Charles de gaulle british airways terminal

Ultimate ERB Poll results

2023.06.04 23:41 Danthedude1 Ultimate ERB Poll results

Hey again, it's me, the guy who did that big poll 2 weeks back. I finally stopped procrastinating and compiled the results here (I meant to post this like a week ago, when the responses slowed down).
Anyway, thanks for the support on this! I got 90 responses, and the poll did much better than I thought it would. Here's the results:
(Below, the text in bold are the results, and the normal text are my comments. All percentages are calculated without the "Haven't watched" responses included, while the haven't watched percentages themselves are calculated with all votes counted. Remember that every question was required, so all questions had 90-91 votes). Hopefully my explanation isn't too terrible. If a percentage has a tilde (~) in front of it, the percent was rounded up to the nearest tenth.
​
John Lennon vs. Bill O'Reilly
Darth Vader vs. Adolf Hitler
Only one person said they didn't watch it. I checked the responses and the person who said that responded HW for 50% of the battles, so that's why. Not calling them out or anything, just thought you might be wondering
Abe Lincoln vs. Chuck Norris
Sarah Palin vs. Lady Gaga
Hulk Hogan and Macho Man vs. Kim Jong-Il
Justin Bieber vs. Beethoven:
With a percentage of 97.6%, Beethoven has the biggest slam dunk out of every battle on this list.
Albert Einstein vs. Stephen Hawking
Genghis Khan vs. Easter Bunny
Napoleon vs. Napoleon
Okay so at this point someone decided to submit a vote, so the results above are off by one vote. I'm not wasting my time changing it.
Billy Mays vs. Ben Franklin
Gandalf vs. Dumbledore
I believe this is the least watched battle. Apparently, more than 1/4 of this subreddit has not watched this battle
Dr. Seuss vs. Shakespeare
I'm assuming that Thing 1 and 2 drag down the team a lot.
Mr. T vs. Mr. Rogers
Christopher Columbus vs. Captain Kirk
NicePeter vs. EpicLLOYD
Hitler vs. Vader 2
Master Chief vs. Leonidas
Mario Bros vs. Wright Bros
Michael Jackson vs. Elvis Presley
Cleopatra vs. Marilyn Monroe
Steve Jobs vs. Bill Gates
This is the most balanced 1v1+1 battle. Kind of surprised that HAL got so many votes, I initially believed that people didn't like that part of the battle.
Frank Sinatra vs. Freddie Mercury
Barack Obama vs. Mitt Romney
This is the only battle in which everyone stated they had watched it. Makes sense, it is ERB's most viewed video
Doc Brown vs. Doctor Who
Bruce Lee vs. Clint Eastwood
Batman vs. Sherlock Holmes
I bet Robin would've done better if he were a standalone option.
Moses vs. Santa Claus
Adam vs. Eve
Gandhi vs. Martin Luther King Jr
Nikola Tesla vs. Thomas Edison
Babe Ruth vs. Lance Armstrong
Mozart vs. Skrillex
Rasputin vs. Stalin
This one. Actually suprised to see Lenin so high, I've never really seen anyone talk about his verse.
Hitler vs. Vader 3
With the trilogy complete, Darth Vader wins best of three 2-1.
Blackbeard vs. Al Capone
Miley Cyrus vs. Joan of Arc
Bob Ross vs. Pablo Picasso
Michael Jordan vs. Muhammed Ali
Donald Trump vs. Ebeneezer Scrooge
This one is weird. Meta-battles cause problems for polls because, well, do you need a winner for a story? I considered leaving this one out, and I also considered all the ghosts being put on one team, but I really just see these results as "Who had the best verse?", over who won the battle.
Rick Grimes vs. Walter White
Goku vs. Superman
Stephen King vs. Edgar Allen Poe
Sir Isaac Newton vs. Bill Nye
George Washington vs. William Wallace
Artists vs. TMNT
Ghostbusters vs. Mythbusters
Romeo and Juliet vs. Bonnie and Clyde
Zeus vs. Thor
Jack the Ripper vs. Hannibal Lecter
Oprah Winfrey vs. Ellen DeGeneres
Steven Spielberg vs. Alfred Hitchcock
Lewis and Clark vs. Bill and Ted
David Copperfield vs. Harry Houdini
I'm not sure, but I'm pretty sure this is the most balanced battle. Nvm, there's a closer one.
Terminator vs. Robocop
Alright, we're moving onto East vs. West Philosophers. In the poll, I split it into two categories: teams and individual.
Eastern Philosophers vs. Western Philosophers (Team)
Eastern Philosophers vs. Western Philosophers (Solo)
So yeah, the Western Philosophers barely scrape the win both times. Also, an attentive reader will notice that the first part has 4 "Haven't watched" votes, while the other one has 5. Someone did the poll wrong.
Shaka Zulu vs. Julius Caesar
Jim Henson vs. Stan Lee
You might have noticed the weird haven't watched thing. It turns out, I accidentally left that question unrequired, so someone skipped the question, leaving it with only 90 responses. Due to the fact someone skipped, I assume they haven't watched.
Deadpool vs. Boba Fett
J. R. R. Tolkien vs. George R. R. Martin
Gordon Ramsey vs. Julia Child
Frederick Douglass vs. Thomas Jefferson
James Bond vs. Austin Powers
Bruce Banner vs. Bruce Jenner
Alexander the Great vs. Ivan the Terrible
Well, let's talk about Pompey. At the start, Pompey was leading the poll, however people seemed to vote normally after that. I have my reasons for including him (aka it was funny), though you might disagree and that's totally fine. I would probably upset more people if I excluded him in any case.
Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton
Ash Ketchum vs. Charles Darwin
Wonder Woman vs. Stevie Wonder
Tony Hawk vs. Wayne Gretsky
Theodore Roosevelt vs. Winston Churchill
Nice Peter vs. EpicLLOYD 2
This means that EpicLLOYD has won both times.
Elon Musk vs. Mark Zuckerberg
Freddy Krueger vs. Wolverine
Guy Fawkes vs. Che Guevara
Ronald McDonald vs. The Burger King
- Haven't watched: 6 votes (6.6%)
George Carlin vs. Richard Pryor
Once again, I included Bill Cosby for the same reason as Pompey. Cosby did better than 2 people, but none of them did very well anyway. This battle was mostly in contention between Rivers and Williams
Jacques Cousteau vs. Steve Irwin
Mother Teresa vs. Sigmund Freud
Vlad the Impaler vs. Count Dracula
The Joker vs. Pennywise
Thanos vs. J. Robert Oppenheimer
Donald Trump vs. Joe Biden
With that, all 3 election battles had the "winner" be the actual winner of the election. Curious.
Harry Potter vs. Luke Skywalker
Ragnar Lodbrok vs. Richard the Lionheart
Jeff Bezos vs. Mansa Musa
John Wick vs. John Rambo vs. John McClane
Lara Croft vs. Indiana Jones
And that's it. If you made it down here, congrats, you just absorbed a bunch of useless info. Thank you for taking the time to read. I might do something like this again in the future, with opinions on things other than the winners of the battles (things like best battle, season, rapper). But not for a while, considering how long it took to compile this data. Anyways, that's my time, gotta set myself free.
submitted by Danthedude1 to ERB [link] [comments]

2023.06.04 20:43 Lycid Trip report: Spain honeymoon for 2 weeks in May 2023 (first time flying J)

This was my first "big boy" award redemption I've done and it couldn't have gone better. Before, I've booked Hyatt rooms overseas and gotten the companion pass so been doing award travel for a while, but this was the first time we flew in J and first time being able to realize a "bucket list" trip thanks to award travel.
Here was our itinerary (started in SFO):
Barcelona -> Granada -> Cordoba -> Seville -> Ronda -> Setenil de las Bodegas -> Malaga (only to fly out of).
Planning began last summer, and the flights were booked then. Since this was the first time we've ever flown in J and it was the honeymoon, I wanted to make sure we spent a little extra for a nicer European carrier, and I wanted to try two of them. So on our flight there we flew KLM into Barcelona via Schiphol, and for the flight out we flew Air France from Malaga via CDG. We opted against doing TAP or Ibera for two reasons despite them being more direct: the product/service is apparently not as nice, and for Iberia it would have required a positioning flight into LAX. Next time we do Spain though, I definitely would give them a shot.
Points and cost break down
We did a LOT of research on the best programs and flights to do this trip and ultimately landed on Flying Blue. For one, while they do have fees, they were not exorbitant. For two, their products were very well reviewed. I'll get more into our actual experience in the review section below. But also crucially, there just happened to be a point transfer bonus going on at the same time from Chase that boosted our points by 25%.
Airfare:
Other travel costs, all booked in advance about 1-2 months out:
Hotels:
We only booked one hotel on points and it was in Barcelona. Overall, we found mom & pop run B&B's and AirBNB's to be a far better value than traditional hotels in most of Spain. But, Barcelona had some good options for some redemptions. Ultimately we decided on:
Reviews and other notes
Airside:
Groundside:
Total out of pocket costs
submitted by Lycid to awardtravel [link] [comments]

2023.06.04 15:55 Wise_Try9734 Were Hrithik and Kareena in a relationship in the past?

Were Hrithik and Kareena in a relationship in the past?
https://www.bollywoodhungama.com/amp/news/bollywood/hrithik-caught-coochie-cooing-with-kareena-on-an-aircraft/
Were these two ever together? Kinda doubt that Shobha De would make up such stories simply for publicity as she got a lot of heat including lawsuit threats for this.
http://ramarights.blogspot.com/2010/04/daring-de.html?m=1
On actor Hrithik Roshan's wedding day, the national papers arrived at the doorstep of both his parents and his to-be-in-laws homes with reports of his affair with one of his co-stars.
The poster prince for good Indian values a pre-marital adulterer? A De exclusive. Fervent denials followed the same day from both parties and De was again demonised. Threats of lawsuits (long since quashed) followed. How could she say that he was "caught cootchie-cooing" with another actress when she wasn't in the picture?
"I stand by that completely. I found out that information from a very good source and an eye-witness and and it happened on a British Airways flight and I challenge Hrithik to deny it," states De.
He did deny it.
"Oh he can deny it. All stars deny anything that they find an unacceptable part of themselves but I can challenge him any time to the veracity of what happened on that flight, and that they were having a scene and they probably still are! But that's none of my business whether they are or not, but its just that I don't like hypocrisy and I don't like pretense."
But he's the golden boy of Bollywood...
"Was. Past tense. He's not anymore baby! At the time, he was projecting himself as this family guy, totally madly in love with his new wife. He may as well be, I'm not even doubting the depth of his love but whatever happened on that flight, happened on that flight. He cannot challenge that. He'd be stupid to."
submitted by Wise_Try9734 to BollyBlindsNGossip [link] [comments]

2023.06.04 13:10 Ok_Explanation4551 Has Anyone tried to do a Charles de Gaulle Style Run

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaullism This is what I mean What is the closest you can come to this?
submitted by Ok_Explanation4551 to suzerain [link] [comments]

2023.06.04 12:47 MardukSyria "The Truth is, the Americans will end up being hated by everyone. Even by their most unconditional allies. All the dirty tricks imagined by the Americans are contradicted by events." — Charles de Gaulle

submitted by MardukSyria to UkraineCrisis2022 [link] [comments]

