|
There were sets for a little bit less than five US divisions and a Cavalry Regiment prepositioned in Europe under POMCUS, although I don't know where the throwaway line about activation time comes from on the wiki page. That's an entire extra Corps of three plus an ACR and a division for both V and VII Corps. All in all the US could have put about the same number of tanks as the 3 French 'corps' destined for AFCENT or about the equivalent of the Dutch, Belgian and Danish armies combined together as REFORGER forces. Better equipped though, the 1st Cavalry and 2nd Armored divisions already had M1s and Bradleys in mid-85 with a full J-series TO&E (except for the National Guard brigade in 1st Cav), their only equivalent stationed forward in Germany was the 3rd Infantry Division (M).
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
Branis posted:So when did mercenaries stop being widely used in warfare? I know that PMC type companies have made a resurgence with iraq and afghanistan it seems like but was there those types of companies doing security type work or even fighting in the late 1800s-early 1900s all the way to ww2 at all? There were a fair few colonial groups you could call mercenary in nature. British East India Trading Company and what not, and hiring the locals to fight with you wasn't unknown. In Europe, the mercenary armies kinda had their heyday in the 30 Years War, but with the whole Wallenstein debacle everyone sort of started leaning back on hereditary officer classes and more state run stuff. Then France has it's revolution and we're into the modern era.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
So, here's a controversial question: how effective were Hitler's domestic policies pre-war? Discounting the runaway "success" of the antisemitism campaign, how much of a real economic turnaround was there, and how much of this turnaround was due to the changes the Nazis put in place? Would these changes have been possible without the ugly elements of fascism that were tied up with them? I find it very difficult to sort through the noise on this issue, first the noise coming from the Nazi propaganda machine at the time, second, from the fact that we can't seem to discuss this issue objectively even today (for obvious reasons, but still).
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
the JJ posted:There were a fair few colonial groups you could call mercenary in nature. British East India Trading Company and what not, and hiring the locals to fight with you wasn't unknown. The British Army still recruits mercenaries. Every national from a commonwealth country, Nepal and the Republic of Ireland is elegible to join. There are lots of commonwealth countries http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
bewbies posted:So, here's a controversial question: how effective were Hitler's domestic policies pre-war? Discounting the runaway "success" of the antisemitism campaign, how much of a real economic turnaround was there, and how much of this turnaround was due to the changes the Nazis put in place? Would these changes have been possible without the ugly elements of fascism that were tied up with them? Economically, my understanding of the topic is that Hitler was able to achieve a partial turnaround by basically undermining the fundamentals of the economy. His public works and military mobilization projects put some Germans back to work, but at the same time massively expanded government spending and in particular caused a fatal imbalance in Germany's balance of payments. I think I went over this before, but when firms in one country need to buy goods from another country, they had to do it with that country's currency. i.e. a German company buying cement from a French factory would need to pay with francs, which they purchase from the German central bank with reichsmarks. On the reverse, the Central Bank would have a reserve of francs because German firms exporting to France would have francs, which they would exchange to the Central Bank for reichsmarks. Since Germany was not self-sufficient in resources, Hitler's spending sent the balance of payments strongly negative, and Germany soon began to run low on foreign currency. If those reserves ran out, it would be impossible for German firms to exchange their reichsmarks for pounds, francs, and so forth, which would bring the German economy grinding to a halt. Hitler was saved from this disaster by success in foreign policy, as the Anschluss with Austria and the German takeover of Czechoslovakia allow him to steal those countries' foreign currency reserves. Then, when the war began and Germany commenced occupying Europe, resources that Germany lacked could be acquired at the source, again through theft. As most Germans did not know and/or did not care about the balance of payments issue or the robbery of occupied Europe, they regarded Hitler as the author of Germany's economic recovery. Hitler's internal security policy was also reasonably popular, because he put an end to the street-fighting and political disorder that had plagued late Weimar. This was because at least half the disorder had been caused by the Nazis who were now in power, and he imprisoned the Communists and Socialists who had been on the other side. Someone was finally taking action and bringing stability back to Germany, and if people were concerned about what the Nazis were doing to their political opponents, the