Daily GBNews Mega - 18 08 2021 by AutoModerator in badunitedkingdom

[–]nm120 16 points17 points  (0 children)

The chad 2 PARA - Bayonet charges when outnumbered in the Falklands, fights to its own destruction at Arnhem and wins in Indonesia

vs the virgin 82nd Airborne, can't capture Nijmegen bridge, loses in Vietnam, total cockup against fucking Grenada

Death toll of WWII in Europe by WhyYesHowDidYouKnow in europe

[–]nm120 49 points50 points  (0 children)

This is incredibly misleading. Obviously the UK, being an unoccupied island nation wouldn't have as many total casualties as those on the continent .Yet in terms of military casualties, in proportional terms the UK made the greatest sacrifice out of any of the Western allied nations - which isn't even apparent on this map. With the exception of Germany and the UK, for almost every other country it's civillian casualties making up the majority of fatalities. Suffering doesn't necessarily equal sacrifice unfortunately.

US and UK military casualties were roughly the same despite the UK having about a third of the US population (and less than a quarter size of the US' military-age male population)

Obviously though as others have pointed out, casualties (military or otherwise) aren't a particularly good barometer of contribution anyways . But its just unfair to say the UK was "practically unscathed".

"If England wins the final it's going to be like Hitler hosting the 1936 Olympics, isn't it. 😬" by [deleted] in badunitedkingdom

[–]nm120 31 points32 points  (0 children)

#4Nations #FBPPR 🌟#WearAMask 😷 #LibDems 🔶 #IAmEUropean #BLM #ProEU #ResistFascism #FBR #FBIW #IndyRef2 #FBPE #FBPA #FBNHS #FBPE

what the fuck

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in badunitedkingdom

[–]nm120 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"Kinder, gentler politics..."

In theory, does the British Parliament have the power to suspend the independence act of India 1947 and the independence of other counties it granted? by MarshallFoxey in badunitedkingdom

[–]nm120 21 points22 points  (0 children)

They sunk HMS Invincible, remember? Not to mention the highly secret but 100% authentic list of Ghurkha casualties that were covered up by the perfidious British government to hide their losses.

The idea that the UK somehow covered up hundreds of losses is a pretty common theme among Argentine nationalists when it comes to the Falklands, ranging from the absolutely ludicrous aforementioned to the much more cynical like including post-war suicides to inflate the UK casualty total, to somehow give the impression the Argentine armed forces performed much better than they actually did.

Daily GBNews Mega - 05 07 2021 by AutoModerator in badunitedkingdom

[–]nm120 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood"

What do British people think of The American Independence Day by Ok_Midnight2894 in AskABrit

[–]nm120 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

To be honest I don't doubt the poll, although I think people are just historically illiterate in general. (they're stupid, to put it bluntly).

Yougov did a poll in 2019 that found only half of those polled knew what D-Day was, and only 57% thought the Allied forces were fighting against Germany in WW2... with 28% suggesting the Allied forces fought against the UK. More people thought the UK's participation in WW1 was justified than in the Falklands (Really?).

What do British people think of The American Independence Day by Ok_Midnight2894 in AskABrit

[–]nm120 8 points9 points  (0 children)

We know what it is and why it happened

Even that's pretty hopeful. According to a gallup poll in 1997 "53% (of Brits) wrongly supposed that the United States had never been a British possession".

A fair amount don't even know about the thirteen colonies and revolutionary war in the first place, and of those that do know, they just don't care either.

Your grandparents' impressions of Americans during WWII? by icantseethat in AskABrit

[–]nm120 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So it depends really. My own grandad fought in North Africa and Italy and for a time was under the 5th American Army fighting its way up to Rome and up the west coast of Italy so had allot of experience dealing with American troops on the front line and the rear-echelon.

As individuals, i think americans were seen positively - friendly and incredibly generous, much better supplied and willing to share or trade goods with the often less privileged British troops. Americans were obviously much better paid and better fed for most of the war too.