2023.06.04 11:49 Tigrannes Famous Birthdays in History, June 4

Famous Birthdays in History, June 4
FAMOUS BIRTHDAYS June 4
➖ 1694 – François Quesnay, French economist and physician (d. 1774)
🇫🇷 François Quesnay was a French economist and physician of the Physiocratic school.
He is known for publishing the "Tableau économique" (Economic Table) in 1758, which provided the foundations of the ideas of the Physiocrats. This was perhaps the first work attempting to describe the workings of the economy in an analytical way, and as such can be viewed as one of the first important contributions to economic thought.
His Le Despotisme de la Chine, written in 1767, describes Chinese politics and society, and his own political support for enlightened despotism.
➖ 1738 – George III of the United Kingdom (d. 1820)
🇬🇧 George III (George William Frederick) was King of Great Britain and of Ireland from 25 October 1760 until his death in 1820. The two kingdoms were in a personal union under him until the Acts of Union 1800 merged them on 1 January 1801. He then became King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
He was a monarch of the House of Hanover who, unlike his two predecessors, was born in Great Britain, spoke English as his first language, and never visited Hanover.
George's life and reign were marked by a series of military conflicts involving his kingdoms, much of the rest of Europe, and places farther afield in Africa, the Americas and Asia. Early in his reign, Great Britain defeated France in the Seven Years' War, becoming the dominant European power in North America and India. However, many of Britain's American colonies were soon lost in the American War of Independence. Further wars against revolutionary and Napoleonic France from 1793 concluded in the defeat of Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. In 1807, the transatlantic slave trade was banned from the British Empire.
In the later part of his life, George had recurrent—and eventually permanent—mental illness. Although it has since been suggested that he had bipolar disorder or the blood disease porphyria, the cause of his illness remains unknown.
➖ 1744 – Patrick Ferguson, Scottish soldier, designed the Ferguson rifle (d. 1780)
🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 🇬🇧 Patrick Ferguson was a Scottish officer in the British Army, an early advocate of light infantry and the designer of the Ferguson rifle. He is best known for his service in the 1780 military campaign of Charles Cornwallis during the American Revolutionary War in the Carolinas, in which he played a great effort in recruiting American Loyalists to serve in his militia against the Patriots.
➖ 1821 – Apollon Maykov, Russian poet and playwright (d. 1897)
🇷🇺 Apollon Maykov was a Russian poet, best known for his lyric verse showcasing images of Russian villages, nature, and history. His love for ancient Greece and Rome, which he studied for much of his life, is also reflected in his works.
Maykov spent four years translating the epic The Tale of Igor's Campaign (1870) into modern Russian. He translated the folklore of Belarus, Greece, Serbia and Spain, as well as works by Heine, Adam Mickiewicz and Goethe, among others. Several of Maykov's poems were set to music by Russian composers, among them Rimsky-Korsakov and Tchaikovsky.
➖ 1866 – Miina Sillanpää, Finnish journalist and politician (d. 1952)
🇫🇮 Miina Sillanpää was a Finnish politician. She served as Deputy Minister of Social Affairs in 1926-1927. She was Finland's first female minister and a key figure in the workers' movement. In 2016, the Finnish government made 1 October an official flag flying day in honour of Sillanpää.
➖ 1867 – Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim, Finnish general and politician, 6th President of Finland (d. 1951)
🇫🇮 Baron Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim was a Finnish military leader and statesman. He served as the military leader of the Whites in the Finnish Civil War of 1918, as Regent of Finland (1918–19), as commander-in-chief of the Finnish Defence Force during the period of World War II (1939–45), and as the sixth president of Finland (1944–46).
He became Finland's only field marshal in 1933 and was appointed honorary Marshal of Finland, likewise the only person to hold that title, in 1942.
submitted by Tigrannes to Historycord [link] [comments]

