• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Odds And Ends And Anything You Fancy

Go to CruxDreams.com

twonines

Senator
It's a war pattern, delete any unnecessary work to get what is needed into that hands of those who needed them.
That is why there are so many variants of something like the Le Enfield! Makes collecting them a interesting hobby! I used to have a few myself but circumstances dictated that I sell them.
One of the main reasons for the Lee Enfield's longevity was the aversion of the British Treasury to automatic weapons because of the cost of, what they regarded as, "wasted" ammunition. The Sten gun which was an alien 9mmm calibre , only came about as the result of so much ammunition being captured from the Italians in the Western Desert. Confronted with the problem of disposing of it, some bright spark decided it was cheaper to fire it back at the enemy.
As a result, the Sten was invented, and allegedly produced at a cost of one shilling and ninepence each, it served its purpose but was possibly the worst and most unreliable weapon of WW 2.
 

Gibbs505

SERVORUM DOMITOR
One of the main reasons for the Lee Enfield's longevity was the aversion of the British Treasury to automatic weapons because of the cost of, what they regarded as, "wasted" ammunition. The Sten gun which was an alien 9mmm calibre , only came about as the result of so much ammunition being captured from the Italians in the Western Desert. Confronted with the problem of disposing of it, some bright spark decided it was cheaper to fire it back at the enemy.
As a result, the Sten was invented, and allegedly produced at a cost of one shilling and ninepence each, it served its purpose but was possibly the worst and most unreliable weapon of WW 2.
They weren't the only ones. The Russians, Japanese and even the Germans had the bolt action rifle as a the primary infantry weapon during most of WW2.
 

ron23333

Magistrate
They weren't the only ones. The Russians, Japanese and even the Germans had the bolt action rifle as a the primary infantry weapon during most of WW2.
There are many weapons missing from the battlefield in East Asia, they can't be developed, Japan doesn't have enough industry to support the war, it's difficult for all civilizations for you to make an immediate paradigm shift from a cold weapon mindset to a new style of warfare, the Korean peninsula has demonstrated too much for us, it's going to be too crazy for East Asia to cull all the old style armies, China has tens of millions of old style armies.

In the war that followed, all old East Asian armies were massacred with new weapons, including two Japanese cities.

Nuclear weapons are the most destructive new weapons in East Asian history, and they have even changed the historical development of our civilization.

The achievement of the Soviet Union lies in the fact that they can have so many new weapons. We still don’t understand why they have so many weapons, and are unwilling to develop agricultural or life-related tools. This is our unsolved mystery of the Soviet Union, and we will never understand. This matter, but I can’t help but admit that these weapons are all successful inventions. They are great inventions that change human history.

Even Japan's samurai culture in East Asia is the same as that of the Chinese Mongolian nobles in the Manchu and Qing Dynasties. They want to have super many boys and get official positions. Then they control the farmers. The Korean Peninsula is more closed. They only care about the farmers and ignore everything else. New weapons have changed a lot of ancient East Asian culture.

Modern East Asia accepts all new weapons, and even the Korean Peninsula wants to have powerful nuclear weapons. This can not but be said to be a successful scientific and technological revolution.

I know about Lee Enfield's :
This kind of weapon is well known in East Asia as the Korean battlefield. Compared with the weapons used in other East Asian regions, it is still a very good weapon, because East Asia did not have very good weapons at that time. The Soviet Union had enough weapons, but it can only be said to be similar, not how good the Soviet Union was. After all, the number of people was overwhelming every time, Until the Soviet Union lost its superiority in numbers on all battlefields, there would be no war. The population of the Soviet Union and East Asia cannot be unlimited, which is indeed a tragedy.

I believe German weapons are the best in the world, but they always lose on the battlefield,and they themselves always lose on the battlefield wars with the best weapons, not to mention the fact that China has a history of buying German weapons for at least 100 years in the arms trade.
 
Last edited:

twonines

Senator
They weren't the only ones. The Russians, Japanese and even the Germans had the bolt action rifle as a the primary infantry weapon during most of WW2.
You are right, the Lee Enfield was a very fine weapon, and was still in use until the late 1950s early 1960s. Up until WW1, a British infantryman could still enhance his pay by his shooting accuracy and rate of fire with the Lee Enfield, as the German Army found out when they encountered the original BEF in 1914, believing they were facing machine guns.
 