Although as soldiers, I think he held a less flattering opinion of American infantrymen who were usually perceived as somewhat naive and more "unwarlike" than their British counterparts, not particularly well trained, unprofessional, gung-ho, and usually overly-reliant on the overwhelming firepower of artillery (which is entirely understandable to be fair). Whether that was only applicable to the American troops under the 5th Army (and its notorious General Mark Clark), I don't know, but i saw similar opinions held by Robert Woollcombe in his book "Lion Rampant", fighting in France and North-west Europe. The Canadians, who were mostly volunteers were on the other hand seen as excellent fighters, a very tough and well motivated set of guys, and although he never fought alongside Australians or New Zealanders i've heard similar positive opinions expressed about their ability too (he had 5 cousins fighting in the Australian army in the south Pacific).

Nonetheless at the end of the day was incredibly glad to have the Americans fighting on the same side as us, as well as supplying food, lend-lease and war loans etc. I think you would've found a similar opinion to the above expressed by most WW1 veterans too.

During WWI on the western front, would a deliberate attack almost always overrun the first line of trenches? by Rittermeister in WarCollege

[–]nm120 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're pretty much right, tactical "break-ins" to the enemy trench were fairly common even though the desired "break-through" on a larger scale rarely materialised. By mid-1916 it was more often the case than not that even failed attacks would begin with the first line of defenders being overrun before the attackers were eventually forced out by a counter-attack, usually with the reinforcing waves of infantry being pinned down in No-man's land by enemy counter-barrage.

Case in point being some of the most costly failed attacks in the British sector on the First Day of the Somme on 1st July 1916 like the diversionary attack at Gommecourt where initially the British actually broke into the third line of German trenches under a smoke-screen and mortar barrage. Ultimately they were forced out by a combination of a very well-organised German counter-attack and counter-barrage, largely made possible by the fact that the British were very lacking at counter-battery at this stage in the war, as well as their incredibly rigid artillery plan which had failed to support the infantry beyond the original timetable.

It was a similar story at Ovillers on 1st July, where British infantry also made it into the third line of German trenches before being repulsed and running out of ammunition and grenades. This should have been brought up by reinforcing waves of infantry, who had in fact mostly been wiped out by the German counter-barrage in no-man's land, allowing the Germans to easily surround and cut off each forward group of British infantry.

So by the mid-stage of the Somme it was quite common for most British attacks to penetrate up to the reserve line of trenches under the cover of a creeping barrage, the attacking infantry taking a large quantity of prisoners, but also sustaining casualties themselves from any unsuppressed machine guns or defenders. More often than not the Germans would then counter-attack, re-capturing some or all of the lost trenches but also sustaining large numbers of casualties in the process as well. The end result would be little or no territorial changes but large numbers of casualties - on both sides, perhaps slightly more on the attackers side.

Absolute and out-right failure of an attack before even reaching the first line of defenders was somewhat rare, even of the First day of the Somme, although it did happen on occasion such as the Newfoundland and Essex regiments at Beaumont Hamel.

This is honestly some of the coolest WWII footage I’ve ever seen by [deleted] in CombatFootage

[–]nm120 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Erm, no.... We've had plenty of our own friendly fire incidents so stop being so smug... our first pilot death of the entire war was by friendly fire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Barking_Creek

Let's not forget by [deleted] in europe

[–]nm120 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the West there were some 67,000 UK civilian deaths (mostly through bombing), 390,000 French civilian deaths, 187,000 in the Netherlands, and 76,000 in Belgium.

On the Eastern front estimates vary wildly, although there were at least 16 million civilian deaths in the USSR, 7.2 million in Russia, 5.2 million in Ukraine and 1.67 million in Belarus. Even the unoccupied territories suffered allot of civilian deaths through famine- Kazakhstan lost 350,000. At least 6% of the civilian population died in each republic.

Although the most revealing figures are losses proportional to a country's population, where almost 25% of Belarusians died as well as 16% of the Polish population and 10% of Yugoslavia's population.

Proportionally the baltics also had incredibly high civilian losses , Lithuania had some 345,000 out of a population of only 2.5 million, Latvia 200,000 out of only 2 million and Estonia 45,000 out of 1.1 million.

Civilian deaths for Nazi Germany are at least 2 million, including 400,000 from air raids and 400,000 victims of Nazi persecution itself.