2023.06.04 10:01 Connect_Trouble_164 Airbus wikipedia part one

The Airbus A300 is a wide-body airliner developed and manufactured by Airbus. In September 1967, aircraft manufacturers in the United Kingdom, France, and West Germany signed a memorandum of understanding to develop a large airliner. West Germany and France reached an agreement on 29 May 1969 after the British withdrew from the project on 10 April 1969. European collaborative aerospace manufacturer Airbus Industrie was formally created on 18 December 1970 to develop and produce it. The prototype first flew on 28 October 1972.
The first twin-engine widebody airliner, the A300 typically seats 247 passengers in two classes over a range of 5,375 to 7,500 km (2,900 to 4,050 nmi). Initial variants are powered by General Electric CF6-50 or Pratt & Whitney JT9D turbofans and have a three-crew flight deck. The improved A300-600 has a two-crew cockpit and updated CF6-80C2 or PW4000 engines; it made its first flight on 8 July 1983 and entered service later that year. The A300 is the basis of the smaller A310 (first flown in 1982) and was adapted in a freighter version. Its cross section was retained for the larger four-engined A340 (1991) and the larger twin-engined A330 (1992). It is also the basis for the oversize Beluga transport (1994).
Launch customer Air France introduced the type on 23 May 1974. After limited demand initially, sales took off as the type was proven in early service, beginning three decades of steady orders. It has a similar capacity to the Boeing 767-300, introduced in 1986, but lacked the 767-300ER range. During the 1990s, the A300 became popular with cargo aircraft operators, as both passenger airliner conversions and as original builds. Production ceased in July 2007 after 561 deliveries. As of March 2023, there were 228 A300 family aircraft in commercial service.
Origins:
During the 1960s, European aircraft manufacturers such as Hawker Siddeley and the British Aircraft Corporation, based in the UK, and Sud Aviation of France, had ambitions to build a new 200-seat airliner for the growing civil aviation market. While studies were performed and considered, such as a stretched twin-engine variant of the Hawker Siddeley Trident and an expanded development of the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) One-Eleven, designated the BAC Two-Eleven, it was recognized that if each of the European manufacturers were to launch similar aircraft into the market at the same time, neither would achieve sales volume needed to make them viable.[2] In 1965, a British government study, known as the Plowden Report, had found British aircraft production costs to be between 10% and 20% higher than American counterparts due to shorter production runs, which was in part due to the fractured European market. To overcome this factor, the report recommended the pursuit of multinational collaborative projects between the region's leading aircraft manufacturers.[3]: 49 [4][5]: 2–13
European manufacturers were keen to explore prospective programs; the proposed 260-seat wide-body HBN 100 between Hawker Siddeley, Nord Aviation, and Breguet Aviation being one such example.[2][6]: 37–38 National governments were also keen to support such efforts amid a belief that American manufacturers could dominate the European Economic Community;[7] in particular, Germany had ambitions for a multinational airliner project to invigorate its aircraft industry, which had declined considerably following the Second World War.[3]: 49–50 During the mid-1960s, both Air France and American Airlines had expressed interest in a short-haul twin-engine wide-body aircraft, indicating a market demand for such an aircraft to be produced.[3][8] In July 1967, during a high-profile meeting between French, German, and British ministers, an agreement was made for greater cooperation between European nations in the field of aviation technology, and "for the joint development and production of an airbus".[2][9]: 34 The word airbus at this point was a generic aviation term for a larger commercial aircraft, and was considered acceptable in multiple languages, including French.[9]: 34
Shortly after the July 1967 meeting, French engineer Roger Béteille was appointed as the technical director of what would become the A300 program, while Henri Ziegler, chief operating office of Sud Aviation, was appointed as the general manager of the organization and German politician Franz Josef Strauss became the chairman of the supervisory board.[2] Béteille drew up an initial work share plan for the project, under which French firms would produce the aircraft's cockpit, the control systems, and lower-center portion of the fuselage, Hawker Siddeley would manufacture the wings, while German companies would produce the forward, rear and upper part of the center fuselage sections. Addition work included moving elements of the wings being produced in the Netherlands, and Spain producing the horizontal tail plane.[2][6]: 38
An early design goal for the A300 that Béteille had stressed the importance of was the incorporation of a high level of technology, which would serve as a decisive advantage over prospective competitors. As such, the A300 would feature the first use of composite materials of any passenger aircraft, the leading and trailing edges of the tail fin being composed of glass fibre reinforced plastic.[5]: 2–16 [10] Béteille opted for English as the working language for the developing aircraft, as well against using Metric instrumentation and measurements, as most airlines already had US-built aircraft.[10] These decisions were partially influenced by feedback from various airlines, such as Air France and Lufthansa, as an emphasis had been placed on determining the specifics of what kind of aircraft that potential operators were seeking. According to Airbus, this cultural approach to market research had been crucial to the company's long-term success.[10]
Workshare and redefinition:
On 26 September 1967, the British, French, and West German governments signed a Memorandum of Understanding to start development of the 300-seat Airbus A300.[6]: 38 [11]: 43 [12]: 57 At this point, the A300 was only the second major joint aircraft programme in Europe, the first being the Anglo-French Concorde.[9] Under the terms of the memorandum, Britain and France were each to receive a 37.5 per cent work share on the project, while Germany received a 25 per cent share. Sud Aviation was recognized as the lead company for A300, with Hawker Siddeley being selected as the British partner company.[2] At the time, the news of the announcement had been clouded by the British Government's support for the Airbus, which coincided with its refusal to back BAC's proposed competitor, the BAC 2–11, despite a preference for the latter expressed by British European Airways (BEA).[9]: 34 Another parameter was the requirement for a new engine to be developed by Rolls-Royce to power the proposed airliner; a derivative of the in-development Rolls-Royce RB211, the triple-spool RB207, capable of producing of 47,500 lbf (211 kN).[13] The program cost was US$4.6 billion (in 1993 Dollars).[14]
​
In December 1968, the French and British partner companies (Sud Aviation and Hawker Siddeley) proposed a revised configuration, the 250-seat Airbus A250. It had been feared that the original 300-seat proposal was too large for the market, thus it had been scaled down to produce the A250.[5]: 2–14 [8][15] The dimensional changes involved in the shrink reduced the length of the fuselage by 5.62 metres (18.4 ft) and the diameter by 0.8 metres (31 in), reducing the overall weight by 25 tonnes (55,000 lb).[10][16]: 16 For increased flexibility, the cabin floor was raised so that standard LD3 freight containers could be accommodated side-by-side, allowing more cargo to be carried. Refinements made by Hawker Siddeley to the wing's design provided for greater lift and overall performance; this gave the aircraft the ability to climb faster and attain a level cruising altitude sooner than any other passenger aircraft.[10] It was later renamed the A300B.[9]: 34 [15]
Perhaps the most significant change of the A300B was that it would not require new engines to be developed, being of a suitable size to be powered by Rolls-Royce's RB211, or alternatively the American Pratt & Whitney JT9D and General Electric CF6 powerplants; this switch was recognized as considerably reducing the project's development costs.[11]: 45 [15][16]: 16–17 To attract potential customers in the US market, it was decided that General Electric CF6-50 engines would power the A300 in place of the British RB207; these engines would be produced in co-operation with French firm Snecma.[8][10] By this time, Rolls-Royce had been concentrating their efforts upon developing their RB211 turbofan engine instead and progress on the RB207's development had been slow for some time, the firm having suffered due to funding limitations, both of which had been factors in the engine switch decision.[5]: 2–13 [15][16]: 17–18
On 10 April 1969, a few months after the decision to drop the RB207 had been announced, the British government announced that they would withdraw from the Airbus venture.[6]: 38–39 [15] In response, West Germany proposed to France that they would be willing to contribute up to 50% of the project's costs if France was prepared to do the same.[15] Additionally, the managing director of Hawker Siddeley, Sir Arnold Alexander Hall, decided that his company would remain in the project as a favoured sub-contractor, developing and manufacturing the wings for the A300, which would later become pivotal in later versions' impressive performance from short domestic to long intercontinental flights.[5]: 2–13 [9]: 34 [16]: 18 Hawker Siddeley spent £35 million of its own funds, along with a further £35 million loan from the West German government, on the machine tooling to design and produce the wings.[6]: 39 [15]
Programme launch:
On 29 May 1969, during the Paris Air Show, French transport minister Jean Chamant and German economics minister Karl Schiller signed an agreement officially launching the Airbus A300, the world's first twin-engine widebody airliner.[2] The intention of the project was to produce an aircraft that was smaller, lighter, and more economical than its three-engine American rivals, the McDonnell Douglas DC-10 and the Lockheed L-1011 TriStar.[10] In order to meet Air France's demands for an aircraft larger than 250-seat A300B, it was decided to stretch the fuselage to create a new variant, designated as the A300B2, which would be offered alongside the original 250-seat A300B, henceforth referred to as the A300B1. On 3 September 1970, Air France signed a letter of intent for six A300s, marking the first order to be won for the new airliner.[6]: 39 [10][16]: 21
In the aftermath of the Paris Air Show agreement, it was decided that, in order to provide effective management of responsibilities, a Groupement d'intérêt économique would be established, allowing the various partners to work together on the project while remaining separate business entities.[2] On 18 December 1970, Airbus Industrie was formally established following an agreement between Aérospatiale (the newly merged Sud Aviation and Nord Aviation) of France and the antecedents to Deutsche Aerospace of Germany, each receiving a 50 per cent stake in the newly formed company.[3]: 50 [6]: 39 [10] In 1971, the consortium was joined by a third full partner, the Spanish firm CASA, who received a 4.2 per cent stake, the other two members reducing their stakes to 47.9 per cent each.[10][16]: 20 In 1979, Britain joined the Airbus consortium via British Aerospace, which Hawker Siddeley had merged into, which acquired a 20 per cent stake in Airbus Industrie with France and Germany each reducing their stakes to 37.9 per cent.[3]: 53 [5]: 2–14 [6]: 39
Prototype and flight testing:
Airbus Industrie was initially headquartered in Paris, which is where design, development, flight testing, sales, marketing, and customer support activities were centered; the headquarters was relocated to Toulouse in January 1974.[8][10] The final assembly line for the A300 was located adjacent to Toulouse Blagnac International Airport. The manufacturing process necessitated transporting each aircraft section being produced by the partner companies scattered across Europe to this one location. The combined use of ferries and roads were used for the assembly of the first A300, however this was time-consuming and not viewed as ideal by Felix Kracht, Airbus Industrie's production director.[10] Kracht's solution was to have the various A300 sections brought to Toulouse by a fleet of Boeing 377-derived Aero Spacelines Super Guppy aircraft, by which means none of the manufacturing sites were more than two hours away. Having the sections airlifted in this manner made the A300 the first airliner to use just-in-time manufacturing techniques, and allowed each company to manufacture its sections as fully equipped, ready-to-fly assemblies.[3]: 53 [10]
In September 1969, construction of the first prototype A300 began.[16]: 20 On 28 September 1972, this first prototype was unveiled to the public, it conducted its maiden flight from Toulouse–Blagnac International Airport on 28 October that year.[6]: 39 [9]: 34 [11]: 51–52 This maiden flight, which was performed a month ahead of schedule, lasted for one hour and 25 minutes; the captain was Max Fischl and the first officer was Bernard Ziegler, son of Henri Ziegler.[10] In 1972, unit cost was US$17.5M.[17] On 5 February 1973, the second prototype performed its maiden flight.[6]: 39 The flight test program, which involved a total of four aircraft, was relatively problem-free, accumulating 1,580 flight hours throughout.[16]: 22 In September 1973, as part of promotional efforts for the A300, the new aircraft was taken on a six-week tour around North America and South America, to demonstrate it to airline executives, pilots, and would-be customers.[10] Amongst the consequences of this expedition, it had allegedly brought the A300 to the attention of Frank Borman of Eastern Airlines, one of the "big four" U.S. airlines.[18]
Entry into service:
On 15 March 1974, type certificates were granted for the A300 from both German and French authorities, clearing the way for its entry into revenue service.[18] On 23 May 1974, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certification was received.[16]: 22 The first production model, the A300B2, entered service in 1974, followed by the A300B4 one year later.[8] Initially, the success of the consortium was poor, in part due to the economic consequences of the 1973 oil crisis,[6]: 40 [8][9]: 34 but by 1979 there were 81 A300 passenger liners in service with 14 airlines, alongside 133 firm orders and 88 options.[18] Ten years after the official launch of the A300, the company had achieved a 26 per cent market share in terms of dollar value, enabling Airbus Industries to proceed with the development of its second aircraft, the Airbus A310.[18]
Design:
The Airbus A300 is a wide-body medium-to-long range airliner; it has the distinction of being the first twin-engine wide-body aircraft in the world.[8][9]: 34 [12]: 57, 60 [19] In 1977, the A300 became the first Extended Range Twin Operations (ETOPS)-compliant aircraft, due to its high performance and safety standards.[6]: 40 Another world-first of the A300 is the use of composite materials on a commercial aircraft, which were used on both secondary and later primary airframe structures, decreasing overall weight and improving cost-effectiveness.[19] Other firsts included the pioneering use of center-of-gravity control, achieved by transferring fuel between various locations across the aircraft, and electrically signaled secondary flight controls.[20]
The A300 is powered by a pair of underwing turbofan engines, either General Electric CF6 or Pratt & Whitney JT9D engines; the sole use of underwing engine pods allowed for any suitable turbofan engine to be more readily used.[12]: 57 The lack of a third tail-mounted engine, as per the trijet configuration used by some competing airliners, allowed for the wings to be located further forwards and to reduce the size of the vertical stabilizer and elevator, which had the effect of increasing the aircraft's flight performance and fuel efficiency.[3]: 50 [16]: 21