Gibbs505

SERVORUM DOMITOR
You are right, the Lee Enfield was a very fine weapon, and was still in use until the late 1950s early 1960s. Up until WW1, a British infantryman could still enhance his pay by his shooting accuracy and rate of fire with the Lee Enfield, as the German Army found out when they encountered the original BEF in 1914, believing they were facing machine guns.
Actually the last use by British forces of the Lee Enfield was in the Gulf War. The L42 A1 Sniper rifle was the last derivative of the #4 Mark I. It was replaced by the Accuracy International AW.
 

Gibbs505

SERVORUM DOMITOR
I knew that modern versions of the Lee Enfield were still in use as a sniper`s weapon, but not that it was still in general service by then.
Sorry, didn't mean to confuse. It was only the L42 A1 in use in the BA although it still has some Lee Enfields' for use in Ceremonial occasions.
I don't how long the SMLE was used for in the Indian Army however.
 

jedakk

CARNIFEX MAXIMUS
I came across this quote from George Bernard Shaw. It seems most appropriate, especially here on CF for Doms and Subs.

"Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes might not be the same."
I've heard that paraphrased as "Do unto others as they would wish to have done to them." Peoples' cultures and preferences can be so vastly different from our own that what we would consider desirable treatment might be highly objectionable to them.
 

Silent_Water

Tribune
It is not only a saying in Germany, it is in principle also the "Categorical Imperative" of the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant and it is also his philosophical basis:




I certainly mention this simply to show what a typical German "smart-ass" I am. ;)

And just to stay in this behaviour, I feel the need to mention this:


...

Nuclear weapons are the most destructive new weapons in East Asian history, and they have even changed the historical development of our civilization.

The achievement of the Soviet Union lies in the fact that they can have so many new weapons. We still don’t understand why they have so many weapons, and are unwilling to develop agricultural or life-related tools. This is our unsolved mystery of the Soviet Union, and we will never understand. This matter, but I can’t help but admit that these weapons are all successful inventions. They are great inventions that change human history.

Even Japan's samurai culture in East Asia is the same as that of the Chinese Mongolian nobles in the Manchu and Qing Dynasties. They want to have super many boys and get official positions. Then they control the farmers. The Korean Peninsula is more closed. They only care about the farmers and ignore everything else. New weapons have changed a lot of ancient East Asian culture.

Modern East Asia accepts all new weapons, and even the Korean Peninsula wants to have powerful nuclear weapons. This can not but be said to be a successful scientific and technological revolution.

..

I believe German weapons are the best in the world, but they always lose on the battlefield, and they themselves always lose on the battlefield wars with the best weapons, not to mention the fact that China has a history of buying German weapons for at least 100 years in the arms trade.

Several remarks from a former German "professional student" with some studies in politics and history:

The big advantage and disadvantage at the same time of Russia and the former Soviet Union is its sheer huge size. Already 200 years ago, there was a Russian saying: "The heaven is high and the Tsar is far away!" Which means that the Russian cities and settlements often were as far away from the next one as different national capitals in Western Europe. Between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, there was not really a cultural exchange between these centers of the Russian culture, it was the power of the Russian Tsar's military army which connected the different centers of Russia and their modernization during the reign of Peter the Great. It was his will and sometimes cruelty which was responsible for the modernization of Russia according to the example of successful Western states like the German Prussia, the Netherlands and Great Britain.
In the Russian military, you can find until today German words which are forgotten in Germany but they still exist in Russia like "Feldscher", which is derived from "field" and "Scherer" (= "Cutter with big scissors"). In Prussia, this "Feldsch(e)er" was the military doctor who was also responsible for the amputations of hurt soldiers. This word does no more exist in Germany but in Russia, it is still the word for a military doctor.
So, the only power which always kept together such a giant (and also multi-national "empire" until today) state like Russia is its military force and power, nothing else.
Russia's existence and influence is built only on its military and therefore, every Russian government will ever prefer the modernization of its military instead of the modernization of its society.
From the Kremlin's historical standpoint, I could even understand this behaviour, but it is still the same behaviour of the former German Prussian kings: Wars made Prussia to one of the greatest historical powers in Europe, but in the long run, these military expenditures have cost the social welfare of the state and left no money over for the development of a Prussian civil cociety. Prussia was the German equivalent of a modern Sparta and up to 1914, almost every expenditure in this Prussian state was justified by the needs of the military. Yes, they had the best weapons of this time in Europe but they also had the most enemies and even worse: The Prussian governments were proud of having many enemies: "Viel Feind', viel Ehr'!" (= Many Enemies, Much Honor!) We know how this ended between 1914 and 1917.