Jews, and other "undesirables" they kept it to themselves. The Nazis also insinuated themselves into German associational life; working-class Germans belonged to trade unions, and both the working- and middle-class Germans belonged to social clubs for hiking, soccer, bicycling, gardening, whatever, and this was a big part of social life. The Nazi trade union supplanted all others, and many recreational clubs were colonized by the Nazis and began to incorporate their ideology into ostensibly unrelated activities. The Hitler Youth and League of German girls were a big deal. Party membership also became important for certain professions, like medical doctors. Finally, programs like Strength through Joy, which promoted tourism and vacations within Germany, or party initiatives to encourage the eating of German apples (as opposed to imported foreign fruits like bananas and oranges) or going without meat on certain days were heavily propagandized to promote feelings of togetherness and common purpose. All in all Hitler's prewar domestic program was a qualified success but was probably inseparable from fascism. His restoration of domestic order depended on imprisoning masses of political dissenters, his economic policy would have been a dismal failure if not for the success of his expansionist ambitions, and a good deal of his popularity derived from the infiltration of Nazism into daily that used to be called "totalitarian" before scholars became disenchanted with the term. It was hard for any country to dispel the malaise that that afflicted most of Europe during the Great Depression. In the United States the New Deal was largely successful, and probably would have been more so if Roosevelt had been to able to fully execute his plans rather than being partly blocked by resistance from conservatives and the business lobby, but that success was reliant on the enormous wealth of the United States. Countries like Germany, the UK, France, and so on didn't have the same resources so opening up the floodgates for deficit spending to stimulate the economy was very problematic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
General China posted:The British Army still recruits mercenaries. Every national from a commonwealth country, Nepal and the Republic of Ireland is elegible to join. There are lots of commonwealth countries Thats awesome, as an Irish citizen from the North of Ireland I have the ability to volunteer for the British army but that would make me a mercenary. Thats so cool, I do know people in the British army. Also note that Ireland is an ex-commonwealth nation since we ditched that colonial crap back in '49. De Valera has his many sins but bringing us into the Republic is not one of them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 02:25
|
|
|
Branis posted:So when did mercenaries stop being widely used in warfare? I know that PMC type companies have made a resurgence with iraq and afghanistan it seems like but was there those types of companies doing security type work or even fighting in the late 1800s-early 1900s all the way to ww2 at all? That doesn't mean mercenaries died with the Italian wars. Professional armies only go so far and when you need to run wars for years on end that's when the mercenaries come back, as seen in the XVIIth century wars in Central Europe. This, however, showed how ruthless these men were, even when compared to regular soldiers. After the thirty years war they were still used, specially for colony defense. But their times as the bread and butter of states had come to an end. The European states could now field decent sized armies with decent training and weaponry, soldiers who could be much more dependable than someone who works for hire. Phobophilia posted:Well, what stopped a noble from simply murdering particularly skilled mercenaries should their contract expire and he receive word that they were going to flip to the other side? D.Manuel and D.Joao III ordered the murder of a respectable number of these sailors so that they couldn't spill the beans 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
Rabhadh posted:Thats awesome, as an Irish citizen from the North of Ireland I have the ability to volunteer for the British army but that would make me a mercenary. Thats so cool, I do know people in the British army. Also note that Ireland is an ex-commonwealth nation since we ditched that colonial crap back in '49. De Valera has his many sins but bringing us into the Republic is not one of them. Sympathising with the Dublin German embassy after the death of Hitler was not one of the republics finer moments. That,and other acts during ww2 from a British protectorate may have caused not many tears to be shed when they left. Zimbabwe and Ireland- much missed. General China fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Nov 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 03:14
|
|
|
I think one of the policy platforms of the BNP is forcible Anschluss with the Republic of Ireland, which they regard as a rouge province?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 03:44
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I think one of the policy platforms of the BNP is forcible Anschluss with the Republic of Ireland, which they regard as a rouge province? One of the many reasons why are a loving terrible political party. Next to the obvious one (being the successors of the National Front).