Airbus partners had employed the latest technology, some of which having been derived from Concorde, on the A300. According to Airbus, new technologies adopted for the airliner were selected principally for increased safety, operational capability, and profitability.[19] Upon entry into service in 1974, the A300 was a very advanced plane, which went on to influence later airliner designs. The technological highlights include advanced wings by de Havilland (later BAE Systems) with supercritical airfoil sections for economical performance and advanced aerodynamically efficient flight control surfaces. The 5.64 m (222 in) diameter circular fuselage section allows an eight-abreast passenger seating and is wide enough for 2 LD3 cargo containers side by side. Structures are made from metal billets, reducing weight. It is the first airliner to be fitted with wind shear protection. Its advanced autopilots are capable of flying the aircraft from climb-out to landing, and it has an electrically controlled braking system.
Later A300s incorporated other advanced features such as the Forward-Facing Crew Cockpit (FFCC), which enabled a two-pilot flight crew to fly the aircraft alone without the need for a flight engineer, the functions of which were automated; this two-man cockpit concept was a world-first for a wide-body aircraft.[8][16]: 23–24 [20] Glass cockpit flight instrumentation, which used cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors to display flight, navigation, and warning information, along with fully digital dual autopilots and digital flight control computers for controlling the spoilers, flaps, and leading-edge slats, were also adopted upon later-built models.[19][21] Additional composites were also made use of, such as carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer (CFRP), as well as their presence in an increasing proportion of the aircraft's components, including the spoilers, rudder, air brakes, and landing gear doors.[22] Another feature of later aircraft was the addition of wingtip fences, which improved aerodynamic performance and thus reduced cruise fuel consumption by about 1.5% for the A300-600.[23]
In addition to passenger duties, the A300 became widely used by air freight operators; according to Airbus, it is the best selling freight aircraft of all time.[20] Various variants of the A300 were built to meet customer demands, often for diverse roles such as aerial refueling tankers, freighter models (new-build and conversions), combi aircraft, military airlifter, and VIP transport. Perhaps the most visually unique of the variants is the A300-600ST Beluga, an oversize cargo-carrying model operated by Airbus to carry aircraft sections between their manufacturing facilities.[20] The A300 was the basis for, and retained a high level of commonality with, the second airliner produced by Airbus, the smaller Airbus A310.[19]
Operational history:
On 23 May 1974, the first A300 to enter service performed the first commercial flight of the type, flying from Paris to London, for Air France.[6]: 39 [18]
Immediately after the launch, sales of the A300 were weak for some years, with most orders going to airlines that had an obligation to favor the domestically made product – notably Air France and Lufthansa, the first two airlines to place orders for the type.[3]: 50–52 [18] Following the appointment of Bernard Lathière as Henri Ziegler's replacement, an aggressive sales approach was adopted. Indian Airlines was the world's first domestic airline to purchase the A300, ordering three aircraft with three options. However, between December 1975 and May 1977, there were no sales for the type. During this period a number of "whitetail" A300s – completed but unsold aircraft – were completed and stored at Toulouse, and production fell to half an aircraft per month amid calls to pause production completely.[18]
During the flight testing of the A300B2, Airbus held a series of talks with Korean Air on the topic of developing a longer-range version of the A300, which would become the A300B4. In September 1974, Korean Air placed an order for four A300B4s with options for two further aircraft; this sale was viewed as significant as it was the first non-European international airline to order Airbus aircraft. Airbus had viewed South-East Asia as a vital market that was ready to be opened up and believed Korean Air to be the 'key'.[8][16]: 23 [18]
Airlines operating the A300 on short haul routes were forced to reduce frequencies to try and fill the aircraft. As a result, they lost passengers to airlines operating more frequent narrow body flights. Eventually, Airbus had to build its own narrowbody aircraft (the A320) to compete with the Boeing 737 and McDonnell Douglas DC-9/MD-80. The savior of the A300 was the advent of ETOPS, a revised FAA rule which allows twin-engine jets to fly long-distance routes that were previously off-limits to them. This enabled Airbus to develop the aircraft as a medium/long range airliner.
In 1977, US carrier Eastern Air Lines leased four A300s as an in-service trial.[18] CEO Frank Borman was impressed that the A300 consumed 30% less fuel, even less than expected, than his fleet of L-1011s. Borman proceeded to order 23 A300s, becoming the first U.S. customer for the type. This order is often cited as the point at which Airbus came to be seen as a serious competitor to the large American aircraft-manufacturers Boeing and McDonnell Douglas.[6]: 40 [8][18] Aviation author John Bowen alleged that various concessions, such as loan guarantees from European governments and compensation payments, were a factor in the decision as well.[3]: 52 The Eastern Air Lines breakthrough was shortly followed by an order from Pan Am. From then on, the A300 family sold well, eventually reaching a total of 561 delivered aircraft.[1]
In December 1977, Aerocondor Colombia became the first Airbus operator in Latin America, leasing one Airbus A300B4-2C, named Ciudad de Barranquilla.
During the late 1970s, Airbus adopted a so-called 'Silk Road' strategy, targeting airlines in the Far East.[3]: 52 [18] As a result, The aircraft found particular favor with Asian airlines, being bought by Japan Air System, Korean Air, China Eastern Airlines, Thai Airways International, Singapore Airlines, Malaysia Airlines, Philippine Airlines, Garuda Indonesia, China Airlines, Pakistan International Airlines, Indian Airlines, Trans Australia Airlines and many others. As Asia did not have restrictions similar to the FAA 60-minutes rule for twin-engine airliners which existed at the time, Asian airlines used A300s for routes across the Bay of Bengal and South China Sea.
In 1977, the A300B4 became the first ETOPS compliant aircraft,[24] qualifying for Extended Twin Engine Operations over water, providing operators with more versatility in routing. In 1982 Garuda Indonesia became the first airline to fly the A300B4-200FFCC.[25] By 1981, Airbus was growing rapidly, with over 400 aircraft sold to over forty airlines.[26]
In 1989, Chinese operator China Eastern Airlines received its first A300; by 2006, the airline operated around 18 A300s, making it the largest operator of both the A300 and the A310 at that time. On 31 May 2014, China Eastern officially retired the last A300-600 in its fleet, having begun drawing down the type in 2010.[27]
From 1997 to 2014, a single A300, designated A300 Zero-G, was operated by the European Space Agency (ESA), centre national d'études spatiales (CNES) and the German Aerospace Center (DLR) as a reduced-gravity aircraft for conducting research into microgravity; the A300 is the largest aircraft to ever have been used in this capacity. A typical flight would last for two and a half hours, enabling up to 30 parabolas to be performed per flight.[28][29]
By the 1990s, the A300 was being heavily promoted as a cargo freighter.[16]: 24 The largest freight operator of the A300 is FedEx Express, which has 65 A300 aircraft in service as of May 2022.[30] UPS Airlines also operates 52 freighter versions of the A300.[31]
The final version was the A300-600R and is rated for 180-minute ETOPS. The A300 has enjoyed renewed interest in the secondhand market for conversion to freighters; large numbers were being converted during the late 1990s.[16]: 24–25 The freighter versions – either new-build A300-600s or converted ex-passenger A300-600s, A300B2s and B4s – account for most of the world's freighter fleet after the Boeing 747 freighter.[32]
The A300 provided Airbus the experience of manufacturing and selling airliners competitively. The basic fuselage of the A300 was later stretched (A330 and A340), shortened (A310), or modified into derivatives (A300-600ST Beluga Super Transporter). In 2006, unit cost of an −600F was $105 million.[14] In March 2006, Airbus announced the impending closure of the A300/A310 final assembly line,[33] making them the first Airbus aircraft to be discontinued. The final production A300, an A300F freighter, performed its initial flight on 18 April 2007,[34] and was delivered to FedEx Express on 12 July 2007.[35] Airbus has announced a support package to keep A300s flying commercially. Airbus offers the A330-200F freighter as a replacement for the A300 cargo variants.[36]
The life of UPS's fleet of 52 A300s, delivered from 2000 to 2006, will be extended to 2035 by a flight deck upgrade based around Honeywell Primus Epic avionics; new displays and flight management system (FMS), improved weather radar, a central maintenance system, and a new version of the current enhanced ground proximity warning system. With a light usage of only two to three cycles per day, it will not reach the maximum number of cycles by then. The first modification will be made at Airbus Toulouse in 2019 and certified in 2020.[37] As of July 2017, there are 211 A300s in service with 22 operators, with the largest operator being FedEx Express with 68 A300-600F aircraft.[38]
Variants:
A300B1 - The A300B1 was the first variant to take flight. It had a maximum takeoff weight (MTOW) of 132 t (291,000 lb), was 51 m (167 ft) long and was powered by two General Electric CF6-50A engines.[16]: 21 [39]: 41 Only two prototypes of the variant were built before it was adapted into the A300B2, the first production variant of the airliner.[6]: 39 The second prototype was leased to Trans European Airways in 1974.[39]: 54
A300B2 -
A300B2-100:
Responding to a need for more seats from Air France, Airbus decided that the first production variant should be larger than the original prototype A300B1. The CF6-50A powered A300B2-100 was 2.6 m (8.5 ft) longer than the A300B1 and had an increased MTOW of 137 t (302,000 lb), allowing for 30 additional seats and bringing the typical passenger count up to 281, with capacity for 20 LD3 containers.[40]: 10 [41][39]: 17 Two prototypes were built and the variant made its maiden flight on 28 June 1973, became certified on 15 March 1974 and entered service with Air France on 23 May 1974.[39]: 27, 53 [40]: 10
A300B2-200:
For the A300B2-200, originally designated as the A300B2K, Krueger flaps were introduced at the leading-edge root, the slat angles were reduced from 20 degrees to 16 degrees, and other lift related changes were made in order to introduce a high-lift system. This was done to improve performance when operating at high-altitude airports, where the air is less dense and lift generation is reduced.[42]: 52, 53 [43] The variant had an increased MTOW of 142 t (313,000 lb) and was powered by CF6-50C engines, was certified on 23 June 1976, and entered service with South African Airways in November 1976.[39]: 40 [40]: 12 CF6-50C1 and CF6-50C2 models were also later fitted depending on customer requirements, these became certified on 22 February 1978 and 21 February 1980 respectively.[39]: 41 [40]: 12
A300B2-320:
The A300B2-320 introduced the Pratt & Whitney JT9D powerplant and was powered by JT9D-59A engines. It retained the 142 t (313,000 lb) MTOW of the B2-200, was certified on 4 January 1980, and entered service with Scandinavian Airlines on 18 February 1980, with only four being produced.[39]: 99, 112 [40]: 14
A300B4 -
A300B4-100:
The initial A300B4 variant, later named the A300B4-100, included a centre fuel tank for an increased fuel capacity of 47.5 tonnes (105,000 lb), and had an increased MTOW of 157.5 tonnes (347,000 lb).[44][42]: 38 It also featured Krueger flaps and had a similar high-lift system to what was later fitted to the A300B2-200.[42]: 74 The variant made its maiden flight on 26 December 1974, was certified on 26 March 1975, and entered service with Germanair in May 1975.[39]: 32, 54 [40]: 16
A300B4-200:
The A300B4-200 had an increased MTOW of 165 tonnes (364,000 lb) and featured an additional optional fuel tank in the rear cargo hold, which would reduce the cargo capacity by two LD3 containers.[40]: 19 [42]: 69 The variant was certified on 26 April 1979.[40]: 19
A300-600 - The A300-600, officially designated as the A300B4-600, was slightly longer than the A300B2 and A300B4 variants and had an increased interior space from using a similar rear fuselage to the Airbus A310, this allowed it to have two additional rows of seats.[42]: 79 It was initially powered by Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4H1 engines, but was later fitted with General Electric CF6-80C2 engines, with Pratt & Whitney PW4156 or PW4158 engines being introduced in 1986.[42]: 82 Other changes include an improved wing featuring a recambered trailing edge, the incorporation of simpler single-slotted Fowler flaps, the deletion of slat fences, and the removal of the outboard ailerons after they were deemed unnecessary on the A310.[45] The variant made its first flight on 8 July 1983, was certified on 9 March 1984, and entered service in June 1984 with Saudi Arabian Airlines.[40]: 42 [39]: 58 A total of 313 A300-600s (all versions) have been sold. The A300-600 uses the A310 cockpits, featuring digital technology and electronic displays, eliminating the need for a flight engineer. The FAA issues a single type rating which allows operation of both the A310 and A300-600. A300-600: (Official designation: A300B4-600) The baseline model of the −600 series. A300-620C: (Official designation: A300C4-620) A convertible-freighter version. Four delivered between 1984 and 1985. A300-600F: (Official designation: A300F4-600) The freighter version of the baseline −600. A300-600R: (Official designation: A300B4-600R) The increased-range −600, achieved by an additional trim fuel tank in the tail. First delivery in 1988 to American Airlines; all A300s built since 1989 (freighters included) are −600Rs. Japan Air System (later merged into Japan Airlines) took delivery of the last new-built passenger A300, an A300-622R, in November 2002. A300-600RC: (Official designation: A300C4-600R) The convertible-freighter version of the −600R. Two were delivered in 1999. A300-600RF: (Official designation: A300F4-600R) The freighter version of the −600R. All A300s delivered between November 2002 and 12 July 2007 (last ever A300 delivery) were A300-600RFs.
A310 (A300B10)-
Airbus had demand for an aircraft smaller than the A300. On 7 July 1978, the A310 (initially the A300B10) was launched with orders from Swissair and Lufthansa. On 3 April 1982, the first prototype conducted its maiden flight and it received its type certification on 11 March 1983.
Keeping the same eight-abreast cross-section, the A310 is 6.95 m (22.8 ft) shorter than the initial A300 variants, and has a smaller 219 m2 (2,360 sq ft) wing, down from 260 m2 (2,800 sq ft). The A310 introduced a two-crew glass cockpit, later adopted for the A300-600 with a common type rating. It was powered by the same GE CF6-80 or Pratt & Whitney JT9D then PW4000 turbofans. It can seat 220 passengers in two classes, or 240 in all-economy, and can fly up to 5,150 nmi (9,540 km). It has overwing exits between the two main front and rear door pairs.
In April 1983, the aircraft entered revenue service with Swissair and competed with the Boeing 767–200, introduced six months before. Its longer range and ETOPS regulations allowed it to be operated on transatlantic flights. Until the last delivery in June 1998, 255 aircraft were produced, as it was succeeded by the larger Airbus A330-200. It has cargo aircraft versions, and was derived into the Airbus A310 MRTT military tanketransport.
Airbus A300-ST (Beluga)
Commonly referred to as the Airbus Beluga or "Airbus Super Transporter," these five airframes are used by Airbus to ferry parts between the company's disparate manufacturing facilities, thus enabling workshare distribution. They replaced the four Aero Spacelines Super Guppys previously used by Airbus.
ICAO code: A3ST
Operators:
As of March 2023, there were 228 A300 family aircraft in commercial service. The five largest operators were FedEx Express (70), UPS Airlines (52), European Air Transport Leipzig (23), Iran Air (11), and Mahan Air (11).[46]
submitted by Connect_Trouble_164 to copypasta [link] [comments]