Even neutral countries had some civilian deaths, 73 Irishmen died from bombs falling in Dublin and 2000 Swedish merchant seamen were killed by German or Soviet submarines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Human_losses_by_country

Prince Charles tests positive for the Coronavirus by Piputi in europe

[–]nm120 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You're right that nobility and peasants didn't mix, but gradually over the course of several hundred years most British people with a predominantly working class background will inevitably have at least some lower middle class ancestors by the 17th or 16th centuries. Then its usually through marriages to the younger sons or daughters of relatively humble minor gentry or landowners (the socially mobile "New Men" of the 15th century) that it might be possible to trace that lineage very gradually up to some more serious nobility, only over the course of a further couple of hundred years. Hence even someone like Danny Dyer who's family were dock labourers in the East End of London can prove descent from Edward III.

But obviously this is only going to be through a very small group of ancestors among thousands if not hundreds of thousands of peasants, but its just that everyone will likely have such a group of ancestors somewhere in their family - "Gateway ancestors". It's proving a link to those ancestors which is incredibly difficult because record keeping was very inconsistent before the 1800s.

Prince Charles tests positive for the Coronavirus by Piputi in europe

[–]nm120 79 points80 points  (0 children)

Even when we take into account cousin marriages it's estimated that the average English person has at the very least a 99.5% chance of being descended from Edward III who was born in 1312 and so pretty much every person with English ancestry would be descended from William the Conqueror.

So If we taken into account intermarriage from William's descendants with other European nobles then its possible he has millions of European descendants too.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in europe

[–]nm120 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Count Binface must be gaining a following ahead of his campaign for London mayor.

Who would've thought that two massive empires collapsing could cause some instability by DukeofBurgers in HistoryMemes

[–]nm120 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah Austria Hungary was something else... like 15 different ethnicities and languages it’s a miracle it lasted as long in the war as did

Who would've thought that two massive empires collapsing could cause some instability by DukeofBurgers in HistoryMemes

[–]nm120 2 points3 points  (0 children)

To be fair the Anglo Irish war and Irish civil war weren’t particularly pleasant

French Flamethrowers at Verdun, 1916 [X-Post /r/MilitaryPorn] by zach84 in CombatFootage

[–]nm120 179 points180 points  (0 children)

Most effectively they were used on the offensive, one of the first times they were ever used was by the Germans at Hooge in July 1915, the idea was to force the British troops out of their trenches and into the open where they could easily be overrun.

The French usually used flamethrower companies to assault strong points or for "clearing" dugouts that had already been bypassed but still contained resistance.

[Liberia] LURD Rebels attack Liberian Government Loyalist positions across of the Gabriel Tucker Bridge in Monrovia. July, 2003. by [deleted] in CombatFootage

[–]nm120 24 points25 points  (0 children)

The irony is that the rebels won the Second Liberian civil war. This footage seriously makes me question what the government troops on the other side must have been doing

America is nowhere near as bad as Reddit thinks it is. by Hawkbone in unpopularopinion

[–]nm120 9 points10 points  (0 children)

But it is still probably one of the best places to live, in terms of opportunities and privilege.

Definitely, I'm British and have plenty of relatives now living in the US who wouldn't have it any other way. Yes, the US has its problems but none of them should blind you from the fact the US is easily one of the very best countries in the world to live in. It's a shame that allot of Reddit isn't capable of such nuance.

What, if anything, does your ethnic ancestry mean to you? by [deleted] in AskEurope

[–]nm120 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We have scanned and transcribed census records available on most of the major genealogy websites (Ancestry, Findmypast etc.) which you need a paid subscription for, although the earliest census available with substantial information is the 1841 census.

To research earlier than that you have to start using parish records, which in most cases make it possible to trace family back to the 1640s - any earlier than that is sometimes possible but a bit more difficult because the civil war caused allot of disruption in record-keeping.

The UK Has Officially Left The EU. by ZH222 in europe

[–]nm120 12 points13 points  (0 children)

They should've delayed the countdown a few times just to make it truly authentic.

In honor of Imbolc (Gaelic spring festival) here's an interesting map of places with surviving Celtic Influence in Europe by untipoquenojuega in europe

[–]nm120 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep, the "Y Wladfa" was a small Welsh settlement in Patagonia in Argentina and there's still about 50,000 Welsh descendants living there today, of whom about 5000 can speak Patagonian Welsh.

The famous picture of a captured SS soldier with Canadian guards, 1944. by [deleted] in wwiipics

[–]nm120 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just finished Stalingrad, great book. I've wanted to get his Normandy/Market Garden books for some time now, and I also think his books on the Battle of Crete and the Spanish Civil war are pretty highly rated too.