “black.”\n\nThis demonstrates how tribal leadership and members attempted to navigate ideas of racial identity and nationality as the United States continued to regulate how it viewed Native Americans. One exceptionally different experience for the Tribal Freedman was the Dawes Act that sought to break up Native land into plots much like the Homestead Act to encourage settlement, house building, and farming. The Dawes Act had Freeman Rolls that allowed freemen to gain access to land that was divided up during the Dawes Act, an act that was not extended to non-Indian Freedman.\n\nSources: \nKrauthamer, Barbara. “A New Home in the West: Allotment, Race, and Citizenship.” In Black Slaves, Indian Masters: Slavery, Emancipation, and Citizenship in the Native American South. University of North Carolina Press, 2013.\n\nYarbourgh, Fay “The 1855 Marriage Law: Racial Lines Harden.” In Race and the Cherokee Nation: Sovereignty in the Nineteenth Century, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008. \n\n\nSaunt, Claudio. “The Paradox of Freedom: Tribal Sovereignty and Emancipation during the Reconstruction of Indian Territory.” The Journal of Southern History 70, no. 1. \nhttps://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show\\_public\\_doc?2013cv1313-248", "created_utc": 1634848551, "distinguished": null, "id": "hhjbck0", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/qbcym7/the_five_civilized_tribes_cherokee_muscogee/hhjbck0/", "score": 15 } ]

[ { "body": "This is a great read. Thank you very much!", "created_utc": 1580583731, "distinguished": null, "id": "fg74ecq", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/ex6rpz/special_feature_happy_national_freedom_day_the/fg74ecq/", "score": 10 }, { "body": "Thank you so much for the partnership! We look forward to all of the knowledge you will share with others over the next 28 days!", "created_utc": 1580573877, "distinguished": null, "id": "fg6phcm", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/ex6rpz/special_feature_happy_national_freedom_day_the/fg6phcm/", "score": 10 }, { "body": "Is that the same Richard Wright who was the author of Native Son?", "created_utc": 1580668343, "distinguished": null, "id": "fgc2bhh", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/ex6rpz/special_feature_happy_national_freedom_day_the/fgc2bhh/", "score": 2 } ]

[ { "body": "I think the main place to start when looking at how slavery affected England is to broaden the meaning of \"England\". While early modern Britain was not a slave society in the same way that, say, the antebellum American South was, some British colonies absolutely were. People who were enslaved in England on the basis of race were in large part *but not only* used as commodities to express social status (that is, if you were a fashionable rich person, you might want an African page boy dressed up in Turkish style to show your friends, to demonstrate that you were keyed into the trends), but the British West Indies were, according to Orlando Patterson in *Slavery and Social Death*, \"a total slave order in which almost all workers are slaves and all nonlaborers masters or their agents\".\n\nIn the earliest period of British settlement, farms were usually smaller and the workforce made up of both enslaved Africans and white indentured servants from Britain and Ireland. As valuable sugarcane became the dominant crop, however, farms grew into plantations, and enslavers grew rich enough to keep purchasing more people to work on them. The white indentured servants generally either became enslavers once they were freed or left the area, since manual labor became racialized in that context and they didn't want to associate themselves with black slaves, and eventually it stopped being a big destination for indentured servants anyway.\n\nWhile the planters were geographically far from London, there were plenty of close economic ties. Port cities like Bristol and Liverpool, for instance, got ships back and forth from the West Indies with goods and slaves, and their MPs listened to lobbying from the planters. Planters' second sons were also sent to England to learn a profession like the law or medicine or join the clergy and would generally stay there, but still might inherit a plantation and run it as an absentee landlord - at the same time, an aristocratic second son from England might go out to the West Indies with some cash and become a big-time planter there. In either case, there's money going back and forth across the Atlantic and swelling the British economy. And when Parliament finally ruled in the 1830s that slavery was no longer allowed in the British Empire, part of the project required compensated emancipation - that is, enslaving families got paid by the government.\n\nUnfortunately, I don't know that we know much about how servants and slaves in England viewed each other. Servants' thoughts have rarely been recorded, slaves' even less so. And *Downton Abbey* doesn't get into the legacy of slavery on British society at all, partly because the story of slavery specifically on English soil is so different from that of the United States, but also partly because Fellowes chose not to have the Crawley money come from or have been augmented by slavery in the West Indies or the British slave trade.\n\nIt's an old book with an old-fashioned top-down approach, but *England, Slaves and Freedom, 1776-1838* by James Walvin might help you out; *Black Tudors: The Untold Story* by Miranda Kaufmann is much more recent and much more focused on the experience of African-Britons, although it's about a period before the slave trade really got into gear. There's also *Children of Uncertain Fortune: Mixed-Race Jamaicans in Britain and the Atlantic Family, 1733-1833* by Daniel Livesay, another recent work.", "created_utc": 1590805295, "distinguished": null, "id": "fs9mkrv", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/go5zvl/watching_downton_abbey_qs_about_slaves_vs_servants/fs9mkrv/", "score": 9 } ]