And no, these German Prussians did not "always lose on the battlefields", they simply were too proud of too many enemies.
There were German military commanders in WW I and WW II and their tricks together with their weapons made them famous. There was one legendary German commander who helped the Austrians in a very successful battle in the mountains during the ...


... and he was even successful 24 years late in the deserts of North Africa: General Erwin Rommel (the "Desert Fox" was in WW I rather a "Mountain Fox"!) but the Germans had the same problem as the Russians had at the same time: An insane dictator who was suspicious of all who could become dangerous for his government. The killing of Russian commanders before WW II by their own commander-in-chief Stalin was the main reason for the incredible losses of the Soviet Army and the racist madness of Hitler was the reason for the forced suicide of German commanders like Rommel. Neither the Russians nor the Germans were ever a people who wanted to go on wars with each other. The really responsible ones were their perverted governments in a world in which everything was built on military power.
 
Last edited:

Loxuru

Graf von Kreuzigung
And no, these German Prussians did not "always lose on the battlefields", they simply were too proud of too many enemies.
There were German military commanders in WW I and WW II and their tricks together with their weapons made them famous. There was one legendary German commander who helped the Austrians in a very successful battle in the mountains during the ...
Mentioning Rommel : he was no Prussian, he was in the army of the Kingdom of Württemberg.
That's a detail often ignored : when Germany became an empire, in 1871, besides Prussia, three kingdoms were allowed to organise their own army, and have their own Ministry of War : Württemberg, Saxonia and Bavaria.. They were however supposed to send their troops at war when the empire required it. So, on the Western Front in 1914, there was not one 'German Army' that invaded France and Belgium, but four. The 1st, 2nd, 5th and 7th Armies (and the 8th, deployed at the Eastern Front) were Prussian. The 3rd was Saxonian, the 4th was Württenbergian and the 6th Bavarian.

It created a 'weak spot' inasmuch that, according to the Schlieffen Plan, the armies with the lower numbers were taking the lead on the right wing, while from the 4th on, they were supposed to follow, or just keep a defensive position. But the commanders of the non-Prussian armies, particularly the 4th and the 6th, which were nominally commanded by royal blood (and in between them the 5th Prussian Army, nominally commanded by the Crown Prince), wanted their share in the expected victory, and demanded authorisation (and troops) for offensive actions, which they were not supposed to do according to the Schlieffen plan. Chief of Staff Helmuth von Moltke the Younger could not resist their lobbying and transferred troops to the left wing, depleting the right wing from its manpower density neccessary to defeat the French. As a result, 1st and 2nd Army had to wheel inward to retain their strenghth, and hence exposed themselves to the French left wing, making possible the Battle of the Marne.
 

ron23333

Magistrate
It is not only a saying in Germany, it is in principle also the "Categorical Imperative" of the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant and it is also his philosophical basis:




I certainly mention this simply to show what a typical German "smart-ass" I am. ;)

And just to stay in this behaviour, I feel the need to mention this:




Several remarks from a former German "professional student" with some studies in politics and history:

The big advantage and disadvantage at the same time of Russia and the former Soviet Union is its sheer huge size. Already 200 years ago, there was a Russian saying: "The heaven is high and the Tsar is far away!" Which means that the Russian cities and settlements often were as far away from the next one as different national capitals in Western Europe. Between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, there was not really a cultural exchange between these centers of the Russian culture, it was the power of the Russian Tsar's military army which connected the different centers of Russia and their modernization during the reign of Peter the Great. It was his will and sometimes cruelty which was responsible for the modernization of Russia according to the example of successful Western states like the German Prussia, the Netherlands and Great Britain.
In the Russian military, you can find until today German words which are forgotten in Germany but they still exist in Russia like "Feldscher", which is derived from "field" and "Scherer" (= "Cutter with big scissors"). In Prussia, this "Feldsch(e)er" was the military doctor who was also responsible for the amputations of hurt soldiers. This word does no more exist in Germany but in Russia, it is still the word for a military doctor.
So, the only power which always kept together such a giant (and also multi-national "empire" until today) state like Russia is its military force and power, nothing else.
Russia's existence and influence is built only on its military and therefore, every Russian government will ever prefer the modernization of its military instead of the modernization of its society.
From the Kremlin's historical standpoint, I could even understand this behaviour, but it is still the same behaviour of the former German Prussian kings: Wars made Prussia to one of the greatest historical powers in Europe, but in the long run, these military expenditures have cost the social welfare of the state and left no money over for the development of a Prussian civil cociety. Prussia was the German equivalent of a modern Sparta and up to 1914, almost every expenditure in this Prussian state was justified by the needs of the military. Yes, they had the best weapons of this time in Europe but they also had the most enemies and even worse: The Prussian governments were proud of having many enemies: "Viel Feind', viel Ehr'!" (= Many Enemies, Much Honor!) We know how this ended between 1914 and 1917.

And no, these German Prussians did not "always lose on the battlefields", they simply were too proud of too many enemies.
There were German military commanders in WW I and WW II and their tricks together with their weapons made them famous. There was one legendary German commander who helped the Austrians in a very successful battle in the mountains during the ...


... and he was even successful 24 years late in the deserts of North Africa: General Erwin Rommel (the "Desert Fox" was in WW I rather a "Mountain Fox"!) but the Germans had the same problem as the Russians had at the same time: An insane dictator who was suspicious of all who could become dangerous for his government. The killing of Russian commanders before WW II by their own commander-in-chief Stalin was the main reason for the incredible losses of the Soviet Army and the racist madness of Hitler was the reason for the forced suicide of German commanders like Rommel. Neither the Russians nor the Germans were ever a people who wanted to go on wars with each other. The really responsible ones were their perverted governments in a world in which everything was built on military power.
The germans in the history of war is really good, but after 1840, the far east is a large amount of weapons for Germany order, both the navy and the army, the far east in modern military is made in Germany, but a series of military defeats, we believe that the German weapon is the best, we comfort ourselves, the germans also defeat, Otherwise we cannot easily explain the Mongol conquest of Asia.

In east Asia, no country in history has the new army, they are all new weapons from Germany, the Japanese were impressed by the Japanese bow and a long bamboo spears and matchlock, Chinese is a sword and composite bow, and the employment of Mongolian cavalry, these are all in the military museum, and the far east German troops armed bundle together a long time, are inseparable.

Countries in the far east is friendly to Germany, Japan and Germany's military alliance member countries, China and Germany's trade partnership, otherwise it is hard to explain the rise of Germany, is in the far east economic strength of the support of Germany, this is we always believe that, because of the far east are all workers, their wealth has invested heavily in Germany.

Far east people didn't understand the relationship between Germany and Prussia, as you don't understand the relationship between the emperor of China and the Korean king, in the history of the Korean king accepted the two Chinese dynasty's destiny, but in Prussia, and Germany is a magic, the relationship between the far east, people can't understand, you of the west is not the same as our mandate of heaven emperor, the emperor is far east of us god, But when they could not protect us, they lost the mandate of Heaven, which we have as an emperor's right to support, you do not have the concept.

I believe for the Russian far east and Germany played many years of war, but don't know why, we don't understand why are you fighting, we are the emperor manages a large number of farmers' land, this is a mystery, Mongolian khan fight is to grab a woman, that we are very understand, but white itself has beautiful woman, why fight?

I've been learning English since kindergarten, but my Japanese and Chinese and Korean are much better than English.

I mean whether the Japanese or the Chinese or even the Koreans were involved in a series of wars between Russia and Germany, the Japanese did fight Germany, it was World War I, the Chinese were invaded by Germany in 1900, it was the eve of the collapse of the empire, we don't understand these wars, not at all.

