Without using the internets, what aircraft won the Battle of Britain?

[lio45]

You got nitpicked for the German and British anthems, but I can confirm that the French one is certainly mostly about killing invaders/enemies. Our tilled fields shall be drinking their blood, etc.

[Aedilred]

It's probably worth mentioning too that for all that Rule, Britannia! sounds like an imperative to go and take over the world, it's not really about conquest, it's about freedom and independence. The lyrics are all about how Britain will always resist tyranny and fight for her freedom; the "rule the waves" implication being that GB is an island and invaders would have to come from across the sea, so for as long as Britain rules the waves her freedom is assured.

To put it in context, it was written during the height of absolutism in most of Europe, and was essentially a Whig anthem; it became popular when Bonnie Prince Charlie were trying to force a Stuart restoration (also the context in which God Save the Queen with its "smash the Scots" verse, was written).

[Asta Kask]

It's probably worth mentioning too that for all that Rule, Britannia! sounds like an imperative to go and take over the world, it's not really about conquest, it's about freedom and independence. The lyrics are all about how Britain will always resist tyranny and fight for her freedom; the "rule the waves" implication being that GB is an island and invaders would have to come from across the sea, so for as long as Britain rules the waves her freedom is assured.

To put it in context, it was written during the height of absolutism in most of Europe, and was essentially a Whig anthem; it became popular when Bonnie Prince Charlie were trying to force a Stuart restoration (also the context in which God Save the Queen with its "smash the Scots" verse, was written).

I've read that the original meaning was imperative (and the British certainly obeyed!), but discussing that's a little out of my comfort zone.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I was looking for this:

I know.

(which describe the bounds of Germany fairly generously by modern standards).

Well, they didn't have a country with defined borders to write about and isn't about a political entity to start with.

To put it in context, it was written during the height of absolutism in most of Europe, and was essentially a Whig anthem; it became popular when Bonnie Prince Charlie were trying to force a Stuart restoration (also the context in which God Save the Queen with its "smash the Scots" verse, was written).

Technically Rule, Britannia was written (by a Scot) for a masque about Alfred the Great. It was actually the Jacobites who first really used it.

[hamishspence]

I'll take the liberty of adding the original last verse, one you don't hear often these days...


n.
Lord grant that Marshal Wade
May by thy mighty aid
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush,
And like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God Save the King!

I wonder how many really famous songs have lines that are cut these days?

I know at least one verse of All Things Bright and Beautiful is, at least:

The rich man in his castle
The poor man at his gate
He made them high and lowly
And ordered their estate

any other notable "songs with cut content"?

[Closet_Skeleton]

The Myrrh verse is usually cut out of 'We three kings' in English primary schools. Resulting in much confusion.

Myrrh is mine, its bitter perfume
Breathes a life of gathering gloom;
Sorrowing, sighing, bleeding, dying,
Sealed in the stone cold tomb.

[Asta Kask]

Who sings all the verses of their national anthems anyway? Our anthem has 4 verses and no one can be bothered to learn more than one. Finland's anthem has 12 verses, and the only reason anyone knows the first and the last is that they're identical.

[hamishspence]

Who sings all the verses of their national anthems anyway? Our anthem has 4 verses and no one can be bothered to learn more than one. Finland's anthem has 12 verses, and the only reason anyone knows the first and the last is that they're identical.

Which Terry Pratchett inevitably spoofs:

"national anthems only ever have one verse or, rather, all have the same second verse, which goes 'nur'hnur'mur'nur nur, hnur'nur'nur, hnur' at some length until everyone remembers the last line of the first verse and sings it as loudly as they can."
— Carpe Jugulum

later giving Ankh Morpork one which actually has that in its second verse.

[Avilan the Grey]

Who sings all the verses of their national anthems anyway? Our anthem has 4 verses and no one can be bothered to learn more than one. Finland's anthem has 12 verses, and the only reason anyone knows the first and the last is that they're identical.

We usually do the first two. But not all four, no.

[Asta Kask]

Thinking about it, your right. Two first verses. I don't think I've sung it for 20 years.

[Aedilred]

Well, they didn't have a country with defined borders to write about and isn't about a political entity to start with.

Yes (albeit it emerged from the nationalist movement seeking to unite Germany, and there was a defined German political area at the time), but even so it takes the most generous possible view of what constitutes the German nation, and given that it would include, among other foreign territories, the whole of modern Poland, it's not hard to see how it was deemed politically unacceptable after WW2. Even given that there was a reasonable German population in what is now Poland at the time.

Technically Rule, Britannia was written (by a Scot) for a masque about Alfred the Great. It was actually the Jacobites who first really used it.

Yes, I know about the masque, although the contemporary political context is relevant. (Alfred too had to fight off invaders from overseas; his supposed creation of the navy was again a defensive measure). Scots =/= Jacobites, of course. Scotland was the heartland of Jacobitism in mainland Britain (along with Ireland, to an extent) but many, possibly even most, Scots, were pro-Hanoverian, particularly in light of religious issues which I won't go into. Thomson himself was pro-Union and his sponsors generally had Whig tendencies.

The Jacobites did use Rule, Britannia! but they changed the words - albeit, with an unsurprising lack of self-awareness, keeping in the stuff about freedom from tyrants, given they were thrown out in the first place for perceived tyranny and were sponsored by the arch-tyrant of Europe.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Scotland was the heartland of Jacobitism in mainland Britain (along with Ireland, to an extent) but many, possibly even most, Scots, were pro-Hanoverian, particularly in light of religious issues which I won't go into.

The Jacobites did use Rule, Britannia! but they changed the words - albeit, with an unsurprising lack of self-awareness, keeping in the stuff about freedom from tyrants, given they were thrown out in the first place for perceived tyranny and were sponsored by the arch-tyrant of Europe.

What the split was between Jacobites and Hanovarians didn't matter much among the Highlanders. The blood feuds meant that the moment one clan sided with one faction every other one fell into place and both sides had pretty equal support.

Freedom from tyranny means different things to different people. Human rights only apply to people who legally have rights and there was a lot more serfdom and slavery in Scotland at the time than in England. No one sees themselves as a tyrant and plenty of nobles see little difference between freedom from tyranny and freedom to be a tyrant themselves. Moving the capital to Edinburgh and the adoption of Norman French and then Germanic Scots as the court language had cut the ties between the monarchy and the clans so that the Highlanders were even more used to a weak monarchy than the English were. The Stuarts only really cared about England anyway the wealth disparity between the two Kingdoms meant Scotland wasn't worth oppressing so most Jacobites didn't see the Stuarts as tyrants.

You see the same thing again with the Greeks during the Persian Wars and certain other slave owning societies.

[Aedilred]

What the split was between Jacobites and Hanovarians didn't matter much among the Highlanders. The blood feuds meant that the moment one clan sided with one faction every other one fell into place and both sides had pretty equal support.

Thomson wasn't a highlander, though, and lived most of his life in England anyway.

Freedom from tyranny means different things to different people. Human rights only apply to people who legally have rights and there was a lot more serfdom and slavery in Scotland at the time than in England. No one sees themselves as a tyrant and plenty of nobles see little difference between freedom from tyranny and freedom to be a tyrant themselves. Moving the capital to Edinburgh and the adoption of Norman French and then Germanic Scots as the court language had cut the ties between the monarchy and the clans so that the Highlanders were even more used to a weak monarchy than the English were. The Stuarts only really cared about England anyway the wealth disparity between the two Kingdoms meant Scotland wasn't worth oppressing so most Jacobites didn't see the Stuarts as tyrants.

Oh yeah, it's just... well. The Stuarts had been wrestling with the issue of tyranny and absolute power almost from the moment James I/VI died; for over fifty years even before the Glorious Revolution. Charles I was overthrown and executed because he was seen to have abused his power; Charles II spent his whole reign trying to deal with it, and James II was overthrown fairly quickly in turn.

When you're ousted from government for alleged abuse of the royal prerogative, your former subjects invite republican-headed government over to restore order, establish a constitutional monarchy, abolish half the prerogative, and start composing songs about how great it is to be free from tyranny, especially after a fifty-year history of your family facing persistent opposition for perceived tyrannical behaviour... even if you don't think you're a tyrant, it shows an amazing lack of self-awareness to try to adopt a Whig song about overthrowing tyrants as your own anthem. Which was really my point.

[Yora]

What the split was between Jacobites and Hanovarians didn't matter much among the Highlanders. The blood feuds meant that the moment one clan sided with one faction every other one fell into place and both sides had pretty equal support.

Now we've been really drifting off topic.

It's probably worth mentioning too that for all that Rule, Britannia! sounds like an imperative to go and take over the world, it's not really about conquest, it's about freedom and independence. The lyrics are all about how Britain will always resist tyranny and fight for her freedom; the "rule the waves" implication being that GB is an island and invaders would have to come from across the sea, so for as long as Britain rules the waves her freedom is assured.

Same with the German. That the first part is now ommited from the official version is not so much because of "Deutschland, Deutschland über alles", since it refers to the wish of countless bickering principlaities to unite into a single nation, but mostly because three of the four borders mentioned in the song now lie outside of German territory, and the German state has renounced any claims to those areas.

[Asta Kask]

When you're ousted from government for alleged abuse of the royal prerogative, your former subjects invite republican-headed government over to restore order, establish a constitutional monarchy, abolish half the prerogative, and start composing songs about how great it is to be free from tyranny, especially after a fifty-year history of your family facing persistent opposition for perceived tyrannical behaviour... even if you don't think you're a tyrant, it shows an amazing lack of self-awareness to try to adopt a Whig song about overthrowing tyrants as your own anthem. Which was really my point.

Not at all.

There's a certain king today—I'd better not call him by name—who never stops preaching peace and trust and is actually sworn enemy to both; and if he had ever practised either he would have lost his authority or his kingdom many times over.

This is propaganda, pure and simple. The more tyrannical you are, the more you have to speak about liberty.

[Aedilred]

Not at all.

Well, there are alternative explanations. It could be a "oh, right, we totally get this now, d00ds", but if you're going for that you probably don't want to change the words. You also might want to reduce the visibility of your connection to the king of France, regarded in Britain during the period as the global arch-tyrant.

It could be ironic (but, again, changing the words...)

Or it could be an expression of how the Hanoverians are the real tyrants, although I'd argue that falls back into "completely missing the point/lack of self-awareness" bracket.

It seems a bit like the Confederacy adopting John Brown's Body, French royalists singing La Marseillaise*, or the White Russians with the Internationale.

*Admittedly, by 1870, it would probably have helped the royalist cause to do so: the refusal of the legitimist candidate to consider retaining some republican trappings like the Tricolour was a significant factor in the retention of republican rule. But that's 1870, not 1793.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Well, by the original Greek definition George I, William of Orange and Oliver Cromwell were tyrants but the Stuarts were not.

[Aedilred]

Well, by the original Greek definition George I, William of Orange and Oliver Cromwell were tyrants but the Stuarts were not.

Cromwell, yes; William too (although he did have a hereditary claim, just not a strong one). George I though was the legal hereditary heir to Anne under the Act of Succession passed when he wasn't even the intended recipient. The Act did skip over a lot of people, but the only way you could argue he didn't have a legal right to the throne (which was essentially the core of Greek tyranny) was if all government since 1689 was itself illegitimate and had no legal authority, which was a point of view pretty much reserved to Jacobites.

[Miriel]

It's probably worth mentioning too that for all that Rule, Britannia! sounds like an imperative to go and take over the world, it's not really about conquest, it's about freedom and independence. The lyrics are all about how Britain will always resist tyranny and fight for her freedom; the "rule the waves" implication being that GB is an island and invaders would have to come from across the sea, so for as long as Britain rules the waves her freedom is assured.

The same thing can mean different things in different eras. I'm pretty sure that by 1900, the waves being ruled by Britannia included India and the road thither (with Malta, Cyprus, and Egypt), the FMS, Canada, Australia, New Zeland, half of Africa, and other assorted colonies.