[ { "body": "For today I am going to talk about something that it is not well known and that expands the scope of the topic to a very specific point and place in time:\n\n**The lives and experiences of Black people in Nazi Germany**\n\nAs one probably can imagine, life in Nazi Germany was not very good for the about 20.-25.000 Afro-Germans, African or African Diaspora living in the Third Reich by 1933.\n\nDespite Germany having a colonial past, most of the Black individuals living in Germany were not from Namibia or other former German colonies but rather the children of German women and French-African soldiers who were stationed in Germany during the occupation of the Rhineland. These \"Rhineland Bastards\" were probably the group the German racial discourse concerning Black Germans revolved around. Seen as a product of a loathed occupation and additionally as an example of the \"pollution\" of the German \"race\", these individuals were probably the most discriminated against of all the Black people living in Germany.\n\nHitler wrote about them in Mein Kampf: “Jews were responsible for bringing Negroes into the Rhineland, with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the white race which they hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the Jew might dominate.” Together with all other Black people, the \"Rhineland Bastards\" were deemed non-Aryan under the Nuremberg laws and therefore forbidden from marrying \"Aryans\".\n\nAdditionally, they were forced to undergo sterilization from 1937 on. Organized by the two most prominent German eugenicists, Eugen Fischer and Fritz Lenz, about 400 children deemed as \"Rhineland Bastards\" were forcibly sterilized from 1937 on.\n\nBeyond that there was no coherent policy of Nazi Germany towards Black people except a campaign for social isolation, which given the racially charged climate of the time and the use of Black people (espeically in the context of Jazz) as a signifier for the degeneracy of the USA, hardly needed help. Black people were forbidden from entering University, lost their jobs and were ostracized. Beyond that no coherent policy was ever formed. Robert Kestings describes a case in which a local labor agency petitioned the Reich Security Main Office on how to deal with an Afro-German who was unable to find employment due to his criminal record and got the response that the population was too small to warrant the formulation of an overarching policy and therefore they could deal with it as they saw fit.\n\nBeyond that, experiences differed to some extent, especially in the context of the war. There was a small number of Black soldiers serving in the Wehrmacht through recruitment during the African campaigns but as a general rule, Black POWs of various Allied Armies were treated worse than their non-Black counterparts. Black POWs were often transferred to Concentration Camps and various survivors report that they were subjected to cruel medical experiments because they were Black.\n\nAs a last group that often gets ignored, there were Black Jews suffering from Nazi German policies. Especially in North Africa, Black Jews were used for forced labor and often send to Concentration Camps. All in all they probably numbered around 5.-6.000 and we hardly have any testimonies from this particular group.\n\nA last topic I want to mention is the fate of the Black children of American GIs after World War II: These kids often experienced a terrible fate. The German and Austrian authorities took the stand point that their mothers were unfit to raise them and the vast majority was taken away from their mothers and either send to family members in the US or given to other families. A lot of research into this topic is done right now but from what we can tell a lot of their experience includes social isolation, not knowing who one's family is and being othered in a very racially homogeneous society.\n\nSources:\n\n* Campt, Tina. Other Germans: Black Germans and the Politics of Race, Gender, and Memory in the Third Reich. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2004.\n\n* Friedman, Ina R. “No Blacks Allowed.” In The Other Victims: First-Person Stories of Non-Jews Persecuted by the Nazis, 91-93. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1990.\n\n* Kesting, Robert (2002). \"The Black Experience During the Holocaust\". In Peck, Abraham J.; Berenbaum, Michael. The Holocaust and History: the Known, the Unknown, the Disputed, and the Reexamined. Indiana University Press. \n\n* Robert W. Kestling: [Blacks Under the Swastika: A Research Note ](http://www.jstor.org/stable/2668561?