According to the logic of our peasants, you are satisfied by selling your goods to us. In the beginning, the Emperor did not allow you to sell things, so it caused incomprehensible problems
 
Last edited:

Eulalia

Poet Laureate
Staff member
In Germany there is also a saying: ( "Was du nicht willst, das man dir tu, das füg' auch keinem andern zu") "What you don't want someone to do to you, don't do it to anyone else"
(I hope this translation is reasonably correct.)
Well, I'd better not do to others some of the things I'd like them to do to me! :p

It is not only a saying in Germany, it is in principle also the "Categorical Imperative" of the great German philosopher Immanuel Kant and it is also his philosophical basis:


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

I certainly mention this simply to show what a typical German "smart-ass" I am
Just to be a Scottish smart-ass, I don't think Kant's categorical imperative is quite the same as the 'golden rule' -
it's rather more general, act on principles that you would be happy for everybody else to act on.
 

Praefectus Praetorio

Brother of the Quill
Well, I'd better not do to others some of the things I'd like them to do to me! :p


Just to be a Scottish smart-ass, I don't think Kant's categorical imperative is quite the same as the 'golden rule' -
it's rather more general, act on principles that you would be happy for everybody else to act on.
One of the oldest forms was from Socrates, quoted by Plato - I had to translate it in first-year Greek:

"If it is necessary that I suffer harm or cause another harm, I choose rather suffer harm than to harm another."

Or perhaps he was a masochist. After all, he intentionally married a dominating woman.
 

Silent_Water

Tribune
The germans in the history of war is really good, but after 1840, the far east is a large amount of weapons for Germany order, both the navy and the army, the far east in modern military is made in Germany, but a series of military defeats, we believe that the German weapon is the best, we comfort ourselves, the germans also defeat, Otherwise we cannot easily explain the Mongol conquest of Asia.

In east Asia, no country in history has the new army, they are all new weapons from Germany, the Japanese were impressed by the Japanese bow and a long bamboo spears and matchlock, Chinese is a sword and composite bow, and the employment of Mongolian cavalry, these are all in the military museum, and the far east German troops armed bundle together a long time, are inseparable.

Countries in the far east is friendly to Germany, Japan and Germany's military alliance member countries, China and Germany's trade partnership, otherwise it is hard to explain the rise of Germany, is in the far east economic strength of the support of Germany, this is we always believe that, because of the far east are all workers, their wealth has invested heavily in Germany.

Far east people didn't understand the relationship between Germany and Prussia, as you don't understand the relationship between the emperor of China and the Korean king, in the history of the Korean king accepted the two Chinese dynasty's destiny, but in Prussia, and Germany is a magic, the relationship between the far east, people can't understand, you of the west is not the same as our mandate of heaven emperor, the emperor is far east of us god, But when they could not protect us, they lost the mandate of Heaven, which we have as an emperor's right to support, you do not have the concept.

I believe for the Russian far east and Germany played many years of war, but don't know why, we don't understand why are you fighting, we are the emperor manages a large number of farmers' land, this is a mystery, Mongolian khan fight is to grab a woman, that we are very understand, but white itself has beautiful woman, why fight?

I've been learning English since kindergarten, but my Japanese and Chinese and Korean are much better than English.

I mean whether the Japanese or the Chinese or even the Koreans were involved in a series of wars between Russia and Germany, the Japanese did fight Germany, it was World War I, the Chinese were invaded by Germany in 1900, it was the eve of the collapse of the empire, we don't understand these wars, not at all.

According to the logic of our peasants, you are satisfied by selling your goods to us. In the beginning, the Emperor did not allow you to sell things, so it caused incomprehensible problems

I do not know if I really understand all your sentences correct because my mother tongue is German and yours is probably Chinese and we both are writing each other in another different language but I would like to add some remarks to your posting.

The concept of the kings and emperors all over the world was not so different from the beginning as you might think. ALL of them tried to explain the reason of their rule by the permission of God. The German emperors had in their statements the opening sentence like "Wilhelm II., BY THE WILL Of GOD emperor of Germany, king of Prussia etc, etc. ... declares hereby ..."
It was alway useful for all kings and emperors all around the world to tell their people that they are ruling by the will of God because how could you ever make a revolution against God who created us all in the believe of most people through the history?

In Europe, this believe changed similar to your story from China, when these kings obviously could not prevent their nations from such catastrophes - by the will of God? - like the earth quake of Lisbon in 1755 which also "disturbed" the believe of most Europeans in God because most of the victims in 1755 were killed in the collapsing churches. This earthquake took place on one of the "holy days" in Christian believe at the "perfect" time in the morning when all the churches in Lisbon were full of believers in God.
In my opinion, the French Revolution against their king would not have happened without this catastrophe and a crop failures in 1788. The French Revolution was the beginning of the rise of democracies in the West and the decline of monarchies here.