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 06:10
|
|
|
Mans posted:When you can draw massive numbers of soldiers from your own populace it becomes obsolete to pay exorbitant prices for a few hundred men. The rise of professional armies in Europe during the XVIth century marked a considerable decline in the popularity of mercenary use, specially when compared to the "real" stuff they proved mediocre, as seen in the Italian wars. In the 19th and 20th century, there were a lot of European "adventurers" sloshing around the world training foreign nation's armies in modern warfare techniques. "Chinese" Gordon and his ilk, Chennault in KMT China and Russian advisors with Mao, the German and Russian advisors that faced off during the Chaco war, the Serbians in the Congo, and probably many more that I'm forgetting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 06:15
|
|
|
Mans posted:D.Manuel and D.Joao III ordered the murder of a respectable number of these sailors so that they couldn't spill the beans What secrets might these be as a matter of curiosity?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 06:55
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:What secrets might these be as a matter of curiosity? Take all that and add the fact that even the master navigators of Europe only had sort of a vague and general idea of where India was and you see why the working knowledge in the heads of sailors was such a closely guarded secret. Edit: It's important to note that knowing the shortest/fastest route to somewhere was a huge asset in the age of sail. If your ships could beat the other guy's you got first dibs on all the best buyers and sellers. Fewer days at sea also meant less money and valuable storage space spent on provisions and more spent on cargo. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 10:19 on Nov 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 10:01
|
|
|
IIRC mercenaries were extremely widely used in warfare (literally every European war until the Napoleonic wars featured mercenary use) up until the levee en masse of the French revolutionary wars at the turn of the 19th century. They were well trained and readily available, and the thinking went that they would finance themselves when used in offensive wars. The process was that the country would usually buy their services on credit and pay the creditors from the loot and concessions they were hoping for. Usually things didn't go as smoothly, and demobbing mercenaries (and national troops for that matter) was a very delicate process that could take months or more. During the demobilization of Swedish troops after the 30-Year War the future king Carl Gustav had to put out nearly a dozen troop revolts, some of which lasted up to two months, and being forced to use siege artillery in some cases. But then Napoleon came along and showed what a hundred thousand armed and willing peasant can do to mercenaries, their time in conventional use in Europe came to a close, and not a moment too soon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 10:08
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Landmarks, locations and characteristics of favorable currents and winds, locations of dangerous waters and safe passages, places to stop and load water and provisions, who would peaceably trade and who would eat you, etc. You have to remember that 16th century navigation was far more art than science. Reliable charts didn't exist and there wasn't even a way to accurately measure your longitude. There weren't any real accessible technical works on navigation either, navigators got their knowledge over a lifetime at sea. That was my first impression but it's easier to dismiss such knowledge from a 21st century first world privilege. But it makes perfect sense in retrospect. My first guess was prevailing winds to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 11:38
|
|
|
General China posted:The British Army still recruits mercenaries. Every national from a commonwealth country, Nepal and the Republic of Ireland is elegible to join. There are lots of commonwealth countries You're not a mercenary if you join another nations army, so says the Geneva Conventions. Anyone joining the British Armed Forces swears an oath of allegiance to the Queen. The only possible exception to this is soldiers from South Africa, who can still join but AFAIK are considered mercenaries by the South African law if they serve in a warzone, although they might have fixed this now. Anyone from either side of the boarder in Ireland can still legally serve in the British Armed Forces.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 11:41
|
|
|
Red7 posted:You're not a mercenary if you join another nations army, so says the Geneva Conventions. Anyone joining the British Armed Forces swears an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Doesn't matter whether they swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen or not, what matters is if they join the British Armed Forces. If Britain pays a unit of Nepalese infantry to fight on Britain's behalf in one of Britain's wars, they're mercenaries. If some Nepalese guys go and enlist in the British Army and Britain sends them to go fight in one of Britain's wars, they're not mercenaries. The Flying Tigers were mercenaries, at least prior to US entry into the war. The Americans flying in the Eagle Squadrons during the Battle of Britain weren't. The difference was that they were actually part of the RAF, Chennault's guys were definitely not part of the Chinese armed forces.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 18:22
|
|
|
Aside from defining mercenaries, what rules about them does the Geneva Convention set down?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