2023.06.04 09:09 herk803 CDG 2K lounge eats

Any decent food choices in 2k at CDG? First time at Charles de Gaulle and have 2 hrs.
submitted by herk803 to TravelHacks [link] [comments]

2023.06.03 07:27 Alpoh1502 Best Airport Hotel

Which airport hotel would you recommend at Charles de Gaulle? I’m arriving (I think) at terminal 1 with Singapore Airlines.
submitted by Alpoh1502 to ParisTravelGuide [link] [comments]

2023.06.03 03:37 Beanie_Inki The 1800 United States Assembly Elections The Hamiltonian Way

The 1800 United States Assembly Elections The Hamiltonian Way
SUMMARY OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S GOVERNORSHIP (1798-1800)
Cabinet
Attorney General: Charles Lee (1798-1800)
Secretary of Foreign Affairs: John Jay (1798-1800)
Secretary of Finance: Oliver Wolcott Jr. (1798-1800)
Secretary of War: James McHenry (1798-1800)
​
Preparation
With the grand success of the National Party in the Assembly, Hamilton got to work with waging his war against France. Securing an alliance with Britain through the Treaty of London, America would soon find itself at war with France and its ally Spain.
Through a combination of France and Spain being stretched too thin to fight effectively, and America possessing a gargantuan military thanks to its levée en masse policy, the Gulf of Mexico was successfully blockaded, and the colonial forces starved. America would then conquer its way through Louisiana, Florida, and the Caribbean until it stood as a champion.
However, instead of making peace and consolidating the new territories, Hamilton had committed to a great gamble by, with the approval of the British, sending American troops directly to Europe to help put down the French Revolution for Good.
​
Stability
The American Revolution was a revolution of intellectuals; elites coming together to organize an overthrow of British rule, guiding the people along the way. The end result was initially instability, under the mob rule provided by the Articles of Confederation, but when the new Constitution came into effect, stability came and America prospered. The same could not be said for France.
The French Revolution was a revolution of the mob; angry men coming out to vent themselves by storming buildings, ransacking cities, and plunging the nation into a sea of blood. Royals, nobles, religious figures, anyone suspected of being an opponent of the revolution was sent to the guillotine. It was one thing to throw off the shackles of tyranny; it was another thing altogether to frenziedly execute anyone associated with the old order.
Though the Jacobin Club had been dissolved long ago, its ideals have not. There are still many radicals in the world who continue to unwaveringly support such ideals even in the face of the French themselves rejecting it; the Committee of Public Safety had been overthrown many years ago in favor of the more moderate Directorate. Chief among these remaining Jacobins was Thomas Paine, the head of the Country Party’s radicals. It was one thing to be a Jacobin; it was another thing entirely to be a Hébertist like him.
With the damage done by Jacobinism as clear as day, Hamilton knew what he had to do. For the sake of not just America, for the sake of not just Europe, but for the sake of the world, the French Revolution had to be stamped out for good. McHenry was shortsighted. It was too risky to just indirectly assist the British. As Jay had prescribed, America had to go to Europe and take the fight directly to France’s shores.
This would be a watershed moment in American history; Alexander Hamilton, the first governor of the United States, had held the burden of every one of his actions setting a precedent for future governors to follow, yet none would be quite like this one. America was destined to be actively involved in the world, and for sure every governor following Hamilton would look back to him to deal with their foreign policy. God save America, for there was no turning back now.
​
Outrage
Just as Charles Lee was about to strike at the heart of the Friendly Tribune and make an example of their leaders, Hamilton requested a meeting with him. Happy to finally be in contact with someone else in the executive branch, he complied and met with the governor.
Hamilton met with Lee regarding public order; sending troops abroad was highly unpopular. Even the newspapers which usually backed Hamilton even in his darkest times were questioning the wisdom of sending troops across the sea. What business would America have fighting in Europe? It made sense to punish the French and their allies in Madrid for their misdeeds and to seize their North American holdings, but there was no land to gain in Europe. The land there was not to colonize, for it was the homeland of colonizers.
Hamilton had a simple request for Lee: don’t let the newspapers know a thing about the war in Europe. If anything bad happened, even if it was small, the newspapers would go nuts over it, and the people would follow. Hamilton specifically requested that the Security Act be invoked as soon as any newspaper started speaking up, and that the use of National Marshals against such papers be liberal.
“The papers are your enemy, the papers are your enemy. The isolationists are your enemy, the pacifists are your enemy, the pacifists are your enemy. Write that in your journal 100 times.” was what Lee was told by Hamilton. So, with gusto, he got to work keeping every goddamn paper in-line.
Unfortunately for Hamilton, it wasn’t just the public he had to worry about, as he had to now contend with the sole cabinet member who opposed his decision: Secretary of War James McHenry. This was inevitable. If he sided with McHenry, he’d have to confront Jay. Regardless, he had to get McHenry to support this since waging a war was going to be difficult without the secretary of war supporting said war.
The meeting was brief, as McHenry’s opposition stemmed less from the idea of sending troops to Europe and more so because he believed that it wasn’t winnable and also that the troops would be better off pacifying the newly-occupied territories. Hamilton reassured him of victory being possible, citing the army’s size swelling to almost 6-digits from its already massive size of 80,000 at the war’s start. Furthermore, Hamilton reminded McHenry of the Security Act’s potency in dealing with uppity non-citizens and Attorney General Lee’s efficiency in enforcing the act. National Marshals would be fine enough to secure the territories while the bulk of the army was in Europe, though a small force would be left behind to deal with it.
It seemed the meeting was over, but McHenry had one last concern to mention, on behalf of Secretary of Finance Wolcott, who had been frequently absent for “personal reasons” since the passage of the Fourteen Points. The problem was that of funding such an operation. Funding was generally fine for most of the war due to the Economic Reorganization Act, but fighting such a war in Europe was risky from a fiscal perspective. Hamilton reassured McHenry that he had a plan in mind just in case the money ran dry, though he wouldn’t elaborate. Satisfied, the meeting ended, and Hamilton got to speaking with Britain over the Jay Plan.
​
Cooperation
For once, William Grenville would see the governor himself, as opposed to John Jay. He could only hope that whatever happened here would leave a good impression; he had high expectations for such a man like Hamilton. Though, he knew little about why this meeting was called on such short notice, and why Hamilton himself was even there to begin with.
So, the meeting began. Hamilton first began to ask questions about what was going on regarding the European theater. Grenville answered by bringing up the two main campaigns: the slightly successful campaign in Holland, and the stalemating campaign in Italy and Switzerland. The former was only successful due to the arrival of Prussian forces, which had been turning the tide of war, while the latter was a stalemate due to mountainous terrain making offensives nearly impossible against the might of the French Army.
The Battle of Novi, which resulted in a victory for Austro-Prussian forces in Italy.
With that now known, Hamilton informed Grenville of his intention to send American troops over to Europe in order to assist in putting down the French Republic. Furthermore, to surely get Grenville’s approval, he even claimed he intended to go himself. This completely stunned Grenville. Though he knew that Hamilton had a preference for Britain over France, he was still a revolutionary, and him outright planning to send troops across the Atlantic to put one down seemed completely backwards. Still, help was help, and so he happily informed Hamilton that such action would be appreciated.
Of course, the devil was always in the details. The American Army was an extremely large army. If there was one similarity between America and France, it was that they both practiced levée en masse. With all of those troops, lots of food, ammunition, and other supplies were going to be needed to keep them supplied enough to fight. Hamilton acknowledged that he could only give them so many supplies. The bulk of their supplies once they arrived would have to be from Britain and other nations in the Coalition. Wanting nothing more than the final destruction of the French Revolution, Grenville promised logistical support for the troops.
Viewing the meeting as successful, the two ended it there. Hamilton was set to take an unprecedented action; America was going to fight across the sea. Such an action had untold rewards, but doing so possessed unbelievable risks. If anyone could prevail, however, it would be Hamilton.
​
Leaked
American troops had landed in Europe, ready to fight. The journey took a bit longer than expected; the seas were rougher than usual, but they still made it. This was it. This was the twilight of the French Revolution.
Unfortunately, back at home, the press caught wind of the staggering number of America’s men landing in Europe. While nothing bad had happened to them yet, Hamilton had underestimated just how much the public opposed any action in Europe.
Despite the best efforts of Attorney General Lee, the press was able to make hay with this. Particularly, that damned Friendly Tribune, right before its final shutdown after Lee had discovered its headquarters in the basement of a building that was supposed to be for textile manufacturing. The whole damn place was run by Quakers. Lee felt incredibly stupid for not making the blatantly obvious connection earlier. Regardless, the newspaper was destroyed in one fell swoop, and those who worked for it were subsequently arrested and convicted.
But this wasn’t going to be the end of it. Absolutely not. The news was out there. Shutting down the papers wouldn’t make that any less true. Already, people were visibly angry about it. Protests began popping up in Philadelphia, and Quakers were running amok denouncing the intervention in Europe. Lee had failed his one job, God help him.
​
Timing
What a disaster. Hamilton was all the way in Europe fighting, the people had just gotten wind of the highly unpopular direct intervention, and worst of all, it was election season. Whether Hamilton forgot or simply didn’t care was up in the air. Regardless, for the first time since the Whiskey Rebellion, Hamilton’s allies felt like they would lose.
The National Party was very divided on the direct intervention. They were already divided on the matter of war to begin with; passing the Mobilization Act was no easy feat. But taking the fight to Europe? Many in the party had privately found Hamilton to be insufferable, and a small few in the Assembly began to openly criticize the war. Senate President Pinckney, who acted as governor in Hamilton’s absence, could only thank God that the Senate Nationals had more party discipline.
The Country Party, on the other hand, was vehemently opposed to the war from day one. They saw it as completely ridiculous and counterproductive considering they were a revolutionary nation; what kind of revolutionary nation fights other revolutionary nations? The initial war in North America swayed some of them and the anti-war public into supporting it due to the successes, but war in Europe was insane.
Yet this war was so controversial, that it broke the two-party system. The Quakers, who found no home in either party due to their opposition to mobilization and war as a whole, which made the National Party unfit for them, and their opposition to slavery and Revolutionary France’s worst excesses made the Country Party unfit for them. So, under the leadership of famed abolitionist Elias Hicks, a new party was born from the ideals of the Quakers: the Friendship Party.
Elias Hicks, Quaker, abolitionist, and founder of the Friendship Party.
​
THE 1800 UNITED STATES ASSEMBLY ELECTIONS
National Party
The cockade of the National Party.
The National Party stands as the nation’s dominant party. With a supermajority in the Assembly and a working supermajority in the Senate, the nation bows to the whims of the party; more often than not the wishes of Governor Hamilton. The Nationals support Hamilton’s entire domestic program of the Fourteen Points, high tariffs, internal improvements, and defending the Bank.
The party, however, stands in its most divided state since the Whiskey Rebellion. With many members already skeptical of the Mobilization Act and the prospect of war with France, Hamilton’s decision to personally lead American troops into Europe has caused factionalism to once more present itself in the party, with a noticeable chunk of the party opposing such action.
The Louisianans are the less dominant, more moderate faction of the party, headed by Massachusetts Governor John Adams. While still remaining mostly loyal to Governor Hamilton, they do hold some opposition to his domestic policies, most notably the levée en masse provision of the Mobilization Act. Most notably, however, is their opposition to Hamilton’s current foreign policy. The Louisianans are highly opposed to directly intervening in Europe, believing that consolidating the newly conquered territories, most notably Louisiana, is much more beneficial to the nation than recklessly sending American troops overseas, instead favoring indirectly supporting the Coalition through giving arms and loans.
The Rejuvenationists are the current dominant faction of the party, and are obstinately loyal to Governor Hamilton. Headed by Senate President Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, they dance to the tune of Hamilton’s every word as they lend their support towards his complete domestic agenda alongside supporting rigorous enforcement of the Mobilization Act’s levée en masse provision. On foreign policy, they believe in continuing the war until the French Revolution is fully stamped out, in order to destroy the threat of Jacobinism one and for all and rejuvenate America’s standing in the global community. Most controversially, some radicals in the faction have even proposed a postwar military alliance with Britain in order to ensure a maintenance of the postwar order.
​
Country Party
The cockade of the Country Party.
The Country Party has, for most of its history so far, been a joke of a party. Opposing Hamilton’s popular agenda and being dominated by radicals alienated many voters, resulting in it never finding a true mandate in the Assembly. However, with Hamilton’s direct intervention in Europe causing the greatest uproar against the governor since the Whiskey Rebellion, the party may finally find a chance to win.
Opposing Hamilton’s domestic agenda, the party calls for a reduction in tariffs, an end to the whiskey tax, and an exit from the war paired with an immediate repeal of the Mobilization Act. However, the party still holds factions, with radicals calling for an end to national internal improvement programs, the bank, and even the standing army, while moderates wish to see a continuation of internal improvements, a reduction in the power of the bank, and the maintenance of a voluntary standing army.
The Normalists are the moderates, headed by Assembly Minority Leader DeWitt Clinton. Calling for a return to normalcy from the turbulent rule of the National Party, the Normalists call for an immediate peace, a repeal of the Security Act, a reduction in tariffs and the whiskey tax, and the pursuit of American neutrality. However, unlike their more radical counterparts, they still believe in national internal improvement programs and only weakening the Bank. Furthermore, they don’t believe in abolishing the standing army, viewing it to be necessary to fight both domestic and foreign threats to national sovereignty.
The Brumaireians are the radicals, headed by former Assembly Minority Leader Thomas Paine. The Brumaireians support a peace treaty with France and Spain containing compensation for the conquered territories, and an issuing of arms shipments and loans to Revolutionary France, viewing them as fellow revolutionaries fighting a fight not so different from America’s own decades prior. On domestic affairs, they favor a complete repeal of the entire Fourteen Points and the Mobilization Act, alongside abolishing the Bank, national internal improvements, the whiskey tax, all protective tariffs, and the standing army, viewing them all as threats to liberty and proof of the urban class conspiring to dominate the common farmer.
​
Friendship Party
*Note: This is a write-in option only.*
The cockade of the Friendship Party.
The newest party to join the American political scene, the oddly named Friendship Party seeks to further the interests of the Quaker cause, and especially the cause of pacifism. Headed by famed abolitionist Elias Hicks, the party seeks to combine various ideas from both parties paired with abolitionism. They take from the National Party’s disdain for Revolutionary France and their high support for merchants. They take from the Country Party’s support for peace and their opposition to the Mobilization Act, the Security Act, and the standing army. Their syncretic ideals are further represented by their notable members, with Moses Brown representing the merchants, William Savery representing the pro-Indian rights activists, and Robert Pleasants representing the rural folk.
However, due to the party’s affiliation with a small religious group, their hardline pacifism and abolitionism, and the fact that they’ve only just formed, the party is not even known to most voters, and is not projected to get many, if any seats. Furthermore, Quakers are mostly based in the Mid-Atlantic, and consequently, the Friendship Party is only able to run candidates in that area, with all of the candidates requiring write-ins due to not being included on the ballot.
Who are you voting for in this election?
View Poll
submitted by Beanie_Inki to Presidentialpoll [link] [comments]