Some of the wars you seem to mention were the result of the following revolutions in Europe which was always a relatively small continent with many different nations and different languages. Every of these nations tried to be "better" and more influential than the other and our European kings were in a constant "competition" to make their nations richer by more trade and more own national territories, which certainly caused conflicts with other nations and Europe as a whole became also the continent with the most weaponry and always modernized military. The European nations widened their conflicts over the whole world by trying to export their influence to other continents and colonies all over the world which was possible by their always modernized weaponry in competition with their European neigbour countries.

And in all of this, the German history is different from most Western-European countries because our German language was the only "thing" the Germans had in common for a very long time. Whereas Great Britain, France or Spain were relatively soon centralized countries with the same capital like London, Paris or Madrid for almost a thousand years, the German capitals were often changing, depending on the most influential German "tribe" (as I often say in a kind of German joke) at a certain time.

The graves of our German kings and emperors are scattered over the half of Europe (one of our German "Friedrichs" is buried in Sicily in Italy!) and so were the graves of their knights and soldiers. We Germans had the most conflicts inside our German nations and we had the most neighbouring countries in European history. After losing two world wars, we are now trying to keep as much of Europe together in working together with France which was our worst enemy for centuries and which is now our best friend.

Or as the French president Francois Mitterand once said: "There is no alternative to the European Union for us Europeans on such a continent as Europe with so many different languages and nations. In a time with weapons of mass destruction, every new uprising of belligerent nationalism or chauvinism between our nations would mean war between our greatest European nations and this would mean our self-destruction and the end of our civilisation. We have no other chance than to be friends of Germany and Germany has no other choice but to be friend of France. International friendship between our democracies is our future and everything else will be our death!"
This is a statement, all intelligent Germans and French would subscribe today and whenever a French or German president or chancellor was elected after 1945, his or her first visit was to his new partner in Bonn/ Berlin or in Paris and their is no other way for us Europeans than to live as friends together.
I hope, even the Russians will one day remark that they are more "Europeans" than everything else but they still have some problems with our European understanding of "democracy" because their history was again different from all other European countries - and maybe, one of the reasons is that they were the only Europeans who were governed by Mongolians for some time in the late Middle Ages, the same Mongolians which you mentioned, too.
 
Last edited:

ron23333

Magistrate
I do not know if I really understand all your sentences correct because my mother tongue is German and yours is probably Chinese and we both are writing each other in another different language but I would like to add some remarks to your posting.

The concept of the kings and emperors all over the world was not so different from the beginning as you might think. ALL of them tried to explain the reason of their rule by the permission of God. The German emperors had in their statements the opening sentence like "Wilhelm II., BY THE WILL Of GOD emperor of Germany, king of Prussia etc, etc. ... declares hereby ..."
It was alway useful for all kings and emperors all around the world to tell their people that they are ruling by the will of God because how could you ever make a revolution against God who created us all in the believe of most people through the history?

In Europe, this believe changed similar to your story from China, when these kings obviously could not prevent their nations from such catastrophes - by the will of God? - like the earth quake of Lisbon in 1755 which also "disturbed" the believe of most Europeans in God because most of the victims in 1755 were killed in the collapsing churches. This earthquake took place on one of the "holy days" in Christian believe at the "perfect" time in the morning when all the churches in Lisbon were full of believers in God.
In my opinion, the French Revolution against their king would not have happened without this catastrophe and a crop failures in 1788. The French Revolution was the beginning of the rise of democracies in the West and the decline of monarchies here.

Some of the wars you seem to mention were the result of the following revolutions in Europe which was always a relatively small continent with many different nations and different languages. Every of these nations tried to be "better" and more influential than the other and our European kings were in a constant "competition" to make their nations richer by more trade and more own national territories, which certainly caused conflicts with other nations and Europe as a whole became also the continent with the most weaponry and always modernized military. The European nations widened their conflicts over the whole world by trying to export their influence to other continents and colonies all over the world which was possible by their always modernized weaponry in competition with their European neigbour countries.