They're unlawful combatants and do not have the right to be either combatants or POWs. There are other international treaties regarding them and their treatment but so far as Geneva's concerned, they're not engaged in lawful warfare so if you catch them you can put them on trial for murder or whatever and then shoot them in the face, or just shoot them in the face instead of taking their offered surrender and be done with it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
If you want to fight a war you're going to have to be a country of some sort?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
Why did British soldiers occupy parts of Ireland in the 20th century? I thought the two countries were pretty friendly, in a US / Canada-kinda way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Why did British soldiers occupy parts of Ireland in the 20th century? I thought the two countries were pretty friendly, in a US / Canada-kinda way. Be more specific. I don't recall British soldiers occupying any parts of Ireland that weren't part of Britain at the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Be more specific. I don't recall British soldiers occupying any parts of Ireland that weren't part of Britain at the time. I really only have a vague memory of this from growing up in the 1980s, but weren't car bombs and whatnot being used by the Irish against British soldiers in Ireland? And isn't Britian technically the island to the right of Ireland, containing England, Wales, and Scotland?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:I really only have a vague memory of this from growing up in the 1980s, but weren't car bombs and whatnot being used by the Irish against British soldiers in Ireland? Northern Ireland is still part of the United Kingdom. Many of the Catholics there would rather be part of Ireland, and were willing to fight for the British. But the Protestants were not as keen on that, and were willing to fight to stay part of the United Kingdom. So the area was under martial law for quite some time, so the IRA was attacking British soldiers. Here's a short video of an English reporter interviewing people in Northern Ireland on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:They're unlawful combatants and do not have the right to be either combatants or POWs. What? No this isnt correct at all. People seem to think that because ones an unlawful combatant that means legally you can do whatever you want to them. This isnt true, there are provisions that state you cant summarily execute unlawful combatants. They simply dont have the legal privileges availiable to them, they dont suddenly become nonhuman and shootable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 20:38
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Why did British soldiers occupy parts of Ireland in the 20th century? I thought the two countries were pretty friendly, in a US / Canada-kinda way. No. The English ruled Ireland for a very long time with varying degrees of brutality and repression. In the medieval period and the renaissance English control of the island waxed and waned until the English Civil War spread there in 1649. Fearful that Royalists could use Ireland as a base and filled with a vicious religious hatred of the Irish themselves, Oliver Cromwell mounted a major invasion that killed mass numbers of civilians (exactly how many is unknown and disputed, because of the contentious nature of Irish-English relations). This campaign drew Ireland more tightly into the English orbit than had previously been the case. It had already been under English rule, and Protestant settlers had been sent to colonize sections of the island, but these efforts were redoubled by Cromwell and succeeding governments. In particular, Cromwell began large-scale confiscations of land from the Irish. The process of colonization was particularly aggressive in the northern counties of Ireland. From 1650 on, English/British rule over Ireland is generally regarded as more similar to the treatment of overseas colonies than to an actual core province, and Ireland is sometimes called "Britain's first colony." Catholics were not considered full citizens of the United Kingdom until 1829 and were subject to various legal restrictions, such as being barred from purchasing land, for much of that period. Ireland under British rule was also largely mired in poverty and ignored by the British, even during catastrophic events like the Great Famine of 1845-49, the British response to which was lackadaisical at best and malicious at worst. Without going too much further into the history of this, the Irish are not incredibly fond of the English. During the independence process, the descendents of the Protestant settlers in the north believed without British protection they would be an oppressed minority in overwhelmingly Catholic Ireland, and they preferred to remain in Britain. Dividing Ireland was a source of enormous tension, being one of the main causes of the Irish Civil War (1922-23), fought between one faction that agreed to a negotiated settlement with Britain including a division of the island and dominion status in the British Empire, and another that refused any compromise. The treaty forces won, and Northern Ireland remained under British rule, but conflict between Catholics and Protestants over the division of Ireland did not stop. This conflict heated up in the late 1960s with regular violence until the late 1990s, a period called "The Troubles." British troops were sent to Northern Ireland to maintain order. Schenck v. U.S. fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Nov 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:What? No this isnt correct at all. People seem to think that because ones an unlawful combatant that means legally you can do whatever you want to them. This isnt true, there are provisions that state you cant summarily execute unlawful combatants. They simply dont have the legal privileges availiable to them, they dont suddenly become nonhuman and