Search results

I doubt the accuracy of that given the male death in WW2 in France. Unless it was all made good with immigration.

Might have also been the mass exodus of people to the west or just the extra spending the west was doing in the east.

If you look at the data the German and Russian charts aren't actually all that different: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Life-expectancy-at-birth-in-East-and-West-Germany-Source-Human-Mortality-Database_fig1_282361317 German: Russian: Both had dips in the 1960s for men, though the...

Look at a map, the part over the Meuse was surrounded on 3 sides, which let the Germans pour fire into it while the bulk of French artillery was on the west bank of the river and having to fire into the area. Yes that is exactly why the Germans attacked. You should check out that book about...

Probably because of how many combat vets that had died and the low birthrates after the war. The psychologically harmed elements of society either died out or didn't have kids. That and I bet since a lot of kids were sired by Allied soldiers after the war who left and didn't impart their...

Avoid WW2. IMHO the psychological-social fallout of WW2 (or really any major war in any country) played out through multiple generations. See the 'golden age of serial killers' or the violence epidemic in the US during the 1960s-90s. Even factoring in the impact of pollution the amount of...

If they tried to take it, which I'm not sure they would, the only benefit taking Verdun would have to offer is the extra rail line into the St. Mihiel salient. Not sure that was enough to make a difference there, while Toul didn't offer the same advantages of being a fire sack the way Verdun...

Don't remember, but their heavy guns only came in 1916 IIRC. Rail artillery was pretty good, everyone developed a lot of it during the war.

Russia had to adapt some naval guns to rail guns to have something similar. France also had some rail artillery, but not much and had to improvise until 1916. The Germans and Austrians both put a lot of work into superheavy siege guns and mortars that no one else really had, which was a big...

I'm having trouble finding some that show them. Here is a partial map (starred cities are forts like Thorn):

Yes. I think the blood feud thing got excised from the genetics due to the big wars in the rest of europe.

Not really given the logistics of that and the east wall of forts.

Some did, there was also an ethnic cleansing of the Scots-Irish in the 1700s.

When it is your culture and you know nothing different or that it is different elsewhere you probably don't worry about it as much. That and there was plenty of places to hide in the mountains if needed. After all the Scottish had that too and didn't leave willingly, the English had to...

Serbia was not a wealthy nation, so I doubt they'd have the funds to relocate or willingness to abandon their ancestral homes. Given how common blood feuds were in the country they don't strike me as a people who would run.

No idea. Those who feared A-H retribution, but I have no idea how many that would be. TBH I'd be surprised if it were over 1% of the population, probably much less.

Immigration isn't exactly travel for leisure. Japan attacked Russia. Certainly Russia was interested in expanding their gains in the region, but they didn't initiate hostilities.

All of the world at the time. Very few people could and did travel much outside their region. Nicky seems pretty mild in terms of foreign conflicts. Communists and Socialists.

Geographic isolation and dreams of a Roman past. Plus Italian nationalist propaganda about the A-Hs and memories of fighting the Austrians during the wars for liberation. Northern Italy was a pretty big stomping ground in the 1800s.

Yes, especially in the north and given anti-Austrian sentiments.