And in all of this, the German history is different from most Western-European countries because our German language was the only "thing" the Germans had in common for a very long time. Whereas Great Britain, France or Spain were relatively soon centralized countries with the same capital like London, Paris or Madrid for almost a thousand years, the German capitals were often changing, depending on the most influential German "tribe" (as I often say in a kind of German joke) at a certain time.

The graves of our German kings and emperors are scattered over the half of Europe (one of our German "Friedrichs" is buried in Sicily in Italy!) and so were the graves of their knights and soldiers. We Germans had the most conflicts inside our German nations and we had the most neighbouring countries in European history. After losing two world wars, we are now trying to keep as much of Europe together in working together with France which was our worst enemy for centuries and which is now our best friend.

Or as the French president Francois Mitterand once said: "There is no alternative to the European Union for us Europeans on such a continent as Europe with so many different languages and nations. In a time with weapons of mass destruction, every new uprising of belligerent nationalism or chauvinism between our nations would mean war between our greatest European nations and this would mean our self-destruction and the end of our civilisation. We have no other chance than to be friends of Germany and Germany has no other choice but to be friend of France. International friendship between our democracies is our future and everything else will be our death!"
This is a statement, all intelligent Germans and French would subscribe today and whenever a French or German president or chancellor was elected after 1945, his or her first visit was to his new partner in Bonn/ Berlin or in Paris and their is no other way for us Europeans than to live as friends together.
I hope, even the Russians will one day remark that they are more "Europeans" than everything else but they still have some problems with our European understanding of "democracy" because their history was again different from all other European countries - and maybe, one of the reasons is that they were the only Europeans who were governed by Mongolians for some time in the late Middle Ages, the same Mongolians which you mentioned, too.
Dear friend, thank you for telling me about Germany, because I really like Germany and I am sure that there are very many people in the Far East who like Germany, but I feel that I need to talk about the Far East.

The main problem is that it is in Chinese as uniform as possible, so basically everywhere, all the Chinese in east Asia, this is a unique cultural phenomenon, in east Asia because it is difficult to write Chinese characters, it is hard to read, indeed I was written in Chinese, but I will also Japanese, and Korean, but Chinese is within the scope of east Asia most easily translated into English, Japanese has two writing systems, it is suitable for east Asia, But it is not suitable for alphabetic countries.

Korean is special. The real purpose of Korean is to be used as pinyin in Chinese.

It was the best Chinese pinyin system until the Webster's pinyin of Chinese romaji replaced Korean.

We are all arable land, only Mongolians are herding sheep. Each of our countries has a history of raising cattle for more than 2000 years, so we are friendly to raising cattle. We are often conquered by sheep herders, but the sheep herders will never enter us. Cow's home. They have no culture, just as the alphabetic culture has not been accepted by the Chinese character culture, otherwise there would be no South Korea and Japan that are highly integrated with the Chinese character culture.

It is because we farm the land that all of us are afraid of war, but we like to talk about him, and it is a very amazing thing that what we fear is also what we like. For example, the tyrants of our agrarian history, they frighten us, but they built immensely powerful empires, and this is not to be found in the same category as any monarch in the West.

Farmers in the Far East don't think of anything that complicated. They have an idea that they have to deal with food first, and then everything else. There are thousands of different dishes in the Far East.

We even get out of here, we go out, we prefer to run Chinese restaurants.
 

ron23333

Magistrate
The biggest civilization of the Far Eastern people is about eating. The yellow-skinned people here bring a lot of torture that looks terrible. In fact, those terrible things are the way we cook tens of thousands of dishes. We have been in history. Studying food, our emperor makes all kinds of delicious delicacies every day. I don't think any country has so much attention to food. We even have documentaries and China on the tip of our tongue.

When we introduce ourselves to others, Koreans eat kimchi barbecue, Japan eats sashimi, Chinese people can eat too much. I believe that all East Asian gourmets and chefs must come to China for special training, because we are very researched on food.

Our emperor brought his favorite recipes and was carefully buried in their mausoleum. I believe that everyone in East Asia can have their favorite recipe.

