[removed]

[removed]

I just think people are thinking this was some kind of malicious act to destroy history or something

and not a guy doing a job with an eye towards history, by selecting the photos that best communicated the harshness, emotions, and toll of that moment in history was having in the subjects

[removed]

They don't edit by physically ruining the pictures they don't choose. They even say that in the article.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Actually preserving these things and not embellishing then to make them look pretty/more expensive/etc. Is a relatively new thing

[removed]

“Curse you merciful Poseidon!” 🤖

Not sure what the Turkish textbooks say these days but the first Turkish script is from 7th century, and as I said above it’s about 5000 years too late. For perspective Greek alphabet appeared around 1000 BC, Chinese around 1200 BC, Latin 500 BC and Arabic 100 BC. Compared to those Turkish script is very recent.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

>The fact that more women were not mobilized for war work is some¬
>
>times taken as one more symptom of the inability of the Nazi regime to
>
>demand sacrifices from the German population. In this respect it has
>
>often been contrasted to Britain, where an increase in female partici¬
>
>pation in the workforce was the key to sustaining the war effort. Such
>
>comparisons, however, are completely misleading, since they ignore the
>
>fact that the labour market participation of German women in 1939
>
>was higher than that reached by Britain and the United States even at
>
>the end of the war. In 1939, a third of all married women in Germany
>
>were economically active and more than half of all women between the
>
>ages of 15 and 60 were in work. As a result, women made up more than
>
>a third of the German workforce before the war started, compared to a
>
>female share of only a quarter in Britain. A year later, the share of
>
>German women in the native workforce stood at 41 per cent, compared
>
>to less than 30 per cent in Britain. Not surprisingly, over the following
>
>years Britain caught up. But even in 1944 the participation rate for
>
>British women between the ages of 15 to 65 was only 41 per cent, as
>
>against a minimum of 51 per cent in Germany already in 1939....As we have seen, the burden of maintaining the small peasant farms thatdominated German agriculture fell disproportionately on women'sshoulders. And as farm men were recruited away for the war, this burdengrew ever more arduous. In areas such as Wuerttemberg and Bavaria,with dense populations of peasant farms, female workforce participationrates already exceeded 60 per cent in 1939. It goes without saying thatby sustaining the food supply, Germany's farm women provided anindispensable service to the Nazi war effort.But, even allowing for this difference in economic structure, the German level of mobilization was greater than that in Britain. In Berlin, a major centre of both industrial and service sector employment, with virtually no farm workers, 53 per cent of women were at work in 1939. The same was true of the eastern industrial hub of Saxony. Even in the port towns of Hamburg and Bremen or the heavy industrial centres of the Ruhr, where the occupational structure was particularly unfavourable to female employment, 40 per cent of women of working age had jobs, matching the national average for Britain at the end of the war.

- Wages of Destruction, page 357 and 358
Edit: apologies for formatting

> in peacetime the German economy is already on a heavy war footing.

This is propaganda by the Allies before and after the war.

Recall that the Versailles Treaty crippled and excessively limited the German military in the 1920s. So the Germans did a lot of catching up in the 1930s and eagerly bragged about this in news films. In fact, much of the logistics in the invasion of Poland was via horses though we see the films of mechanized/tanks. Speer explained that there was a reluctance to fully mobilize in part because the German leadership was very sensitive to keeping consumer goods going to the public and in part because they thought they could negotiate from a position of strength after Poland -- not anticipating a full fledged scorched-earth unconditional-surrender war over a country far from the UK and France. While at a train station, Goebbels complained about seeing upper-class German women wearing furs riding in 1st class returning from vacations in Italy as late as 1943 while the soldiers being shipped out wait sitting on the cold concrete. That's when (plus considering the defeat in Stalingrad shocked everyone) he made his "Total War" speech and war production accelerated by Speer. Look at war production output charts comparing 1938 through 1944, and it is clear as night and day supporting my argument.

Thas a real shame, but common (alike practices) Its really a crappy thing 2 do, but i must not judge sum poor geezer hundreds of yrs ago hoping for a taste of the good life.

Gives it more interest i suppose.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[deleted]

[removed]

I’m going to be adding this to my list! I’m about halfway through Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914, which is broken up into a few sections, but it largely concerns the political, cultural, social, and military buildups in Europe among the powers (both Great and lesser) and their key decision makers in the years before the war. It sets the stage for what the landscape of Europe was like in June of 1914 when the assassination of Franz Ferdinand takes place. Then it goes into a minute-by-minute account of the July Crisis (haven’t gotten to that yet). I’m loving it so far! Very detailed accounting of events and people. A World Undone would make a great follow up I’m sure!