Tag Info

New answers tagged

1

When following both German (eastern front) and Soviet official loss figures 22th June 1941 to 31 Decemberg 1944 we will get these figures: Total German losses: 5 790 459 killed, wounded, missing Total Soviet losses: 26 579 242 killed, wounded, missing Loss rate: 1:4,59 (nobody knows what were German loss figures during last four months of 1945, official ...


1

@Jack Smith Which great wars would those be? If they took place prior to 1871 the Swedes can't have sided with Germany, as it didn't exist. What's more the separate states (Bavaria, Prussia...) would frequently be on opposite sides.


0

Sweden was neutral while doing business with Germany, exactly the same as Switzerland. Sweden and Switzerland were basically allies of Germany with the good sense not to join a losing fight. In Europe's many previous 'great wars' Sweden always aligned with Germany. Britain on the other hand started 2 world wars it couldn't win with the hope that America ...


5

Yes. Especially if international means movements across what would later become national or colonial boundaries. A lot of modern Arabic and eventually resurgent Islamic consciousness arose from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. The success of revolutionaries, like Hussein bin Ali* to frame pan-Arabic nationalism as an Islamic revitalisation versus the ...


4

I'm assuming you're referring to the use of terror by international Islamic groups post-WWII. First I would note that terrorism is a very vague term (by my definition more or less every armed group involved in conflict has used fear for political goals). That being said the US was helping Afghan militants in the 80s. There were dozens of "Islamic" groups ...


1

It was because there was no STRATEGIC reason for Hitler to attack Sweden. Hitler goal is to colonize Slavic lands in eastern Europe, especially Poland and Russia. He attacked Norway to keep the Allies from opening a second font in the north. He attacked Belgium because it was on the way to France. He attacked France because France didn't want let him attack ...


1

Sweden cooperated with Germany in World War II. (Although the Allies did manage to "launch" Eric Ericcson, a Swedish-American spy, from Sweden, in large part because Germans felt that Sweden was a potential "safe haven" for German "flight capital" by high-ranking Nazis.) My Swedish friends tell me that Sweden allowed Germany overflights to Norway during the ...


3

It is somewhat important to realize that even Hitler was not so mad as to actually consider invading all of Europe, and getting away with it. He had to consider cost vs. benefit. Hitler's target -- "the plan", as early as 1925 -- was Russia. That's where his ideological enemy was: Bolshevism. That's where his whole screwed "Lebensraum" vision played out: ...


2

Why would it seem like a much better strategic move than invading Russia? They are extremely different propositions, it seems to me. It proved true that Sweden did not need to be invaded. It continued to supply trade and needed resources (mainly iron), and not invading it had advantages such as having a neutral country nearby, which is useful for other ...


6

Sweden like Switzerland was a neutral country and not involved in the conflict. Attacking Sweden would have tied up military resources and it wasn't really necessary since the resources Germany needed from Sweden could be obtained by trade or diplomacy. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_during_World_War_II for more information. There was also an ...


1

Northern Ireland Prime Minister Lord Craigavon had asked Churchill in 1940 to invade the Republic of Ireland at the height of the war, as he felt that Valera was coming under the influence of Hitler. Churchill did not move at that time but later prepared detailed plans for an invasion of southern Ireland. Field Marshal Montgomery stated in his ...


35

Sweden was a vital source of iron ores to Germany, an important strategic resource for her war effort. Because the allies controlled the seas, Scandinavia was Germany's main source of good quality iron. Attacking Sweden would have disrupted the supply for no real gain. Production of high-grade steel suitable for armour plate and gun barrels depended ...


17

For the same reason he did not invade Switzerland, the cost-benefit ratio was not good. Also, you should realize that the Germans were not just a bunch of frenzied madmen attacking everybody. They were happy to co-exist with other countries that were friendly, such as Sweden. After the war started, many countries, including the United States, Britain and ...


1

In addition to hoping for a negotiated solution, the Allies are unprepared for war. Germany had been rearming for years, while the Allies thought they were playing catchup. They knew their industrial capacity was superior, though, not to mention strategic advantage on raw materials thanks to their colonies. That's why they were content to hold the line, and ...


3

Wow, yeah that's one heck of a question... And considering that you're talking about the foundational tragedy for a century of wars across multiple continents it's an important one to understand. The list of treaties above provides a good at the political structure that Franz Ferdinand's assassination "activated" but it is insanely hard for one work on the ...


2

The question seems lame for first sight, but makes sense in depth. The alliance systems weren't trivial at the start of World War 1 (or Great War). First I recommend to check out the timeline and look for the first dozens of lines of politics in gray. The outbreak of war wasn't one instance, it was a domino effect of triggers in alliances, warnings, ...


4

A high demand for alcohol provided an economic incentive to those willing to break or circumvent the laws. The only problem was somehow breaking or circumventing the laws. The wikipedia article on alcohol during and after prohibition cites portable stills as going on sale within a week after prohibition went into effect and California grape growers as ...


0

I decided to answer it even if briefly it is already answered by Semaphore and Pieter Geerkens The money itself not backed by any physical assets, to understand the current situation, the existing two answers contain the "Fiat money" definition, which is one big part of the story. The complete story is way bigger than it can be told in this single answer, ...


10

Basically it was an unenforceable law, and much of law enforcement saw no need to bother trying. There are several factors you have to consider here: Prohibition was never really that popular. In fact, its likely that a majority of the country was against it when it passed. Prohibition was particularly unpopular in large cities. The above factors meant ...


20

They probably got away with it because it was not illegal to drink alcohol. In fact, the Prohibition outlawed only the "manufacture, sale, or transportation" of alcoholic drinks. No mention of consumption, which remained substantial (~50-80% of "normal"), was made in the Prohibition amendment. After one year from the ratification of this article the ...


2

Keynes' views were widely mis-represented by his disciples, notably Joan Robinson, who was well to the left of him. Keynes was actually "orthodox" in many ways. With his emphasis on "money," he was actually closer to Milton Friedman than to the "Keynesian" doctrine he is associated with. Where he differed from "orthodoxy" was in promoting deficit-financed ...


8

The American dollar is now Fiat Money, unbacked by any physical asset


28

The United States abandoned the gold standard on 15 August 1971. Since then it has been using fiat money, which is not backed by any commodity. It derives its value solely from government authority. This is sometimes also known as a "managed currency standard".


2

I not only found this book: The Floating Boathouses on the Upper Mississippi River: Their History, Their Stories but managed to meet the author who has a boathouse in Brownsville, MN when I floated through on my research journey.


-1

I will answer very short : because russia doesn't want! (in this case Moldova will be a part of EU and OTAN ....) but, in future I am sure that Moldova and Romania will be ONE country


2

This reminds of an American army "training" film I was shown in high school (!), which was an anti-axis propaganda piece. At the end of the film they showed three portraits, that of Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito, while the narrator intoned, "If you see any of these men, doooooooon't hesitate!" I think you can safely assume that if Hitler had been captured ...


0

Here are the numbers and no speculations. The share of lend-lease supplies to the total number of produced and delivered to the USSR products - 12% - tanks 8% - Self-propelled gun 12% - Airplanes 3% - Guns and mortars 22% - Ships 63% - Cars 1% - Firearms 3% - Gasoline 40% - Aviation petrol 35% - Rails 72% - Locomotives 35% - Explosives ...



Top 50 recent answers are included