All East Asian weapons are designed to catch prey and then eat them. This is why we have invented a lot of unique weapons. The purpose of firearms is to frighten the prey. We cannot say how high-end its civilization is. They are for the better. Our chef and food culture are very unique because we don’t understand that many white people’s things, including eating beef, have been our children for quite a long time in East Asia. Cows can cultivate the land. There will be a lot of beef in the novel. , But it’s actually human meat. This is a very unique culture in East Asia. We have raised cattle for 2000 years. Although we eat cattle now, we divide the meat that can be eaten into edible cattle and farm cattle. Cows have many legends for us. And myth.

Regarding any emperor or king of the Far East, you can regard them as the leader of a peasant. They are only responsible for the peasants, and they are the elders of the peasant family. I can hardly say anything for you to understand, because each of us in the Far East is in our bones. We are farmers. We have all the virtues and shortcomings of farmers. After raising cattle for 2000, we are genetically good at dealing with land. Our so-called landlords are people who really own a lot of cattle, and after our revolution, we will distribute cattle to poor farmers. Our revolution means different things. The Japanese did not divide the cattle, and they lived well. They were robbing cattle.

Religious issue I can't, because there is not enough words to support, we have no way to talk about anything religious concepts, I only said a secular concept, the emperor itself is a god of farmers, rather than others, because we raise cattle, it doesn't make sense, we because it is too primitive, Europe has to give up farming and farming thinking for a long time, We still have a lot of agrarian thinking, and we're going to continue to develop our cuisine to the end of the world.

I found online that many people are not in the same timeline, and this is the nature of our frequent conflicts, or misunderstandings. Especially those with foreign friend, and we are thinking in agriculture and agricultural civilization, under the absolute rule of the far east, regardless of where they are not the product of the industrial revolution, and they are the agricultural revolution, no matter how, we will not understand the French revolution, we won't have any civilians killed our emperor, why farmers from diet, don't eat good, to do this, Those are the things that people who want to be emperors do. But we don't understand why anyone wouldn't want to be emperor. That's the problem!

The Germans have built beautiful and prosperous cities in the Far East, which are better than those built by the United Kingdom and the United States. The Russians, on the contrary, I never know where the Russians’ cities are, because I am just a farmer, but I feel more immobile than those online trolls. A simple swear word to solve the problem is a bit impressive. I am not a topic terminator. I prefer to talk about many interesting things with people, but there are many things that I can’t discuss. This is the limitation of the farmer’s thinking. It’s what I’m talking about as a farmer’s logic. We bought German goods. Why did the Germans go to war when they got rich? In 2000, we really didn't know what Germany was.
 
Last edited:

Silent_Water

Tribune
...

The Germans have built beautiful and prosperous cities in the Far East, ....

It’s what I’m talking about as a farmer’s logic. We bought German goods. Why did the Germans go to war when they got rich? In 2000, we really didn't know what Germany was.

Which cities do you refer to? Possibly this one? :


And concerning your understanding of the world, I would like to recommend to you this great book which explains a lot of development of the human history by comparing Europe and Asia and they way how the human beings there lived with and by their agriculture and their way of eating. In my opinion, it is really an outstanding book and it received many prices throughout the world because it is really understandable and easy to read and at the same time written by one of the friendliest and most neutral thinking scientists you can imagine. Whenever it is possible, try to buy this book and read it, please:


It really explains a lot of the whole world, us human beings and their history.

Concerning your questions about Germany's history, I am German and I sometimes think it is similar with us like in some of our German fairy-tales: We Germans are always looking for something like "perfection" because "good" is often not "good enough" for us - it must be "perfect" or "as perfect as possible"!
In both, good AND bad in German history, there is a terrible "urge" for "perfection". I think, for example, the German Nazi government under Hitler was the only one in human history who once declared another people to be their enemy and "deported/ imported" these humans like cattle from conquered countries into the German warfare-empire just in order to kill them. It is an almost devlish part of our national history but there really seems to be an almost inhuman German "urge to be perfect - in good and bad, it must be simply perfect". This "urge to be perfect" is probably also a part of the reasons for our relatively fast "German comeback" after World War II, but it also makes me sometimes shiver for myself when I look back on our German history.
And in most other European languages, the word for "work" or "labour" is derived from the word for "slavery" in the times of the Roman empire about 2.000 years ago.
In our German language, our word "Arbeit" is derived from "Arebeid" = "warfare" and "fighting like a war-hero" and some of our neighbours say, this is probably really also the way how Germans are "working".
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom