Besides what has already being said (the Celtic sword was used for slashing, not poking), they were typically in bronze, not iron

I believe he claimed later that he intentionally delayed the German project, but from the transcripts recorded while a held as a prisoner after the war he didn't believe an atomic bomb was practical anyway, and was surprised when he heard the news of the bombs dropped on Japan.

My understanding is it mostly came down to resources. Everyone leading up to the war was pretty much on the same page as far as theory went. There were a few paths that were the most likely to be successful. But the Germans estimated the cost and the timeline to develop them and thought it wasn't feasible for them, and that they should put there limited resources into other things.

The US was able to work on all the paths and quickly found out that one of the paths was much more viable then the others and then focused on it. When they released information a few days after the Hiroshima bomb to prove that it was an atomic bomb that they dropped on Japan, the release had enough information that Heisenberg and the others then understood the steps to get there.

The BBC has a podcast on the topic. The last episode focuses on the events your question is about. It's not my favorite podcast, but it's not a huge time suck and there is lots of good info in it. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p08llv8n/episodes/downloads

[removed]

[removed]

Either that’s a very prescient pun…or just a plain old typo…

[deleted]

Besides the main reasons /u/bradnelson mentioned, sometimes they would be used to tie down an army. The Battle of Gettysburg is a good example of this. Lee was trying to avoid an engagement while his forces were concentrated and Meade was reluctant to do anything b/c he was worried about the political ramifications on his job for any action. Meade's vanguard was lead by John Buford and he knew Lee had to go through Gettysburg. So he got there and started setting up defensive lines. His Confederate counterpart, Pettigrew spotted him while scouting and went and reported back to his CO, A. P. Hill. Gen Hill didn't believe him and set out a larger scouting force. This gave Buford an opportunity. He had just a small force, they weren't really supposed to engage, the main force of the Potomac was still a day or so away. But Buford used the time between running into Pettigrew and the second scouting force to set up defensive works and pick the best positioning. When that scouting force pulled up, they saw the force wasn't large and the two sides engaged each other. Buford did well enough that Hill diverted more forces from the withdrawal to Gettysburg, and as they showed up the beginning of the AoP start to show up. The whole thing snowballed from there.

Buford, was able to force Meade to commit, by drawing Hill, and then the rest of the AoV into the fight.

/u/wetworth on the /r/civilwar made this for me, the other day to give you an idea about Meade's whole vibe during the battle. https://imgur.com/a/yuskW8r

Your question is based on a false premise.

Hitler was not "first" by any measure.

It's also unlikely that anyone with even a modicum of historical knowledge would try and equate him with Stalin on any level but the sheer human suffering caused by both regimes.

The theory isn't really the hard part, as a practical matter: making the Nuclear bomb in the US took over 30 project sites and over 100,000 workers, and about $36 Billion in today's money, and the US wasn't being bombed during development.

Germany, by contrast, hadn't even finished expanding its conventional factories at the start of WW2, and its entire warplan required the war to be over by the start of 1943, as Germany would simply run out of fuel if that wasn't the case, and could do little more than gradually lose.

The Germans were fully aware of all of this, and any work on a nuclear bomb was basically cannibalized for use in other projects. By 1943, an effective Nazi nuclear bomb program was about as realistic as gaining air supremacy with jets, so it didn't really matter what fantasy project Germany pursued.

As I said, speculation and conjecture at best. History simply can't answer why. Who, what, and where can generally be answered fairly easily. When and how can be answered relatively accurately in the more recent history; what the further back you go the harder these questions are to answer. The question of why is simply not addressed in history and can't be.

A question I’ve always wondered and been afraid to ask, where did the rumors of Katherine the Great sleeping with a horse start and why?

Pretty sure it was the Sheriff of Nottingham you are thinking of. He also banned merciful beheadings, and table scraps for lepers and orphans.

Nah, he was too busy butchering the Irish.

Also, King Charles was 5 foot 6 at the start of his reign, but only 4 foot 8 at the end of it. Because of..........

Like Attila the hunnnnnn.

[removed]

[removed]

Essentially, yes. There are variations on this based on the time period (and thus technology) as well as the theories of any given army. But broadly speaking, a vanguard could be any given army unit that is simply assigned that task. The next time they advance, it could be a different unit serving as the vanguard. Some armies might prefer to make the same unit the vanguard on a regular basis and train/equip it differently because of that. In some instances, it might be sending horse cavalry out ahead of the infantry, or it could be a specialized tank unit in WWII. I tend to think in the context of the American Civil War, so I typically picture infantry units ("skirmishers"). Usually they want to clear out any enemy units separated from the main enemy force (stragglers, scouts, or the enemy vanguard). Depending on who intends to go on the offensive, the vanguards might engage each other in a minor "battle" but they are never intended to carry out a proper fight, only to "feel out" the enemy, get them to retreat to avoid the main force, prevent the enemy from gathering intelligence about the size or position of the main force, or like I said before to coax the enemy into an attack on an entrenched main force.

It was his religious fanatics that helped founder American

All I know about him really was that he was Born in 1599, died 1658. September.

With most of America in a deep freeze, any interesting or funny anecdotes about blizzards?

[removed]

To add to your confusion, IMDB lists it as 1:50.

In general, films do come out in different edited forms. However as a historical document, you would want the earliest release time.

If this question is related to a research paper, cite the primary source(s) you find most authoritative (Wikipedia is a secondary), then footnote that the length is different in other reference materials.

That was part of my point. Leni Riefenstahl, The 1936 Olympics, Goebbels Nazi movie making enterprise, among others