2023.06.03 01:34 waterim This sub is superior to r/kanye and r/westsubever

The other kanye subs are depressing and are anti-kanye . Plenty of people have done wrong and are still celebrated like George Washington, Winston Churchill and Charles de Gaulle . Difference is that those people did extremely horrible things and are still extremely celebrated
submitted by waterim to GoodAssSub [link] [comments]

2023.06.02 20:10 bigpapaapelanta FINALLY

FINALLY
Off and on for 3 weeks. Deity- Earth Huge. Definitely helps to start in S America.
submitted by bigpapaapelanta to CivVI [link] [comments]

2023.06.02 16:44 ZetGeo Yeah let me just cough up 1000 Divisions

Yeah let me just cough up 1000 Divisions submitted by ZetGeo to hoi4 [link] [comments]

2023.06.02 16:35 LeonardoRHGG Juliano 3ºA - Coroação do Rei Charles III

Juliano 3ºA - Coroação do Rei Charles III
Entre o sábado (6) e a segunda-feira (8), o Reino Unido viverá uma série de eventos para marcar a coroação do Rei Charles III - alcançando o trono da realeza britânica após a morte de sua mãe, a Rainha Elizabeth II em setembro do ano passado.
A coroação em si, acontecerá em uma cerimônia solene nesse sábado, dia 6 na abadia de Westminster, em Londres.
Charles III será coroado ao lado de sua esposa, a Rainha consorte Camila, em um serviço profundamente religioso, celebrado pelo arcebispo da Cantuária, Justin Welby, líder da Igreja da Inglaterra.
O Rei e a Rainha consorte serão levados na carruagem "Diamond Jubilee State Coach". É uma das carruagens mais novas da monarquia britânica, foi construída na Austrália e entregue a Rainha Elizabeth II em 2014, mesmo ano em que foi usada para abertura do parlamento.
​
Rei Charles III
CORONATION OF KING CHARLES III
​
Between Saturday (6th) and Monday (8th), the United Kingdom will experience a series of events to mark the coronation of King Charles III – reaching the throne of Britsh royalty after the death of is mother, the Queen Elizabeth II in September do in the past.
The coronation itself will take place in a solemn ceremony this Saturday (6th) at Westminster Abbey, in London.
Charles III will be crowned alongside his wife, the Queen consort Camilla, in a deeply religious service, celebrated by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, leader of the Church of England.
The King and Queen consort will be transported in the “Diamond Jubilee State Coach”. It is one of the newest carriages of the British monarchy, it was built in Australia and delivered to Queen Eizabeth II in 2014, the same year it was used for the opening of parliament.
submitted by LeonardoRHGG to GGNewsChannel [link] [comments]

2023.06.02 12:41 Tigrannes On this day in History, June 2

Ancient World

Middle Ages

Early Modern World

Revolutionary Age

Second Industrial Revolution

Interwar Period

World War II

Cold War

Modern World

Featured

https://freeimage.host/i/Hrt77mQ
submitted by Tigrannes to Historycord [link] [comments]

2023.06.02 12:23 lafayettepod #OTD in 1961, president Kennedy and his wife Jackie are greeted in Paris by president Charles de Gaulle and his wife Yvonne. It doesn’t go according to plan, as de Gaulle basically ignores the American president in favour of his wife.

Jackie speaks French, and de Gaulle enjoys chatting with her about cinema or literature. Old Jack can wait in the lobby for all de Gaulle cares. Kennedy is furious of being snubbed like this, but de Gaulle knows exactly what he's doing.
The message is simple: you might be the leader of the free world, the president of the most powerful nation on Earth, but when you are in France, you obey my rules. I won't bow before you, I won't be your servant. You have to treat me as an equal.
submitted by lafayettepod to Frenchhistory [link] [comments]

2023.06.02 12:22 lafayettepod #OTD in 1961, president Kennedy and his wife Jackie are greeted in Paris by president Charles de Gaulle and his wife Yvonne. It doesn’t go according to plan, as de Gaulle basically ignores the American president in favour of his wife.

#OTD in 1961, president Kennedy and his wife Jackie are greeted in Paris by president Charles de Gaulle and his wife Yvonne. It doesn’t go according to plan, as de Gaulle basically ignores the American president in favour of his wife.
Jackie speaks French, and de Gaulle enjoys chatting with her about cinema or literature. Old Jack can wait in the lobby for all de Gaulle cares. Kennedy is furious of being snubbed like this, but de Gaulle knows exactly what he's doing.
The message is simple: you might be the leader of the free world, the president of the most powerful nation on Earth, but when you are in France, you obey my rules. I won't bow before you, I won't be your servant. You have to treat me as an equal.
submitted by lafayettepod to HistoryNetwork [link] [comments]

2023.06.02 12:22 lafayettepod #OTD in 1961, president Kennedy and his wife Jackie are greeted in Paris by president Charles de Gaulle and his wife Yvonne. It doesn’t go according to plan, as de Gaulle basically ignores the American president in favour of his wife.

#OTD in 1961, president Kennedy and his wife Jackie are greeted in Paris by president Charles de Gaulle and his wife Yvonne. It doesn’t go according to plan, as de Gaulle basically ignores the American president in favour of his wife.
Jackie speaks French, and de Gaulle enjoys chatting with her about cinema or literature. Old Jack can wait in the lobby for all de Gaulle cares. Kennedy is furious of being snubbed like this, but de Gaulle knows exactly what he’s doing.
The message is simple: you might be the leader of the free world, the president of the most powerful nation on Earth, but when you are in France, you obey my rules. I won’t bow before you, I won’t be your servant. You have to treat me as an equal.
Learn more about Charles de Gaulle, one of the most important and influential political figures of the twentieth century on our episode. Available wherever you get your podcasts or at: https://www.lafayettepodcast.com/1969630/12773369-charles-de-gaulle-tales-of-grandeur
submitted by lafayettepod to lafayettepodcast [link] [comments]

2023.06.02 04:14 Enfulio Train from Paris to Lyon

Bonjour! I will be traveling to France for the first time and need to quickly commute to Lyon from Charles de Gaulle Airport. I am looking into trains on sncf-connect.com but there are so many train types, routes, and ticket categories I am not sure what is best. I am looking to get off at the Lyon Perrache station.
Does CDG have a train that runs directly from the airport to Lyon? Is it worth it to go for 1st class over 2nd class for the ride? Thanks for any advice.
submitted by Enfulio to Lyon [link] [comments]

2023.06.01 22:14 ClarkyCatEnjoyer How the CIA tried to whack DeGaulle by Out for Smokes

How the CIA tried to whack DeGaulle by Out for Smokes
https://outforsmokes.podbean.com/e/episode-111-how-charles-de-gaulle-survived-a-cia-coup-part-1/
submitted by ClarkyCatEnjoyer to Spudmode [link] [comments]

2023.06.01 16:49 BalQn ''West Berlin'' - anti-Western cartoon (artist: Viliam Weisskopf) showing American President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, French President Charles de Gaulle, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan and German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, Czechoslovakia, 1961

''West Berlin'' - anti-Western cartoon (artist: Viliam Weisskopf) showing American President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, French President Charles de Gaulle, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan and German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, Czechoslovakia, 1961 submitted by BalQn to PropagandaPosters [link] [comments]

2023.06.01 15:55 TheRetroWorkshop Hard & Accurate Sci-fi Tip #3: Space Military Structure: Total War & Good Generalship:

