I mean the British outnumbered them almost 10 times over, how could they fuck up this bad?

I am by no means very knowledgeable about World War II bomber designs but it seems to me that the addition of so many extra machine gun turrets and corresponding crew members would require a considerably larger, and more expensive, bomber than a more minimalistic design would have required. I understand that some of the guns were served by crew members who had another primary assignment (bombardier/nose gunner, for example) but it also appears (though I might be mistaken) that some crew members only function was to serve as gunners (the ball turret gunner, for example).

Were these designs sensible from a resource allocation point of view, considering both the extra cost and manpower requirements for these bombers? I understand that for most of the war long range fighter cover was not available but did the defensive advantage provided by the gunners make up for this extra expense or could these resources have been used better by building and crewing more, but smaller, bombers instead?

Than you in advance. // Plicated

[deleted]

Does the show accurately show what we know about viking traditions and life in Scandinavia?

Are the fighting styles, weapons, and armor of the time in line with what we know about viking raiders and their counterparts?

How much of the show's mythology and legends are accurate compared to the sagas of the vikings?

I'm watching Django Unchained, and it got me to wondering how often slaves in the American south were successful in their escape attempts. Are there any statistics on the subject? Would the average escapee have had a decent chance of making it to freedom?

Today I recieved the following response in relation to this same question, and it goes as follows:

I am not an expert on German politics (I have an uncle who is a well known war historian but I don't think he'd appreciate a phone call from me at this time of the morning!) but this is my understanding of how Hitler came to power:

Paul von Hindenburg was Germany's president elect in 1925. It was Hindenburg that appointed Hitler (who was, at the time, the leader of the increasingly popular Nazi Party in Germany) as Chancellor of Germany in 1933, making him an official part of the ruling regime.

Hindenburg was pressured/harassed/bullied by Hitler to give him that gig, and although he apparently didn't like Hitler (even though they were both pretty horrible) he caved to Hitler's demands and gave him the role even though he'd been saying no thanks and go away Hitler for years (Hitler was an annoying little turd from the get go).

After dissolving the parliament twice, aiding the Nazi party's rise to power and dismantling agreements around civil liberties, Hindenburg signed the Enabling Act in 1933 which began the process of transforming the Weimar Republic (the federal republic and semi-presidential representative democracy established in Germany in 1919) into the Third Reich.

The Enabling Act gave Hitler's administration legislative powers. Hindenburg died the following year (1934), after which Hitler declared the office of President vacant and made himself head of state.

In a nutshell, Hitler was the leader of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945.

As ill gotten as it was, Hitler was indeed head of state and horribly, everything he did was borne out of his self-appointment to that role.

So although it's totally hideous, Hitler did run the government of the day at that time in Germany. Foul.

How accurate is this?

Any help given is very much appreciated as always!

I know that Germany took many decades to pay back its WWI debt, and only recently completed paying it off. However, this claim surprises me, especially in light of how terrible hyperinflation was in Germany during the Depression. Does Judt mean that Germany was strong economically until the Depression? Or is Judt's claim non consensus among historians?

(Source of the quotation is the Introduction to Judt's book Postwar)

Why was the southern part of the Bay Area made into a tech hub?

Other places deserve a revitalization, like maybe East St. Louis and the surrounding area on the east bank of the Mighty Mississippi. Wonder why a tech hub wouldn't get developed there instead.

I wonder what the historical reasons were in developing the southern Bay Area for this.

I recall a story my undergrad professor told us about Khrushchev's first visit to America. He really wanted to go visit Disneyland, but couldn't because of safety concerns. Angry, he declared he would build he own theme park in Russia. Just curious if Russia or any of the other Eastern Block counties had any 'Disney land' equivalents so to speak.

[deleted]

I saw this on a documentary today. It was a total surprise to Mussolini. I thought the Italians were in it from the start. Why didn't Hitler tell him and when did the Italians get into the USSR war?

In his book "days and works" Hesiod speaks of four generations of man. Previous to his the "age of iron"

The golden generation of mortal man. The silver generation of man. The bronze generation. "The black death seized them" the cataclysmic even that ended the bronze age? The generation of hero men.

Are these hints at previous civilisations or epochs that have otherwise been forgotten or wiped out, and the proceeding generations are man starting from infancy after some unknown event(s)

Am I missing some point?

I was browsing through old Chinese shows that idolized the depiction of various famous emperors, but something that got me thinking was the method each emperor was addressed.

I tried to look up on Wikipedia, and it did give methods an emperor could be properly addressed, but I didn't find anything specific to the the addressing segments.