I personally, doubt SLAM's numbers. I have never spoken to a WWII combat vet who says the numbers are anything but Garbage. The claims are about combat units. 15-20% is probably right if you include all the rear area personnel though I do not see how non-combat troops are expected to fire their weapons if they never come in contact with the enemy.My own personal combat experience tends to lead me to believe he is wrong as well. if anything, the problem is getting soldier to lay effective fire. Leadership is the key, not some bogus moral reluctance to kill. I only fell sorry for one of the people that I killed, and he just happened to be in the wrong place. I would do it again under the circumstances but I still feel bad. Do not misunderstand me, I am not wracked by remorse, it was simply the fortunes of war.As to the stories of multiply charged weapons and working the bolt on an empty weapon, that can easily be the result of excitement.There is nothing more exciting than combat. NOTHING!Actually, I think a similar study was done for the Pacific Theater, I would have to research it to find the title.
Hmmm....why did you want that image for the avatar? I hadn't heard about the artist but then I saw his painting of the vegetables in the form of a man. Odd! But as far as pictures go, reproductions of paintings from before 1922 are generally public domain. This basically includes the entire history of art and some photography.Here's another on, 50x50....unfortunately it may be the case where it's too hard to tell what's on the avatar to make it usable...that is the problem with some of these historical images.
I just think it is a cool picture. And I thought it fit into book reviews and gistory because of the age of the picture
I like it but then I suggested the title. I would like to humbly suggest a picture for the icon too.It is a painting called the librarian by Giuseppe Arcimboldo. c.1556. It is available at the following website, which is an online gallery: The Librarian by Arcimbolo I checked the site out and I think it is okay to use the image but I am no expert on copyright.
I couldn't find the quote much less an attribution for it. It does however sound like something he would say or perhaps Geneghis Khan or Vlad the Impaler. Here are some close ones I found by Lenin. He's got some doozies for sure
One man with a gun can control 100 without one.
Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted
A lie told often enough becomes truth
"I am a bad, wicked man, but I am practicing moral self-purification; I don't eat meat any more, I now eat rice cutlets."
It is true that liberty is precious; so precious that it must be carefully rationed.
The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation
I believe that no country is taking Lisbon to a referendum specifically because they know it will fail. Even the German and French public are raising hell about this. The only ones that want it are the power elites. The EU to my mind is the model for what the UN will look like in 30-40 years. They will slowly whittle away at national sovereignty until it does not matter anyway because sovereignty is gone. This has happened in the EU with all kinds of regulations that national laws must conform to. What is the difference between that implicit legislation and Brussels handing down the laws explicitly? The EU is the slippery slope in action.As to seeing the US as a threat, I don't think they perceive the US as a threat so much as competition.
I thought he was hilarious in Blazing Saddles. I never watched or don't remember watching the Carol Burnett Show. Mostly what I rememebr about TV in the 70's is Three's Company, MASH, Saturday Night Live, and my dad cussing every time he saw Carter on the news.Anyone remember when they used to play movies on like Saturday afternoon that would be sponsored by a siding, window, or roofing company and thats all you got for commercials was from the sponsor?
Isn't the Lisbon Treaty the reworked version of the EU constitution that was rejected a few years ago? The Pan Europeans are still focused on creating a United States of Europe. For some reason they see the US as a threat while ignoring the growing power of China and India. Must be leftover contempt from colonialism.
That is why I spend so much time visiting battlefields. I am agreeing with you here, Donald. I just dont have as strong an opinion of Archeology and Anthropology as you do. There is nothing better than getting out of the library or office and literally walking in the footsteps of the past. It is the essence if being a historian. You can only spend so much time doing research.
I had heard the same thing about Hitler. A few years ago a friend pointed out to me why China wouldn't invade - in a state like Michigan alone you have 400,000 hunters. Imagine going up against massive groups of rag tag, armed citizens as a second line of defense.
Isnt that essentially what we face in Iraq? Given sufficient will on the part of conventional forces, an insurgency can never be successful.
I think a religions success is indeed directly related to the strength of its message. By strength, I mean the degree to which the particular message resonates with its intended audience and influences them to not only follow the teaching but to also desire to spread the teachings to others.
That sounds reasonable, although I can't exactly say that the Muslim message is one that is "strong". Of course, this depends on how we define "strong". In the end the problem is in the difficulty of assessing religions that have not flourished throughout history and link that to a "weakness" in the strength of the message. In the end I do think that the content of the message does likely relate to success (e.g. "Spread the Gospel"), but I guess I still consider the attachment to or within political power as a significant factor. I'm sure there are some additional reasons as well.Now, had Muslims not gained a foothold in the Middle East and North Africa would they nevertheless have survived or flourished?
Is it surprising that Christians don't find the Muslim message "strong"? For the most part Muslim theology and cultutral attitudes are diametrically opposed to traditional Christian tenets. Muslims do not preach tolerance, respect, and love for others the way that Christians do. It is obvious though, that there must be some appeal. Islam was extremely dynamic at it's beginning. They had spread all over the Middle East and North Africa within 150 years of Mohammed's death. There must have been more to their success than only conversion by the sword.
How about the same question in regards to Jews and Christians? Well, here is where the question is unarguable if we allow for a Divine Hand in all of this.
I think you have to allow for Divine Intervention, I can think of no other way to truly explain the spread of religion. But then again, I am fairly devout. I am sure the atheists would disagree and promulgate some sort of mass psychosis theory or point to an innate need for something better in human psychology.Even given a Divine Hand, how does that explain the multiplicity of religions? They obviosly cannot all be legitimate can they? I would say not, some religions must by definition be false, the question then becomes, which religion is false. I have my own answer for this but it probably belongs in a different forum.
No doubt the Third World's attack dogs in the UN will now go on the offensive as well. I am sure glad the US pays so much of the budget for such a worthless organization.
No I think historians can do the work of archaeologists, but I don't think archaeologists can do the work of historians. Sounds prudish I know, but I consider archaeology and anthropology as pseudo-sciences that belong under the umbrella of History.
I agree with you about who can do what. I don't know that I would go so far as to call them pseudo-sciences. I would more describe archaeology and anthropology as crafts with scientific underpinnings. I will however let them dig in the dirt for the most part. I would rather wrap my mind around the thoughts of my predecessors as expressed in their writing.
I remember them saying something in the student newsletter last year saying that e-books are the wave of the future and within a year or two they plan on doing e-book only. I too am in the e-book haters club. I have only had one course with an e-book I couldn't get hardcopy and I payed staples to get that one printed off.Luckily, I should finish my MA next year and will hopefully miss the e-book wave.
No, I haven't had to cover it in a class. I have reviewed the Israelites campaign to conquer Canaan in that light since I started seriously studying military history. I did it more as a mental exercise though. The astonishing thing to me is that the Israelite attack on Canaan was unprovoked except by God. God basically said there is your land, but you have to take it first.Another element of biblical warfare that generally goes unremarked in contemporary circles is the savagery of both the fighting and its aftermath. In those days you didn't just defeat your enemy, you destroyed him to ensure that their grandkids would not come back to try and return the favor. Do not forget what happened to Jericho.Can you imagine the hue and cry if the US tried to do that to our enemies today? Gone are the good old days of rape and pillage, now you go to jail for that.
Author
Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 5,041 through 5,055 (of 5,212 total)