Part One: What it's All About
We must slowly build on my first post, Space Military Structure, which gave a very rough overview of militarism in general, and the types of overarching warfare you might want in your space opera (which I call the four spatial forms, or modes). Now, it's time to actually dig a little deeper on some of the points. I shall gift a strong bias towards WWII. Not because there is nothing of use or import, or importance, from old warfare -- but because it requires too many words, and is not closely related enough to typical space opera. WWII also sets the stage for (almost) everything that came after it, and also saw the height of military leadership under George C. Marshall (U.S.). Although this is biased towards the Americans (U.S.) and the Nazis (Germany proper), you can borrow and alter such systems, doctrines, tactics, leaders, and so on as you require for your own setting/story/military, etc. Just warning you of the primary focus.
Note: I may write on the Communist/Soviet and Japanese side of things in the future. But, beyond a few worthy connections, I cannot possibly detail out the entirety of WWII! I shall just say that some great sources/places in this way would be the Soviet Union (circa 1922-1950), Japan (circa 1931-1945), the Ba'ath Party, and the Hutts (Star Wars; fictional). These have some things in common, actually. More so, the latter. Namely, they are generally what you might call 'Persian style ruling'. They are hyper-wealthy kings or king-type figures, literally living 'like kings', as they enslave everybody else. That's a bit harsh on the Persian Empire, of course, but you get the general theme/motif here, as it did apply to a number of Persian Kings (Darius III comes to mind as a bad ruler). This sort of direction also moves much more in line with classical empire-building and kingdoms, in that it's hereditary (i.e. ruling family, by blood). So, the exact source you focus on depends on the type of setting/story you have, and the governance thereof. (Of course, Stalin's Russia had the feel of Imperialist Russia whilst actually being much more in line with Hitler's Germany, at most levels, so it's quite a complex machine -- likely given its Catholic, nationalist roots, fused with the modernist, secularist Communism.)
In the Nazi context, of course, this was seen through the lens of a 'realm' (Reich), a kind of 'secular empire' which was not built upon a royal family, but a personalist dictator (with major focus on both militarism and propaganda; thus, the people themselves), where the 'blood' concept was shifted from 'ruling family' to 'the nation itself' (the Germans or 'German body' (singular)). This was also felt in a number of other nations, but Hitler's Germany is primary, and the direct source for most major space opera since 1940, so it's highly relevant for our purposes (almost always taking the side of the villains/evil empire, of course -- either in a simple-minded sort of narrative, or a more complex one (a la Star Wars (1977)).
The Americans, of course, had the President. I heard, from Douglas Murray around the time of King Charles' Coronation, that there is an innate tendency of humans towards a hereditary structure (this seems possible enough). We are obsessed with families. This makes logical sense. With this in mind, he defended the existence of the symbolic royal family of England, as a way to 'release' all of that feeling and desire at the national level.
He contrasted it with the American system, and looked to modern America to show its possible faults in this way. America became heavily obsessed with the 'first family', such as 'the Clintons'. Clearly overlaying this older framework onto the American system, which is innately unwise and unhelpful. Not only was the original idea that the President would be rather small, in terms of both power and interest -- but that his family would mean little. Hence, they took the title of president -- as in, 'president of the golf club' or, 'president of the school board'. This was not to replace 'king' or 'emperor' in any sense at all. Quite the contrary. A truly remarkable, and rare, shift in human governance. But, since the 1920s or so, this system seems to have fallen into a more European, kingly form (i.e. big government, and hyper-focus on the president). Just something to consider, if you're aiming at a generic democratic, republican type system. You need to be aware of what is likely to happen, and why, and what is required for X (pre-1920s American system) or Y (post-1920s American system). Of course, globalisation was a factor post-WWI, so you have to take your culture in relation to the wider setting (assuming you have different cultures and peoples trading/living with one another).-But, what is war all about? My understanding would be that war is about five things (in random order): (1) Defence/peacekeeping/protection (both in-country and overseas, etc.); (2) Expansion/general stability and growth -- often greed and akin to totalitarianism); (3) Emotional regulation (at the individual level); (4) Conflict resolution (religious wars, wars over land, etc. -- not that all of these are just); (5) National unity (not always positive -- and closely related to emotional regulation, among other factors and traits, and sub-traits; often (but not always) bleeds over into racial unity and purity)
Obviously, this is quite a simple picture, and war is very complex. But, this is good enough for writing space opera. Every single one of these is key; however, we (likely) want some kind of evil empire to fight, which means all of this needs to be nested in the framework of total war or the Nazi Lebensraum concept. This is primarily under (a) emotional regulation; and (b) expansion. Although Germany had major internal, and some external conflicts and issues circa 1870-1918, this alone was not enough to justify the birth -- and growth -- of Nazism for purely defence or conflict resolution reasons.
Part Two: Hitler's Total War
The primary focus must be on expansion (growth; primarily, beginning around 1927 due to mass starvation, etc.; coupled with totalitarian notions), emotional regulation, and national unity, in relation to Nazi Germany. The only other key element to throw in there would be the requirement to actually solve their major internal problems, but this did not innately require Nazism. But, by the fate of history, it was highly likely to be dealt with by either the Nazis or the by-then Stalinist Communists (which had become quite popular by 1932, at the height of the Depression in Germany).
To quote a German (long after the war): 'It was not a question of whether we were going to become a dictatorship [circa 1932], it was a question of the kind of dictatorship we were going to get: a Nazi dictatorship or a Communist dictatorship'.
Sadly, then, due to the state of affairs at this time, there was no hope for Germany to ever become a non-dictatorship through the 1930s and 1940s. The stage was already set for so many complex, interesting, confusing reasons. A primary problem, noted by Hitler himself, was the general state of Germany itself by 1920 or so (which had actually been a growing problem, and many-faceted since 1870). He writes about this in Mein Kampf (1925), and calls it so: Weimar Republic. This became the normative term by the 1930s. To translate Hitler's thinking: he meant it in the context of, 'the Ally puppet republic -- broken, weak, anti-German republic -- of the city of Weimar, not at all speaking to Germany or the Germans'.
Hitler was mostly correct about that, and many Germans agreed with him (including many pro-German socialists; hence, the name. In the first place, there was a major socialist arm of the Nazi (National Socialist) Party). He was able to weaponise this, and demand radical governmental change to solve some of their internal issues, including the Depression itself.
We should step back a moment. By WWI, Germany was already a fragmented, confused nation -- and there was a rapid growth of pro-war actors and groups by 1914, including Hitler himself. By 1920, Germany was crushed into the mud (quite literally), which gave way for Hitler and others to become seriously radical actors. One issue across Germany at this time was the basic governmental system itself, as the old President, Paul Von Hindenburg, was not up to the task of a modern Germany: but, he had one theme through him -- he hated Hitler. Now, Hitler had learnt from his failed Putsch back in 1923. He learnt to play the system (which he simply called 'the System', not an uncommon theme for a revolutionary group). As a result, he had the idea to take Germany, not so much by force, but by popular vote. And, that's what he did.
However, the Nazi Party's growth was slow, only reaching great power by 1927 or so (more so, 1932), due to: (a) The Depression; (b) Superior propaganda tactics; (c) Positive vision for the future (the Communists were rather unhelpful and depressive -- note, this does not mean that the Nazi vision was objetively positive, it was merely what they were handing to the Germans, in a pro-German context); (d) Extreme street-level violence (akin to the Communist side); (e) Trans-classist outreach (i.e. they tried to reach just about everybody, across the classes and groups, including (1) women; (2) working classes; and (3) the middle/upper classes; and (f) Hitler's remarkable oratory skills, and modern campaigning (i.e. travelling to every town and city he could, speaking directly to the voters, which was quite rare back then, believe it or not)
Shockingly, however, the Communist side was also hyper-popular, and used many of the same tactics and methods by 1932. Hitler saw major victories across this period (1928-1932), almost becoming President (yes, he ran for President). It was not until the famous, and final 'true' German election in 1933 that Hitler won out and became ruler of Germany. But, again: the race was quite close, but the numbers spoke for themselves. By now, Germany (tens of millions of voters) were not voting for the generic socialist or even German parties as they had done back in 1927, but only the two most extreme: Nazi and (semi-pro-German/Stalinist) Communist.
Almost instantly (around two months) did Hitler begin his process of Germanisation (Nazification). We already know from his early speeches and writings that he had such plans in place as early as 1921, give or take (with certain scholars claiming that Hitler had such visions in mind, back in 1914 or prior). The other major view of Hitler's Germany is that it was more of a co-op effort between the Party and the Germans, and that Hitler slowly came to his ideas and policy choices as time went on. Since there is great evidence for both of these visions, I must take a combined view, and say that Hitler had certain ideas/goals from the beginning, with others being later creations and plans.
Regardless, we know one thing for certain: Hitler aimed at total war, and he -- for a short period -- achieved it. Although notions of 'total war' reach back into Prussian and French history (among others), the real birth of it is Nazi Germany, by the mid-1930s (though both the Soviet Union and Fascist Italy may be of note), followed by Japan (more so under the singular ruling Party circa 1942).
We take such things for granted today, even confusing 'war' (as such) with 'total war'; however, we know the differences, and they are profound. First of all, Hitler's shift towards total war is clear by quite a rare notion: the total removal of the law of war. The singular 'law of war' can be understood as the 'fairness of war' or 'moral of war' (not to be confused with the 'art of war', which often speaks to an overarching theory of warfare by a given figure (such as de Saxe or Sun Tzu), which may or may not include core elements of fairness).
The second primary element at play, which you do not see in generic cases of war, is the total militarisation of the nation, of the people.
You likely understand all of this more in the fictional context, than the historical. I could mention the Empire from Star Wars, or the Klingons from Star Trek. They are, in a sense, low-resolution images or caricature of the Nazi machine. This is because the Nazi machine itself is a sort of caricature and is almost impossible to believe. That is how innately anti-human the system was and how anti-Western in its fundamental formulation and doctrines.
But, if you want to your evil empire justice -- or, indeed, want to create a more 'neutral' military empire, then you need to really understand the origins, doctrines, feelings, and core mechanisms and utopian goals of Nazi Germany, beyond the surface notion of, 'evil Fascists'. That's just not enough.
Part Three: What is Enough?; How Did Nazi Germany Function, if at All?
Well, you have to try and put yourself in the shoes of a typical German citizen during 1932, first of all. Imagine that you're naturally proud of your nation, history, and people/culture. Imagine that you're on the street without work or food. Imagine that you're being attacked, literally and symbolically, from the Russians/Communists from the north, and the French/Americans/British from the south and west.
Then, imagine you are filled with shame over the horrible defeat of WWI, and forced shame from the Allies, and the massive war tax, keeping the Germans poor and unfit. And, imagine that you're seeing a very arrogant, powerful, free, wealthy France take more and more of your land, and build up its own army around you. That would make anybody not only angry but extremely desperate and confused, with a burning desire for nationalism and the end to this state of affairs. Throw in an unhealthy dose of pro-German/anti-French (and anti-British and anti-Jewish) propaganda, complete with the already extreme anti-Semitic notions in the air (since at least 1880), and you have set the stage for such a shift of power.
After all, the Jews had their own sub-cultures and wealth, and were not deemed to be 'part of the German body' at all. On top of this, they were deemed as the murderer of God himself (from the Christian view), so it was not a leap for them to shift the blame from the Germans to the Jews, in relation to WWI. Being blamed for WWI and held in the mud by the French was too much for them to handle, once you throw in mass starvation and a broken internal structure.
It's not so much a question to me, that Nazism became the state power, but that it didn't happen sooner. This shows the primary strength of the average German through the 1920s, to still believe in some generic system and free Germany -- not to fall into Communism or Nazism so easily. Sadly, by 1932, this was too much -- and Hitler had his own large paramilitary force by this stage (early on, known as Stormtroopers (I'm sure you know this term from Star Wars)), so shutting down citizens was an easier task.
At that stage, you are likely capable of creating your own sturcture of this sort, for your own space opera wastory. You can really understand how such a system could be created; and why the average man would possibly vote for it.
This is also required to understand military thinking in general. Indeed, a lot of what was going through the average German soldier's head applied to America and almost every other nation, as it spoke to basic values and rituals and doctrines: honour, duty, nationalism, family, and freedom.
