Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 30th, 2017, 10:39 AM   #11
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Guadalajara
Posts: 470

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chlodio View Post
The key word is IF you can land divisions... The largest airborne operation in history was Market-Garden in 1944. It involved three airborne divisions plus an independent brigade. Even after several years of wartime construction, there were not enough transport planes to land all of those troops at once. They were planned to be dropped in over three days and because of bad weather it actually took longer. Two German divisions were flown into Crete in 1941 but again it took several days to complete the lift. To suggest that this many transport planes would be available in August 1914 is, at best, unrealistic.

By attacking multiple points at once, you're just giving the French smaller targets to pick off one by one during their counter-attacks. You'd be better off dropping all of your airborne troops at one place, but it's still unrealistic. Even if you could insert three or four divisions into Paris, which you wouldn't have enough lift for, they would still be defeated by a French counter attack in about a week, if not less.

The peacetime French army would be able to mop-up the odd German airborne division or two or three without having to mobilize the French reserves.

If I was going to explore this idea further, I wouldn't use those Sikorsky four engine planes you mentioned. I'd use Zepelins - more proven technology and it's technology the Germans were more familiar with and therefore more likely to use.

As far as dashing across the border and sneaking into ports, the best you could hope for was to insert a few light forces which would be exposed to rapid counter-attack before they could be reinforced.

The German Schliefen Plan called for a rapid, overwhelming advance into Belgium and France. Yet, Germany was unable to begin its advance until four or five days after they began mobilizing. France began mobilizing on the same day as Germany and was already several days into mobilization when Germany first crossed the Belgian border. Germany could not make its first moves before France began its own mobilization. Wherever Germany made your proposed sneak attacks by light forces, France would be able to quickly counter-attack with heavier forces from its peace-time army.
Again, Market garden took place 5 years into a WW agianst the most experienced and efficient army (after the Finnish army) in the world and was planned by idiots like Monty. We are talking about landing thousands of slow planes at down in peacetime.

The very efficeint propellers make much less noise than any other plane's combination of props and engines, and the small engines are muffled.

A ruse might be to sell 500 passenger planes to Spain, in exchange for ships, produce, etc, and to request permission for the slow planes to land in France to refuel in order to reach Spain. The same thing can be done with Ireland and Britain. So they will even expect to see a large number of planes flying overnight to land in France at dawn to refuel and continue to Spain or in Britian and continue to Ireland.
ruthenium is online now  
Remove Ads
Old December 30th, 2017, 11:01 AM   #12
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2016
From: Dispargum
Posts: 2,214

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
Again, Market garden took place 5 years into a WW agianst the most experienced and efficient army (after the Finnish army) in the world and was planned by idiots like Monty. We are talking about landing thousands of slow planes at down in peacetime.

The very efficeint propellers make much less noise than any other plane's combination of props and engines, and the small engines are muffled.

A ruse might be to sell 500 passenger planes to Spain, in exchange for ships, produce, etc, and to request permission for the slow planes to land in France to refuel in order to reach Spain. The same thing can be done with Ireland and Britain. So they will even expect to see a large number of planes flying overnight to land in France at dawn to refuel and continue to Spain or in Britian and continue to Ireland.
I don't care how efficient your propellers are, you're not going to have enough planes in August 1914.

Did 500 passenger planes even exist on the entire planet in August 1914? My sense is that in 1914 civilian aviation was only a novelty. They weren't really flying mail yet, nevermind regular passenger service.

Getting the airborne troops to their drop zones is less than half the battle. You also have to keep them supplied until heavier forces arrive which won't be until after those airborne forces are destroyed in counter-attacks. The French would have several times more troops to counter-attack at Paris than the Germans had at Arnhem.
Chlodio is offline  
Old December 30th, 2017, 01:13 PM   #13

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,947

So now the thread has changed from how the Germans would "magically' invent airborne forces in 1914 to how the Weimar Republic could restart WWI and win WWII.

This Republic that is struggling economically, will find it easy apparantly to build 20000 of this new super plane plus 10,000 other aircraft. In addition to numerous other new weapons.

All in secret.

These new weapons will be transported to UK etc in diplomatic bags to be issued to the 100,000's German troops who will sneak in disguised as tourists.

Also countries such as Ireland will volunteer to become German provinces , just why ! And the British wouldn't notice!

This super aircraft that carries 100 troops , much more than a DC3 and has bigger bomb load than the B-17 but made a decade before.

Is this speculative history or just fantasy?
Kevinmeath is online now  
Old December 30th, 2017, 02:08 PM   #14

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,947

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
Again, Market garden took place 5 years into a WW .
Yep 5 years into a war where airborne forces were first used, where their use and delivery was thought about by experts and new techniques developed and they still could not successfully carry out an operation that was a fraction of the size that you suggest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
agianst the most experienced and efficient army (after the Finnish army) in the world and.
Well not sure the German army was that good and certainly by late 1944 to say that they were suffering from attrition would be an understatement.

Not sure the Finns ,as brave as they were, count as the most experienced etc.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
was planned by idiots like Monty. We are talking about landing thousands of slow planes at down in peacetime..
The Monty who beat the Germans? an idiot-- don't like the person myself but not an idiot and the planning of airborne operations in WWII ,even Market garden , are much more grounded in reality compared to your fantasies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
The very efficeint propellers make much less noise than any other plane's combination of props and engines, and the small engines are muffled.

A ruse might be to sell 500 passenger planes to Spain, in exchange for ships, produce, etc, and to request permission for the slow planes to land in France to refuel in order to reach Spain. The same thing can be done with Ireland and Britain. So they will even expect to see a large number of planes flying overnight to land in France at dawn to refuel and continue to Spain or in Britian and continue to Ireland.
How on earth is the Weimar Republic going to secretly build 500 of your 'super planes' !
Kevinmeath is online now  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 07:51 AM   #15
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Guadalajara
Posts: 470

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
Yep 5 years into a war where airborne forces were first used, where their use and delivery was thought about by experts and new techniques developed and they still could not successfully carry out an operation that was a fraction of the size that you suggest.



Well not sure the German army was that good and certainly by late 1944 to say that they were suffering from attrition would be an understatement.

Not sure the Finns ,as brave as they were, count as the most experienced etc.




The Monty who beat the Germans? an idiot-- don't like the person myself but not an idiot and the planning of airborne operations in WWII ,even Market garden , are much more grounded in reality compared to your fantasies.



How on earth is the Weimar Republic going to secretly build 500 of your 'super planes' !
Airborne forces (paratrooper or landed by plane and seaplane) were used quite successfully in Norway, Holland and Belgium in 1940, in Crete in 1941 and by the US (quite incometently) in against France in North Africa (britlliantly fighyting fgratuitously a neutral nation) in 1942, in Sicily in 1943 and in Normandy in June 1944, so Market was not the first operation at all, but it was certainly the most disastrous. Monty was quite a coward in N Africa, He had a huge tank and air force, american artillery, trucks, fuel, food, etc, and let Rommel escape from el Alamein with 50 bloody tanks all the way to Tunisia (thousands of km away), the same in Sicily and Normandy, he advanced always at snail's pace after thousands of bombers had wiped out German troops, but advanced so slowly that the Germans always had time to reinforce the area and cause him heavy losses. Yet in Market Garden the idiot dumped division among Panzer divisions, which mauled them. He sent his tanks along a raised road in flooded terrain, where 88 mm guns picked them off at 2 km and lost a lot of tanks (despite having thousands of planes to wipe out the 88 mm guns).

The Finns certainly were the most efficient army in WW II, always underequipped, their tiny army, navy and air force held back far more formidable Soviet forces than the Japanese who trounced Stilwell, Mac, the British in Malaya, etc,

While US and British pilots did quite poorly with the Buffalo, the Finns improved it and did extremely well with it. Their 19th century artillery caused the Soviets thousands of casualties in the winter war, until they ran oput of shells. When they got better German artillery and Stug during the contuation war, their tactics destroyed far more tanks per gun and man than the Germans, not to mention the lousy Soviet, British and American artilleries, which showered the enemy for a few hits.

Monty, Zhukov, Patton, De Gaule, etc, did not beat the Germans individually. They all lost far more men than the Germans did. Of course a large gang of idiots can trounce the world heavy weight champion. The Soviets also defeated the Finns, after years of incurring ridiculously high casualties.

While Germany defeated strong, rich France in weeks. The huge US were so incompetent that it took 4 years, a huge Soviet army destroying the bulk of the Japanese army, a ridiculously huge industry, fleet and air force and 2 atomic bombs to defeat, tiny, poor Japan.

The worn out German army in 1944 held back a huge invasion force with 12,000 planes, naval artillery, tens of thousands of tanks, cannon, etc, so British and Americans could not break out of Normandy for months. Even Caen (within naval gun range), which was scheduled to fall in a day took over a month to fall! In contrast, Germany defeated France with a few thousand planes and tanks in weeks. Brbarossa also had a few thousand German planes and Tanks spread over a huge area. Never was there such a concentration of planes, troops, armor, artillery and naval guns as in a tiny area in Normandy-Cherbourg and so unsuccessful!

I already explained that that the airliners are less threatening than the Ju-52 and He 111 built OTL by Germany before the war and these planes are easier to build (using 36 hp engines made by the millions to make also motorcycles, tractors, cars, etc,), they are not more secret than the Ju 52 and He 111 were, which OTL the British and French did nothing to stop production. Obviously, it is not the Weimar Republic who builds them, but Hitler, when he takes over in 1933 (instead of building the useless Autobahn and capital warships).

Last edited by ruthenium; January 2nd, 2018 at 08:15 AM.
ruthenium is online now  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 08:30 AM   #16
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Guadalajara
Posts: 470

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
So now the thread has changed from how the Germans would "magically' invent airborne forces in 1914 to how the Weimar Republic could restart WWI and win WWII.

This Republic that is struggling economically, will find it easy apparantly to build 20000 of this new super plane plus 10,000 other aircraft. In addition to numerous other new weapons.

All in secret.

These new weapons will be transported to UK etc in diplomatic bags to be issued to the 100,000's German troops who will sneak in disguised as tourists.

Also countries such as Ireland will volunteer to become German provinces , just why ! And the British wouldn't notice!

This super aircraft that carries 100 troops , much more than a DC3 and has bigger bomb load than the B-17 but made a decade before.

Is this speculative history or just fantasy?
The thread has not changed an iota. Uddet's mental exercise about the Kaiser simply provided the epiphany of realizing that airborne troops, debarking troops and motorcycle troops far behind the front are far more valuable than infantry and eay to achieve in peacetime.

A few of the weapons munitions, etc, accumulated over a year in all invaded countries will go a long ways to boost the airborne, debarked and motorcycle forces in all countries.

Countries such as Ireland, Holland, etc, were hit extremely hard by the depression and after building ships for Germany and selling agricultural products, oil rubber, etc, to Germany and thriving, have more incentive to ask for German annexation than, for example for Ireland (who was in tariffs war with hated Britain in 1935), to continue buying coal, etc, from Britain and selling the small British population food (Germany's larger population consumed more food and Germany had coal, etc, and is building industries in Ireland, which Britain never did in centuries of rule. It build them only in Ulster). Britain is also importing meat from Australia, grain from Canada, etc, so its demand for Irish food is limited. In contrast, Germany was buying grain, etc, from the hated Soviets, so it makes more sense for it to buy from Ireland and induce it to request annexation.

If Ireland and or Holland, Poland, Lithuania, Finland, etc, request annexation, there is nothing that Britian can do short of devlaring war on Ireland and Germany, which war weary Britions will never tolerate in the 1930s. They were certainly relieved when Chamberlain gave away Czechoslovakia in 1938-39, without going to war and Cz had a mighty war industry and was not annexed, but invaded.

Last edited by ruthenium; January 2nd, 2018 at 08:40 AM.
ruthenium is online now  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 08:36 AM   #17
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Guadalajara
Posts: 470

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chlodio View Post
I don't care how efficient your propellers are, you're not going to have enough planes in August 1914.

Did 500 passenger planes even exist on the entire planet in August 1914? My sense is that in 1914 civilian aviation was only a novelty. They weren't really flying mail yet, nevermind regular passenger service.

Getting the airborne troops to their drop zones is less than half the battle. You also have to keep them supplied until heavier forces arrive which won't be until after those airborne forces are destroyed in counter-attacks. The French would have several times more troops to counter-attack at Paris than the Germans had at Arnhem.
I already explained that plane construction takes place in the 30s and that OTL supplying forces far behind the lines took place with a few, small Ju 52 in Demyansk in 1942 against formidable forces. ATL France is not even mobilized, Germany is capturing not only Paris, Moscow and London, but also many adjacent cities and airfields, which soon link up, France, Britain, Switzerland and the USSR are not even mobilized. The RN, French and Soviet navies have much reduced peacetime crews, etc, All countries count on border attacks to provide time for mobiilization, recruitment, deployment, etc, which ATL is not the case.

Last edited by ruthenium; January 2nd, 2018 at 09:00 AM.
ruthenium is online now  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 08:55 AM   #18
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2017
From: Guadalajara
Posts: 470

Among the light guns produced by the tens of thousands for the invasions, Uddet also included a light, rapid fire AT gun, like the French 25 mm Hotchkiss gun, 20 of which are stored in each German embassy and consulate disassembled.

in 1935 Uddet suggests Hitler a ruse to induce the weak countries facing Stalin to request German annexation. Puclish in all these countries the following letter sent to Stalin.

Comrade Stalin,
Germany regrets to inform you that if the USSR invades any of the weak countries neighboring it, Germany will also invade that country as soon as possibloe, in order to ensure that the Soviet border remains as far from the present German border as possible. However, German forces will not engage Sviet forces when they meet tham, unless attacked. Hopefully we can make good neighbors and trade partners.
Your future neighbor, Adolph Hitler.

Stalin is certainly encouraged to invade Finland, etc, and order immediate troop deployment to Finland and Estonia.

As soon as the military in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Hungary, etc, they realize that Stalin will be encouraged to invade and share countries with Germany. When they detect Soviet build up near Finland and Estonia:
Mannerheim immediately informs the government that Finland cannot hold back Soviet and German forces more than a few days and with terrible losses. Therefore annexation and reinforcement must be requested immediately, before Stalin strikes and Finland is divided between the 2 colossi. Finland requests annexation and reinforcement on the following day. Hitler immediately flies in troops and sends ships with troops, 20 88 mm guns, 100 37 mm AT guns, 10,000 heavy machine guns, 10,000 heavy mortars, etc,

Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are encouraged by Finland, an request annexation onthe Following day. Romania and Poland now that Stalin is running out of easy prey and will soon invade them. They also reuest annexation rather than fighting large armies on 2 fronts. When Finland thrives with new factories, shipyards, etc, Czechoslovakia and Hungary also request annexation.

Last edited by ruthenium; January 2nd, 2018 at 08:59 AM.
ruthenium is online now  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 11:42 AM   #19

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,947

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
Airborne forces (paratrooper or landed by plane and seaplane) were used quite successfully in Norway, Holland and Belgium in 1940, in Crete in 1941 and by the US (quite incometently) in against France in North Africa (britlliantly fighyting fgratuitously a neutral nation) in 1942, in Sicily in 1943 and in Normandy in June 1944, so Market was not the first operation at all, but it was certainly the most disastrous..

Actually all airborne operations had very mixed result-- and all were on a tiny scale compared to your 'plan' -- and were designed to meet up very quickly with land forces as lightly armed with limited ammunition airborne forces are very vulnerable to counter attacks.

Market garden was the largest operation attempted at that time , but on a tiny scale , compared to your 'ambitious' plan and was done with the experience of other operations . Your on the other hand is being done on an enormous scale with thousands of 'super planes' all built and trained in secret.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
Monty was quite a coward in N Africa, He had a huge tank and air force, american artillery, trucks, fuel, food, etc, and let Rommel escape from el Alamein with 50 bloody tanks all the way to Tunisia (thousands of km away), the same in Sicily and Normandy, he advanced always at snail's pace after thousands of bombers had wiped out German troops, but advanced so slowly that the Germans always had time to reinforce the area and cause him heavy losses..
An alternative to your explanation of cowardice is that he wanted to avoid the back and forth nature of the previous battles and ensure that his logistical support was secure.

Monty was a cautious commander he was also a winning one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
Yet in Market Garden the idiot dumped division among Panzer divisions, which mauled them. He sent his tanks along a raised road in flooded terrain, where 88 mm guns picked them off at 2 km and lost a lot of tanks (despite having thousands of planes to wipe out the 88 mm guns)..
Well his idiotic plan makes a lot more sense than yours does!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
The Finns certainly were the most efficient army in WW II, always underequipped, their tiny army, navy and air force held back far more formidable Soviet forces than the Japanese who trounced Stilwell, Mac, the British in Malaya, etc,.

The Finnish army did well but I think calling it the 'most efficient' is a stretch and their performance against the Soviet Union in the 'Winter War' was as much to do with the environment and Soviet weakness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
While US and British pilots did quite poorly with the Buffalo, the Finns improved it and did extremely well with it. Their 19th century artillery caused the Soviets thousands of casualties in the winter war, until they ran oput of shells. When they got better German artillery and Stug during the contuation war, their tactics destroyed far more tanks per gun and man than the Germans, not to mention the lousy Soviet, British and American artilleries, which showered the enemy for a few hits..
The Buffalo in Finns hands shows that its not the machine but other factors that are more important in combat.

I'll bow to your 'superior knowledge' regarding Allied artillery. I have not read before of them being so poor and seem to remember Germans commenting upon the intensity of artillery bombardment in the West. I do know the British had some excellent Anti-tank guns and the 25 pdr was excellent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
Monty, Zhukov, Patton, De Gaule, etc, did not beat the Germans individually. They all lost far more men than the Germans did. Of course a large gang of idiots can trounce the world heavy weight champion. The Soviets also defeated the Finns, after years of incurring ridiculously high casualties..
Not sure I'd class them as idiot or their German counterpart's as world champions

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
While Germany defeated strong, rich France in weeks. .
France was not strong in 1940.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
The huge US were so incompetent that it took 4 years, a huge Soviet army destroying the bulk of the Japanese army, a ridiculously huge industry, fleet and air force and 2 atomic bombs to defeat, tiny, poor Japan..
It fought the Japanese Empire (while fighting Germany) and utterly defeated it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
The worn out German army in 1944 held back a huge invasion force with 12,000 planes, naval artillery, tens of thousands of tanks, cannon, etc, so British and Americans could not break out of Normandy for months. Even Caen (within naval gun range), which was scheduled to fall in a day took over a month to fall! .
Don't suppose would should discuss brocage or anything like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
In contrast, Germany defeated France with a few thousand planes and tanks in weeks. Brbarossa also had a few thousand German planes and Tanks spread over a huge area. Never was there such a concentration of planes, troops, armor, artillery and naval guns as in a tiny area in Normandy-Cherbourg and so unsuccessful!.
You are aware the Germans lost in Normandy?!

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
I already explained that that the airliners are less threatening than the Ju-52 and He 111 built OTL by Germany before the war and these planes are easier to build (using 36 hp engines made by the millions to make also motorcycles, tractors, cars, etc,), they are not more secret than the Ju 52 and He 111 were, which OTL the British and French did nothing to stop production. Obviously, it is not the Weimar Republic who builds them, but Hitler, when he takes over in 1933 (instead of building the useless Autobahn and capital warships) .
So your 'plan' is for Nazi Germany to secretly re-arm --which they did-- and not to spend their sparse resources on viable weapons and infra-structure but to secretly build and enormous fleet of 'superplanes' --powered by 'motor cycle' engines-- that will drop 100,000's of paratroopers in a surprise attack?

And you call Arnhem idiotic!
Kevinmeath is online now  
Old January 2nd, 2018, 12:06 PM   #20

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,947

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
The thread has not changed an iota. Uddet's mental exercise about the Kaiser simply provided the epiphany of realizing that airborne troops, debarking troops and motorcycle troops far behind the front are far more valuable than infantry and eay to achieve in peacetime..
Sorry no the thread started in 1914, you then changed when it was pointed out that the plan simply couldn't work then.

Light troops isolated and alone are not more useful than infantry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
A few of the weapons munitions, etc, accumulated over a year in all invaded countries will go a long ways to boost the airborne, debarked and motorcycle forces in all countries..
Don't you think Britain and France might notice these huge supply dumps suddenly appearing in the country staffed by rather young fit looking 'German tourists'?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
Countries such as Ireland, Holland, etc, were hit extremely hard by the depression and after building ships for Germany and selling agricultural products, oil rubber, etc, to Germany and thriving, have more incentive to ask for German annexation than,.
Germany was badly hit and I don't see its practical that Germany would spend its sparse resources enabling Holland and Ireland to become prosperous.

The Netherlands has been a independent country for a long time and (with Dutch family connections) I assure that becoming a province of Germany would be a very unpopular idea.

You really think newly independent Ireland is really going to move from the British Empire to a province of Germany?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
for example for Ireland (who was in tariffs war with hated Britain in 1935), to continue buying coal, etc, from Britain and selling the small British population food (Germany's larger population consumed more food and Germany had coal, etc, and is building industries in Ireland, which Britain never did in centuries of rule. It build them only in Ulster). Britain is also importing meat from Australia, grain from Canada, etc, so its demand for Irish food is limited. In contrast, Germany was buying grain, etc, from the hated Soviets, so it makes more sense for it to buy from Ireland and induce it to request annexation..
You really don't know much about Ireland or its history do you?

Britain's population is not small and Ireland is and was even more so in the 1930's, totally inter-woven into the British economy.

You are also aware that a huge number of Irish people live in Britain and most Irish families would have some sort of connection to Britain.

100,000's of Irishmen fought in the British army 1914-18 and thousands left Ireland to fight in WWII.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruthenium View Post
If Ireland and or Holland, Poland, Lithuania, Finland, etc, request annexation, there is nothing that Britian can do short of devlaring war on Ireland and Germany, which war weary Britions will never tolerate in the 1930s. They were certainly relieved when Chamberlain gave away Czechoslovakia in 1938-39, without going to war and Cz had a mighty war industry and was not annexed, but invaded.

If Ireland were to declare itself a province of Germany (which it wouldn't) war is exactly what you'd see. British would occupy the country within hours and its just about the only circumstance that I can think of which would see the average Irishmen say 'fair enough'.
Kevinmeath is online now  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
1927, epiphany, uddet



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Epiphany and the witch [Befana] AlpinLuke Art and Cultural History 0 January 5th, 2014 02:42 PM
May 22, 1927 Inc General History 10 December 12th, 2011 04:42 PM
Intellectual Epiphany: Know what I Mean? coberst Philosophy, Political Science, and Sociology 2 March 23rd, 2009 02:06 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.