[Aedilred]

The same thing can mean different things in different eras. I'm pretty sure that by 1900, the waves being ruled by Britannia included India and the road thither (with Malta, Cyprus, and Egypt), the FMS, Canada, Australia, New Zeland, half of Africa, and other assorted colonies.

Oh, sure, Britain went and took over half the world in the 19th century but that's not necessarily connected to the song. The song lyrics are all still about freedom and stopping Johnny Tyrant coming over here and taking over, and stopping him from doing so.

In any case, it's not the national anthem, just a patriotic song that gets wheeled out once a year at the Proms.

[Miriel]

Oh, sure, Britain went and took over half the world in the 19th century but that's not necessarily connected to the song. The song lyrics are all still about freedom and stopping Johnny Tyrant coming over here and taking over, and stopping him from doing so.

In any case, it's not the national anthem, just a patriotic song that gets wheeled out once a year at the Proms.

Sure. But what I'm saying is that this song had a different meaning when sung at the time it was written and when sung in 1900.

And patriotic songs are often more important than just the national anthem. The national anthem is a state decision. It's fairly static too, unless something major happens to the state. Patriotic songs (including the national anthem) tell us something about the people who sing it. When British colonists in British Columbia, holding "Stand for a White Canada" banners, sang Britannia Rule the Wave in an anti-immigration demonstration that ended up being a racist riot against Chinese and Japanese immigrants (Vancouver Daily News Observer, September 8, 1907, p. 1), I'm fairly certain they weren't thinking about how the British people, forever free, established a constitutional monarchy, and that it wasn't "just" what you described, whatever it was.

[Asta Kask]

People rally around certain symbols, whether they are official or not. In Sweden, certain unsavory groups rally around Charles XII and the day he died, but there's absolutely nothing official about this. Similarly, people rally around Kristallnacht day (9 Nov?) for a very different purpose. The official National Day, on the other hand, is celebrated only because it's a day off. Very few people have any personal relationship to it.

[lio45]

Their industry was rapidly expanding, they were militarily capable and willing and Belgium already had the 4th largest economy of the world at the time (believe it or not). Keeping it out of German hands was a major priority for them, not to speak of the Belgian ports which would mean the German navy would be right on Britains doorstep.

I knew that at the time of the industrial boom Belgium (as well as the Lille area over the border) were among the boomiest on the planet for a time... but 4th, really? Impressive.

My point is, here's a new little challenge, which I personally find interesting as I'm asking myself precisely that question: without using the internets, which economy out of the following was smaller than Belgium's? Britain, Germany, France, USA. (I suppose we could even add Russia to the list, a very populated country already then, and ask which two were smaller economies than Belgium, but I'm pretty sure Russia wasn't as much a contender as the four I've listed.)

Another possible answer is "none of these four, I challenge the claim that Belgium ever was the 4th largest economy in the world".

I'm not even sure which one of the four would be my answer...

[Miriel]

I knew that at the time of the industrial boom Belgium (as well as the Lille area over the border) were among the boomiest on the planet for a time... but 4th, really? Impressive.

My point is, here's a new little challenge, which I personally find interesting as I'm asking myself precisely that question: without using the internets, which economy out of the following was smaller than Belgium's? Britain, Germany, France, USA. (I suppose we could even add Russia to the list, a very populated country already then, and ask which two were smaller economies than Belgium, but I'm pretty sure Russia wasn't as much a contender as the four I've listed.)

Another possible answer is "none of these four, I challenge the claim that Belgium ever was the 4th largest economy in the world".

I'm not even sure which one of the four would be my answer...

Whatever it is, it will end up in a debate about what makes an economy larger than another.

[lio45]

Whatever it is, it will end up in a debate about what makes an economy larger than another.

... aren't there 'official' figures that we can all rely on?



Oh, and... after doing the exercise for myself, I now have the answer :) Not even putting it in a spoiler box yet.

[Miriel]

... aren't there 'official' figures that we can all rely on?



Oh, and... after doing the exercise for myself, I now have the answer :) Not even putting it in a spoiler box yet.

Are you using GNP or GDP? National wealth? Or maybe just industrial production? Some other measure? Per capita? Adjusted for PPP? Do colonies count? And so on.