(See Christopher Browning's book, Ordinary Men. Jocko actually talks about it on his podcast at one point. Here, Browning goes through a pretty average, pre-Hitler German police unit, which was compelled into Hitler's Germany by the late-1930s. Mostly, older, generic German men. It goes through their journey from perfectly normal policemen into insane mass murderers. How? The same way you reach hell: one, small step at a time. This book single-handedly removes any notion that only special men can be evil, only special men can be killers. Much more difficult to factor into your moral framework is the reality that these are often not special at all -- but ordinary.)
In the case of Nazi Germany itself, this is made much more complex by its bedrock structure, which largely remained until 1942. As I alluded to earlier, one Prussian concept that remained was the idea of going above your superior's head. This came from the time when captains and such had some real power as mid-ranking officers, yet were filled by noblemen and such, that had no idea what they were doing. As a result, the actual soldiers and thinkers below the rank of captain were able to go around said nobleman, to complain to the higher-ups, or to actively take over the nobleman's duties. Hitler ultimately kept this system in place, and even played on it, to create major internal rivalry. This was a fairly decent method in some cases, for a short period; however, it became an unworkable mess by 1942, which is when Hitler finally solved the problem. The problem was, he solved it in a very foolish way, mostly under the KHO (high command), leaving the army disconnected, and hardly paying attention to the other branches by this time. The KHO was not up to the task, due to lack of size and talent.
The other major change he made was utter obeisance up the chain of command. This brought a new problem, however: now, instead of a local officer of mid-rank going over the head of a slightly higher-ranked officer (either to Hitler or otherwise), he now had to obey every order of said commandeofficer, without question or fail. No matter what.
Thus, we now enter the final primary stage of Nazi Germany circa 1943-1945. This is the 'downfall stage', and also the infamous stage of 'just following orders' (as noted as the primary defence plea at the trials). When a Nazi said, 'I was just following orders', what he really meant was, 'I'm not to blame the crime, because I was demanded, almost by divine command, to follow the order, no matter what that order was'. The trials took this into account, and understood the concept well enough, since it was fairly in place in America and England, though this saw a generally less extreme form, and most orders were actually decent from the American command during WWII. Nonetheless, this led to the almost impossible reality of the trials ending with a fair number of either free Nazis, or at least short prison terms. Of course, all top-ranking Nazi Party members were found guilty, regardless of their plea (which ultimately placed all blame on Hitelr himself, at the top of the chain).
Be mindful of such a framework in your own space military structure. One negative outcome of this by 1943, was that the high-ranking Nazis handed most of their duties down the chain of command; thus, forcing lower and lower ranked officers to perform more and more duties. At times, this led to the failure to complete said duties/tasks, or poor judgement. It also gave supreme power to the mid-ranking officers, as they de facto took on the role of the higher-ups. Since these high-ranking officers were many in their numbers and were widespread at all levels (location, ability, plans, etc.), it led to the complete confusion of the Nazi machine and war effort. Of course, this was somewhat the case since 1939, anyway. But, it became even worse by 1943, as Hitler fragmented everything to ensure his own position of power (after all, his worry was, having an actually functional system, like the Americans, would gift far too much power to the generals and other Party members; thus, they could easily overthrow him).
Either way, despite Hitler's supreme focus on his 'singular vision' for Germany (which he also stressed in Mein Kamf), he made some very foolish mistakes, and was dealing with such an innately broken, evil system that he couldn't possibly ensure such things. For example, as early as 1940, we saw major differences in how the generals and leaders of the Gaue, etc. treated their subjects and tasks. For example, when Germany invaded Poland, there was mixed understranding as to how to treat the Polish and others, and how all of this should proceed. It became such a confused mess that some of the leaders wanted to pretty much Germanised the existing Poles, take their land, re-educate them, and take them in as new Reich Citizens (more so, if they were found to be German in any way, at the level of blood). On the other hand, other leaders of the now-annexed Poland wanted to outright murder all the Poles, regardless of their German blood or other considerations.
This sort of cross-purpose working was almost the norm by 1942 across Nazi Germany: again, partly enforced by Hitler himself with his 'rough orders' sort of leadership. Hitler also had the notion that by forcing in-fighting, he would sit back and see who came out on top; thus, ensuring that the best man did the job/task. But, this was a heavily incomplete theory, to say the least.
Back to Star Wars, for a moment: there is some indications that this is how the Empire ran, as well; hence, the horrible leadership of the Empire and its ultimate downfall.
To end the thread of Nazi Germany (for now), I shall point your attention towards the utter secularisation, utopianisation of the society. By 1937, Nazi Germany was not only one of the most powerful cultures on Earth, with one of the greatest standing armies in history, but it had one of the most 'modern' (i.e. post-WII) social systems in place, which included the likes of cheap cruise trips and holiday sites and entertainment items (radios, etc.), primarily aimed at the working classes. Of course, most of this was only possible due to literal blood money and was primarily geared towards propaganda and total Nazification.
At the same time, Hitler began to re-shape Germany in his own image: removing all Jewish (and then Christian/Roman) elements from society... and history. He even tried to re-write the Bible with a so-called Fifth Gospel, as to replace Jesus (a Jew) with a Germanic figure. This failed as the people largely rejected such; however, atheism and secularism in general were radically enforced through the late-1930s and 1940s, and classical faith dropped massively.
At the level of government, Hitler crafted a semi-centralised system, with local rulers (of a district or Gau) that had near-total imperium (meaning, power over their area and subjects). This massively unified Germany and the flow of the culture, come the fragmented, hyper-localised system of the old Germany. Of course, this itself was a struggle to put into place, and by 1942, it was also clear that it's not so easy to control people: they have social networks and sub-systems of their own, and these are the primary driving forces behind settlement structures and otherwise.
Hitler had some sense of this, more so at the border to France, but like with many other fundamental problems of Germany (such as the large anti-Nazi Christian movement), he wanted to put it off until victory.
This is an unwise tactic, if the problems keep growing, as they did. It reminds me somewhat of the Japanese tactic of winning through, 'faith in victory'. Well, victory does not magically appear: you have to actually work towards victory in a stable, logical way. Of course, as I alluded to earlier: the Nazis had major problems in place as early as 1939, so entering/creating the war itself was a grave mistake (as the generals told him at the time). Keep this in mind. You need to actually create a real, functional, multi-faceted system, and a core generalship. You need all the branches working with one another. And, you need to maybe not take over the world, because that's a horrible idea and very difficult. It also helps if you don't waste money and time killing all the Jews and Poles, etc. as you're losing the war. That's just illogical. Then again: the Nazis are not very logical, even Hitler as logical as he was at times. The failed invasion of Russia was also a major issue, but was likely not as big an issue as the other combined factors, actually!
Part Four: Good Generalship
Speaking of generals and the failure of Hitler's leadership, for a more stable evil empire -- or for your other faction/'good guys', you might want to look to America during WWII. Not perfect, of course, and I cannot defend all of its choices or systems or reasoning, but it's certainly one of the best systems that we saw (and there is every indication that America's generalship and army leadership has only become worse since 1945). I also recall some stories of the Navy having some major struggles, too, and just overall downfall of its culture and traditions (begininng as ealry as the 1970s). For example, drinking mostly died out in the Navy by the 1990s, and so the bars were shut down on bases, etc.
One problem with this was the lack of 'telling story' (as they say). This is when the men would meet in the bar, tell stories of war, of the great heroes -- get inspired, and wiser, with any luck. Not sure how widespread this is, but the storytelling and social meeting element of this seems to come back somewhat since then. This is just one example of something deeply important to sailors, and you remove such at your own risk. You need to 'tell story', you need to be inspired, you need to have naval heroes to look up to. The same logic applies to the soldiers of the Army, too.
It's almost like the soul was ripped out of the American military in the 1950s, and it has struggled to put it back in ever since.
So, what did the generalship of WWII look like? What can we learn from it? Well, we have to turn to one George C. Marshall. But, first, let's go back to 1939. America had a standing army of about 200,000 men: pretty standard for peacetime. Very small. By 1945, Marshall stood down a force of over 10 million. Beginning around 1942, America went from a fairly minor military power with relatively little spending, to the greatest military power in the world -- likely, in history.
It all began in WWI, as it turns out. In the first place, the Americans shifted to a more European system by this time, which largely remained through WWII. This is where they got their division system from, and all their numbering systems and such.
Despite popular belief, the Nazi military was not great, logistically speaking. They were good, and tried very hard to fight dozens of nations at once, and deal with tens of millions of people -- but their systems and talent were just not up to the task. It's often noted that the Nazis could not even out-do the Polish counter-intelligence by 1940!
The U.S. military, on the other hand, was elegant beyond measure. You can get a sense of this via its Navy, paying close attention to its ID system, almost impossible turn-over of Victory ships, and its battleships and otherwise major vessels. These are iconic for a reason, and still command and defend the waters of the world today (along with the British submarines and others).
Well, it's worth noting that the Americans were actually fighting for freedom, not just food or world control, like the Nazis and German citizens were. The Americans were also not really forced into battle, unlike the Germans. On top of this, the Americans -- largely thanks to Marshall -- had a profound merit-based system. Nazi Germany, on the other hand, was so racially biased as to be almost self-defeating. Often, for example, high-ranking civil positions, such as a factory chief, would be a Nazi member, regardless of his abilities. On the other hand, if a great worker looked 'too Jewish' he would never be hired (this was mostly done by photo ID, and was understood via big noses and otherwise features).
Although America had its own major racial issues at this time, and was not wonderfully fond of Jews, it had enough wisdom and goodness to primarily focus on merit and ability.
Returning again to WWI for a moment, Marshall himself noted that there was a complete failure of the system. It had hardly moved on for over 100 years (which is to be imagined, as a military system innately requires stability and a lack of change). But, this was too much... the world was changing, and the military was not. Marshall had the wisdom and ability to fix this during WWII as Chief of Staff with extreme power and focus. First of all, he outright fired any general or otherwise not up to the task of WWII. Not even joking. He literally walked up to them, and fired them on the spot. He fired them if they were (a) too old; (b) too aggressive; (c) not aggressive enough; and/or (d) too illogical/stupid.
He would entirely remove them, or relocate them to other positions, where they were either of use, or out of the way.
So, by 1942, Marshall rallied for great action from America, and began his process of re-shaping the American generalship. He did so across a few dimensions. First of all, he understood that America was not Prussia or France or England. He understood that America had its own values and rituals: he lent into that and used it. This was the birth of the American military we see today, to the degree that it's functional and proper. Most of all, this bled down the ranks, to the soldier himself. This is where we get the 'cocky, arrogant American soldier' from. This actually began as a very good thing, showing supreme faith, bravery, and optimism. He made it really easy for us... he wrote a list! I do love a good list...
The four qualities (well, really, about seven) a good general or leader requires, according to Marshall, circa 1920 (in a letter). Clearly, written just after WWI and everything he saw therein:
Note: An added bit of interest might be that we can blame Marshall for why America has a 'General of the Army' instead of a 'field marshal' (like Europe, etc.). They thought it would be unthinkable to have a 'Marshal Marshall', so by luck of the gods, his name was entirely the wrong name for the job when it came time, in late-1944, for the first ever modern rank of 'marshal', or General of the Army). This is a five-star rank, just above general (full general/four-star general).
(In theory, the six-star general rank would be 'General of the Armies' (plural), though this rank no longer exists in any real sense, though it does apply to Washington, since 1976. In a German context, this is 'Reichsmarschall' (Reich Marshal; which applied to Goring only), one rank above 'field marshal' -- which is also known as 'marshal', 'general field marshal', or 'field marshal general'. Interestingly, Hitler had wanted Goring to take command, if anything should happen to him. But, Goring asked Hitler directly for command towards the end of the war, which made Hitler so angry as to call for his death. I guess, he hurt Hitler's ego, to say the least.)
submitted by TheRetroWorkshop to TDLH [link] [comments]