shootable. There are several categories of protected person under the Geneva Convention. Lawful combatants. Mercenaries aren't these. POWs. POWs are lawful combatants who have been taken prisoner. Mercenaries aren't these. If you take someone prisoner and you're not sure whether he's a lawful combatant or not, you treat him as a POW until you determine whether he's a lawful combatant or not. The civilians and such who happen to be living in the area where you're blowing stuff up. Mercenaries aren't these. Members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, or are hors de combat because of wounds, sickness, detention etc. Mercenaries aren't these. Mercenaries meet no requirements to be protected under any section of the Geneva Conventions. They might as well be looters or bandits so far as the GC is concerned, they have whatever rights and legal protections the relevant parties in the conflict see fit to grant them (depending on where they come from). Phanatic fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Nov 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:British troops were sent to Northern Ireland to maintain order. Which they didn't always do a fantastic job at.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Doesn't matter whether they swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen or not, what matters is if they join the British Armed Forces. If Britain pays a unit of Nepalese infantry to fight on Britain's behalf in one of Britain's wars, they're mercenaries. If some Nepalese guys go and enlist in the British Army and Britain sends them to go fight in one of Britain's wars, they're not mercenaries. If the Nepalese infantry are a part of the Nepalese Army they're not mercenaries - if its just 'some Nepalese guys' then they are. e: Thinking of it as well, the Flying Tigers are arguably not mercenaries either, given their formation being prompted and funded by the US Government. Phanatic posted:Mercenaries meet no requirements to be protected under any section of the Geneva Conventions. They might as well be looters or bandits so far as the GC is concerned, they have whatever rights and legal protections the relevant parties in the conflict see fit to grant them (depending on where they come from). Mercenaries are protected under Article 75, Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. Red7 fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Nov 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
sullat posted:In the 19th and 20th century, there were a lot of European "adventurers" sloshing around the world training foreign nation's armies in modern warfare techniques. "Chinese" Gordon and his ilk, Chennault in KMT China and Russian advisors with Mao, the German and Russian advisors that faced off during the Chaco war, the Serbians in the Congo, and probably many more that I'm forgetting. Frostwerks posted:That was my first impression but it's easier to dismiss such knowledge from a 21st century first world privilege. But it makes perfect sense in retrospect. My first guess was prevailing winds to be honest. Eventually Italian and Dutch travelers memorized the routes and passed the information down to the rest of Europe. The creation of naval schools also gave new sailors much more knowledge about what to expect, in contrast to the old method of training sailors by constant trials of fire. Those guys probably had the biggest balls in the world. Setting off to the unknown sea and hoping something decent was on the other side.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2012 23:56
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:There are several categories of protected person under the Geneva Convention. Nope, someone already posted that they are protected under Art 75. As well, its not until "you" determine whether someone's a lawful combatant, its until whether a tribunal determines it. If someone declares themselves a POW, they cannot be treated otherwise until determined by an actual tribunal as stated in Art 45. quote:1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal. Read Art 45, then Art 75 http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/470?opendocument
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 00:56
|
|
|
swagger like us posted:Nope, someone already posted that they are protected under Art 75. Yah, forgot about that one. quote:
It's a "competent" tribunal. When Qurin et al were sentenced to death, they were so sentenced by a competent military tribunal. "We" captured them, "we" tried them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 01:08
|
|
|
So I read this article online that apparently Britain Invaded 9 out of 10 countries. Here are the countries I have no clue why or how Britain fought them let alone invaded:- 1- Russia. This is the big one, when did Britain invade Russia? ( Other than fighting in the Crimea during the Crimean war, which technically wasn't Russian at the time.) 2- Japan. I know that the Japanese were forced to open up their ports, but wasnt it the Americans who did most of the fighting/invading over there? 3- Sweden+Finland. I Assume that Sweden was probably during world war 2 to expel the Germans, but didn't Finland expel the Nazi's by themselves? 4- At what point did the British find time to go ahead and get to the Spanish and Portuguese territories in Latin America? 5- Poland. was this during the medieval era or something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 06:41
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:So I read this article online that apparently Britain Invaded 9 out of 10 countries. British troops(and American/others) were involved in the Russian Civil War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_civil_war#Northern_Russia_1919 Latin/Central America(and it seems like a large number of other countries) are covered by telegraph posted:The remainder have been included because the British were found to have achieved some sort of military presence in the territory – however transitory – either through force, the threat of force, negotiation or payment. I imagine that the 'invasion' of Japan occurred during the Allied occupation of Japan after WWII. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Commonwealth_Occupation_Force vains fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Nov 5, 2012 |