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents), The Journal of Negro History, Vol. 83, No. 1 (Winter, 1998), pp. 84-99\n\n* Lusane, Clarence. Hitler’s Black Victims: The Historical Experiences of Afro-Germans, European Blacks, Africans, and African Americans in the Nazi Era. New York: Routledge, 2002.\n\n* Maria Höhn: GIs and Fräuleins. The German-American Encounter in 1950s West Germany. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill NC u. a. 2002.\n\n* Further information can be found at the USHMM's [Online Exhibition about Black experiences in Nazi Germany](http://www.ushmm.org/information/exhibitions/online-features/special-focus/black-history-month)\n\n", "created_utc": 1454961664, "distinguished": null, "id": "czsknwg", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/44sdm0/monday_methodsblack_history_month_special/czsknwg/", "score": 20 }, { "body": "So I don't have an answer so much as another question - how do we incorporate black history into the study of American history as a whole? Because African Americans have been a driving force in the history of the US - the question of slavery provoked the Civil War, for one. Moreover recent scholarship has shown how African Americans shaped the course of that war, both as 'contraband' slaves and as soldiers in the Union Army and sailors in the Union Navy. The Civil Rights movement forced a major political realignment. And that is leaving aside African American contributions to American art and culture, which are enormous. But given all this, how do we balance the need to talk about African Americans impacting the history of all Americans while at the same time admitting that Black history has its own themes etc? Hiw do we incorporate it into our larger narrative of American history without erasing its uniqueness? ", "created_utc": 1454960047, "distinguished": null, "id": "czsjibc", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/44sdm0/monday_methodsblack_history_month_special/czsjibc/", "score": 13 }, { "body": "I wrote a blog post on [minorities, notably African Americans and women, who worked on the Manhattan Project in non-low-level roles](http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2015/11/27/women-minorities-and-the-manhattan-project/) some time back. It was an interesting thing to look into — there were far more African-American scientists than I had expected, but they were mostly in places like the University of Chicago, and mostly ignored later. One line I thought was interesting in one of the papers I read about it was the notion that when we want to talk about minority contributions to things like science and technology, we don't want to make them out-sized or exaggerated because we don't want to downplay the systematic exclusion that was at work prohibiting great numbers from potentially participating and excelling. David Hollinger has written (in the context of Jewish history) of the booster/bigot problem — when you do racially-centralized history the line between making a group exceptionally good and exceptionally bad is a very fine one methodologically (e.g. the boosters and the bigots both agree that the influence of Jews on science has been immense — what they disagree on is whether that is a good thing or a bad thing). ", "created_utc": 1454965489, "distinguished": null, "id": "czsnfbv", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/44sdm0/monday_methodsblack_history_month_special/czsnfbv/", "score": 12 } ]

[ { "body": "Another question. What kind of career can you get by majoring in History? I love history but I’ve heard that’s not the right way to go.", "created_utc": 1522278586, "distinguished": null, "id": "dwg2b85", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/87ubim/amaim_ashley_farmer_a_historian_of/dwg2b85/", "score": 35 }, { "body": "I’ve read that during the Great Migration, one of the largest populations to move was single women rather than entire families. Is this still supported? How were these more Southern migrants viewed by the more established Black communities in the urban North?", "created_utc": 1522263369, "distinguished": null, "id": "dwfmhth", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/87ubim/amaim_ashley_farmer_a_historian_of/dwfmhth/", "score": 58 }, { "body": "My understanding is that the Black Panther party began as an all-male organization, and early party publications emphasized reclaiming Black masculinity, traditional gender roles, and envisioned the role of women as supporting men.\n\nHowever, by 1969 the party had declared the equality of men and women, and articulated the concept of \"Womanism\".\n\nCan you talk about the internal discussion in the Black Panther party about the role of women? Were there particular women Panthers who pushed for a change in the organizations ideology regarding women?\n\nAnd how did the Black Panther's ideology and role of women in the party change after 1969?\n\nThanks!", "created_utc": 1522262729, "distinguished": null, "id": "dwflrp0", "permalink": "/r/AskHistorians/comments/87ubim/amaim_ashley_farmer_a_historian_of/dwflrp0/", "score": 137 } ]