In any case, historical figures are often historian's guesswork based on past guesswork.

[Aedilred]

Are you using GNP or GDP? National wealth? Or maybe just industrial production? Some other measure? Per capita? Adjusted for PPP? Do colonies count? And so on.

Usually when "size of economy" is referred to it's GDP not adjusted for population, so that's what I'd assume, although clarification wouldn't be unhelpful. I would also assume that colonies count, given that Belgium's wealth was largely colony-driven.

My point is, here's a new little challenge, which I personally find interesting as I'm asking myself precisely that question: without using the internets, which economy out of the following was smaller than Belgium's? Britain, Germany, France, USA. (I suppose we could even add Russia to the list, a very populated country already then, and ask which two were smaller economies than Belgium, but I'm pretty sure Russia wasn't as much a contender as the four I've listed.)

Another possible answer is "none of these four, I challenge the claim that Belgium ever was the 4th largest economy in the world".

I'm not even sure which one of the four would be my answer...

I would guess the USA as smaller than Belgium at the time, though not by much, and it grew staggeringly quickly during and immediately following the War. I have a sneaking suspicion about France, though. I'd hazard a guess that all four were bigger than Russia. iirc Argentina would have been well up there at the time too, although maybe it was a little past its peak.

[Stardrake]

I knew that at the time of the industrial boom Belgium (as well as the Lille area over the border) were among the boomiest on the planet for a time... but 4th, really? Impressive.

My point is, here's a new little challenge, which I personally find interesting as I'm asking myself precisely that question: without using the internets, which economy out of the following was smaller than Belgium's? Britain, Germany, France, USA. (I suppose we could even add Russia to the list, a very populated country already then, and ask which two were smaller economies than Belgium, but I'm pretty sure Russia wasn't as much a contender as the four I've listed.)

Another possible answer is "none of these four, I challenge the claim that Belgium ever was the 4th largest economy in the world".

I'm not even sure which one of the four would be my answer...

Hard to imagine now, but probably the USA. Great Depression notwithstanding, the US grew a LOT during the early 20th century, while Europe got hit harder by the Depression as well as being knocked around by two devastating wars. Germany starting to eclipse France and Britain industry-wise was one of the contributing factors to those wars, so they were probably the big three. However, while they were being knocked around by war, nobody made any significant direct attacks on the US proper, so apart from a few years right after the stock market crash US just kept on growing while the European economies were devastated by war.

Americans like to exaggerate their role in World War 1, but really the US basically just acted as a stalemate-breaker.

[Avilan the Grey]

The combination of the dust bowls and the depression hit the US hard, but certain aspects of the economy never vaned. Like oil.
That said, before WWII the US had one of the smalles militaries in the industrialized world (because prior to WWII the US always demilitarized itself after every war), and compared to it's size it was the smallest, period.

[Stardrake]

It hit the US hard, yes, but my impression is that it hit Europe harder.

Going back a few pages, the aftereffects of World War 1, including Versailles, was a large part of this. Germany in the 20s was borrowing money of the US to pay reparations, and then a lot of that money went back to the US for goods and resources to rebuild, so financially speaking the US was getting to have its cake and eat it too and that was largely what drove the boom in the 20s.

When the US had troubles, it still had plenty of reserves that it could use to kick itself back into gear, but not enough to continue being the engine of financial flows through Europe. This caused Germany to go into stagflation, and Germany's collapse dragged the rest of Europe down with it*.

Lessons learned from this experience, in fact, was probably largely what lead to the miracle recovery of Europe after World War 2 - after the initial few years of revenge-driven deindustrialisation of Germany, saner heads prevailed with the argument that the European economy needed Germany as a strong center or risk going down with it. The Franco-German economic alliance that resulted kickstarted the recovery and also gave birth to the EU.

*Germany had probably been the industrial heartland of Europe even pre-unification, but while Germany was the political basketcase of Europe it presented no threat to anybody - while when unified, it was pretty much going to become the top dog in Europe anyway. Much of 20th century history can basically be summed up as 'the existing superpowers trying to keep Germany down' and it's still ended up as probably the dominant nation in Europe, albeit through softer forms of power than a century ago.