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 06:53
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:So I read this article online that apparently Britain Invaded 9 out of 10 countries. This terrible article plays really loose with the Historical facts. It should be titled 'Nations invaded by people who occupied the British Isles for hundreds of years'.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 07:01
|
|
|
Japan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Satsuma_War Sweden is on the list of countries never invaded and they were neutral during WW2. They were on the French side on the Napoleonic wars but I don't think Britain actually invaded the Swedish homeland. So Britain didn't get to Kyrgyzstan, Tajikstan or Uzbekistan, so that means they *did* invade Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan then?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 07:10
|
|
|
Al-Saqr posted:5- Poland. was this during the medieval era or something? Poland (in the form of the Duchy of Warsaw) was allied with Napoleon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 07:37
|
|
|
Sweden was not on Napoleon's side. Britain did blockade Sweden during the Great Northern War, and there was a minor naval engagement in the Channel.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 08:27
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:No. The English ruled Ireland for a very long time with varying degrees of brutality and repression. In the medieval period and the renaissance English control of the island waxed and waned until the English Civil War spread there in 1649. Fearful that Royalists could use Ireland as a base and filled with a vicious religious hatred of the Irish themselves, Oliver Cromwell mounted a major invasion that killed mass numbers of civilians (exactly how many is unknown and disputed, because of the contentious nature of Irish-English relations). This campaign drew Ireland more tightly into the English orbit than had previously been the case. It had already been under English rule, and Protestant settlers had been sent to colonize sections of the island, but these efforts were redoubled by Cromwell and succeeding governments. In particular, Cromwell began large-scale confiscations of land from the Irish. The process of colonization was particularly aggressive in the northern counties of Ireland. To fill in the "independence process" bit, the British Government spent most of the late nineteenth century trying to work out what to do about Ireland, since direct rule from London clearly wasn't working very well (famines, mass emigration, repeated election of Irish Nationalist MPs to Parliament, etc.) By 1912 they'd put together a Home Rule Bill which would more or less have established Ireland (the whole Ireland) as a Dominion. Except that the Unionists in Ulster hated the idea and threatened to resist Home Rule by force. The Government in London decided that this wasn't really on and ordered British Army regiments in Ulster to disarm the Unionists - who, er, more or less mutinied instead of shoot at Irishmen who wanted to be British. So the Government decided that this was all a bit awkward and that there had been a misunderstanding and it wasn't really an order and it hadn't really been a mutiny. This left things at a bit of an impasse because the Unionists wouldn't accept independence without partition and the Nationalists wouldn't accept partition at all. Awkward. Conveniently, the outbreak of World War One allowed Britain to kick for touch by enacting the Government of Ireland Act 1914 and then suspending it for the duration of the war. Some unpleasantness followed in Ireland, particularly in 1916, and London tried a new Home Rule arrangement coupled with conscription in 1916-18. Everyone hated this and engaged in even more vigorous unpleasantness, particularly after the war in Europe ended. London then tried the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which did implement partition after a fashion, and which everyone hated very much indeed. Much toing and froing followed, and eventually London and Dublin struck a deal where Ireland would become independent and then Ulster could leave. This was acceptable to enough people that it stuck, even though Southern Ireland (now the Irish Free State) promptly decided to have a vigorous exchange of views between the Nationalists who thought the Anglo-Irish Treaty was acceptable and the ones who thought it was terrible (because it had too much King and not enough Ulster, mostly). Hence Britain was stuck with Ulster (now Northern Ireland) which it didn't particularly want, and Ireland spent the next eighty years talking about how it really, definitely wanted Ulster back one day because it was very much part of a united Ireland forever etc you are very welcome to those awful people, please never leave.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 10:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
Ironically today there's a bit less enthusiasm for unification in Ireland right now because Sinn Féin would get a support boost that would tip the balance of political power quite a-ways left. e: among the political classes, I mean. Of the Irish people I know it's something that 'would be nice, but not really something I think about much', but that's anecdotal of course. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 11:09 on Nov 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2012 10:56
|
|