That was actually about what I meant. After all, the roman empire arose from old greek colonies of italy, meaning that greek lands became roman lands, and with rome came latin.

Well that was ... too obvious.

>on the other the reassurance of a permanent peace maintained at a Germany defeated in a situation of destitution while its lobbyists reassured with the promise that the Weimar Republic would fulfill its commitment and pay the indemnities established by the Versailles Treaties of 1918-1919 that Baldwin and the majority of the Conservative Party knew that payment was impossible by a melted and prostrated Germany,

This isn't true. Germany could have paid reparations, they chose not to. Germany was initially to pay some 132 billion marks. That number was essentially fictional, and they did end up paying some 8 billion marks in the interim period which were largely contributions towards things like occupation costs, which technically speaking were not reparations.

One of the ongoing problems was Germany paying in kind (coal, timber, steel, dyes, etc). While cash payments were rare, payments in kind were more reliable, but were still technically defaults, as Germany refused to supply the amounts it had agreed. 1920-1922 for instance, Germany fell short by some 15,000,000 tons of coal, while it was simultaneously exporting coal to Austria and Switzerland at a good markup. This is especially indicative of bad faith for several reasons; payments in kind were based upon (and revised downwards from) German offers, the shipments were arranged by Germany at a fixed price in paper marks, which Germany had intentionally devalued, allowing them to fund such deliveries at impossibly low prices, and shipments continued to fall short, even as Germany received further funding in loans and bounties for development of industries and deliveries respectively.

In 1921, Germany did actually pay 1 billion marks in full, largely because there were troops occupying custom posts in western Germany, but after that paid 13 million marks in late 1921 and 435 million in 1922. During this time inflation spiralled, largely thanks to enormous amounts of paper marks being printed. The Germans blamed reparations for this, at the same time as they barely paid anything, proving inflation and reparations payments were in fact entirely decoupled, and inflation was a very handy ploy to pay back domestic debt, and state enterprise costs, as well as dodge reform and reparations. All told, Germany paid out approximately 20 billion marks, but during this same period received some 35 billion marks in loans.

Too bad. It's not a novel; It's a 400 letter reddit comment.

Without a doubt, English, in its beginning, was a Germanic language. You can cry about that all the way home. It's been loaded up with a ton of loanwords over the past 1,500 years, which makes it more Latinized than other Germanic languages, but that's about it.

Thank you. It’s so sweet!! I’m glad I watched it. I’ve rescued pigeons in the past. Thanks!

Perhaps the British people would be confused between their immediate needs and the ideal of avoiding a new great world war at the cost. They were the golden years of militant pacifism and Baldwin smelled that contradiction of feelings on the one hand and claims on the other and he promised both things: the return of pre-war prosperity and on the other the reassurance of a permanent peace maintained at a Germany defeated in a situation of destitution while its lobbyists reassured with the promise that the Weimar Republic would fulfill its commitment and pay the indemnities established by the Versailles Treaties of 1918-1919 that Baldwin and the majority of the Conservative Party knew that payment was impossible by a melted and prostrated Germany, forced to be a Republic and Democracy by force... As the saying goes "there is no better wedge than the same stick!" confusion of the masses in a time as difficult as the 20's and 30's in a Great Britain traumatized by the Great War and the subsequent crisis the loss of posts of t labor and the world recession, to obtain political gains for the Torys and block the way for Labor and Radicals Winston Churchill was the only dissonant voice in that evangelical choir of peace, and salvation who was not unaware that the world was on fire in many parts but the important thing was to keep the people uninformed and hopeful in a tomorrow that sings.

[removed]

Lack of archeological evidence doesn't mean anything. And I'm with you. The language is still Germanic.

no it doesnt look injured. you dont see the people beating it either. its just really wholesome.

How is this a question?

[removed]

It is a mix of languges in practice but major use of it and editing of it to suit the needs of the English population started under Edward III.

Seems like Ebay, with the 'E' standing for Egyptian.

Yes, of course there have been numerous migrations to and from Britain over the centuries, but the one I'm concerned with is specifically the Anglo Saxon migration in the early medieval period and how it seems to have both occurred in great enough numbers to leave a sizable linguistic and genetic footprint, yet at the same time small enough numbers to have left what is essentially a negligible footprint in the history and archaeology. I'm just trying to make sense of that discrepancy.

Those were both much later, and in Ireland. I'm specifically talking about England in the early medieval period.

Not sure if this answer is correct but I just saw your question. Most of the northeastern British Isles were conquered by the Danes (i.e. Vikings). Much of their language and DNA still survives in those areas of the country.

Forgive me but that's a gross over-simplification as it doesn't account for Danish influences, Celtic, etc. or the myriad of other peoples who came and went to the British Isles.

That's a very old study. There was a more recent one in 2016 that suggested English people were 35% AS. But this new one has 8x the sample size

https://news.sky.com/story/dna-from-skeletons-reveals-where-first-people-to-call-themselves-english-came-from-12713175

Aside from events like the Norman Invasion there wasn't perhaps a multitude a migration torrents, perhaps rather, a never ending trickle of migrating peoples.

https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/were-nearly-all-celts-under-skin-2480644

Back in the hey day of "scientific" racism there were a lot of claims that were made about Anglo-Saxon people vis a vis other groups. Most of it is pretty easily rejected, even by the 30. Just better tools of linguistic analysis, genetics, and basic standards in stuff like anatomy got people to reject stuff like phrenology, which had served as the basis for a lot it.

But, the racism associated with the term got worked into a lot of stuff, like immigration law and the medical profession. It mostly now is associated with stuff like keeping Jewish people from receiving refuge from the Nazis or slavery or sterilizing people of color or lower classes or colonialism.

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20160309-why-does-britain-have-such-bizarre-place-names

Sorry...but I don't believe your statement regarding displaced or killed peoples is completely correct. I believe it was Charles I or James I that favored his followers and gave them much of northern Ireland. There was significant displacement and deaths as a result. Or perhaps I misunderstood your statement.

https://news.sky.com/story/dna-from-skeletons-reveals-where-first-people-to-call-themselves-english-came-from-12713175