Did I?

To answer that, no, I didn't. But after seeing this, i did a 5-second google survey and found articles stating this study " debunked" and "proved." The article linked here uses the word "shown," and you have to get 4 paragraphs in before words like "proposed" get used.

So while i didn't make that jump other people did

And to be clear, I dont support the author they are going after in any way. The notion that northwest europeans in Britian communicated enough with Eastern Mediterranean cultures (Egyptians) to obtain, understand, and utilize their calendar system in 2500 bce is sort of silly.

This is just another theory in a huge field of competing theories. I wouldnt place too much emphasis on it as others in the field have already pointed out that the authors are just giving preference to their pet assumptions over other researchers' preferences.

Most glaringly is their 1st point, which assumes that ancients required a few arc minutes or greater precision, thats kinda ridiculous. For reference, the dot that is Jupiter to the naked eye is about 1 arc minute wide.

20 years ago, Dr Clive Ruggles wrote a paper that I feel lays out an elegant and convincing argument.

There are no first-hand records or writing from the period. We simply dont know if Stonehenge was or was not used for "astronomy," and if anyone says otherwise, they have to be making large assumptions. Those assumptions tell you more about the researchers in question than they do about Stonehenge.

American here in the early US there was a strong early push to regimental and formalize rail road engineer education.

Peter Cooper was an inventor and self-described "tinkerer" who apprenticed as a coach maker at 17. He was noted be have an excellent command of letters and numbers which hints that he was well-educated at home. He went on to found several profitable businesses, had a respectable number of useful patents, founded the Cooper Union for the Advancements of Science and the Art which is still active and relevant to this discussion as he invented the 1st American locomotive the Tom Thumb, and served as its 1st engineer. Cooper put a premium on education and he had a strong influence on early railroad culture.

From the beginning American 1st rail company, the B&O had in house education and is one of the earliest companies that published data on its educational expenses. As early as the mid 1830s the B&O was paying experienced engineers to teach new prospective engineers and by the 1840s they were talking about curriculums.

Most potential engineers would start as menial laborers at a railroad at a young age. Literate kids who picked up numbers could get apprenticed in maintenance sheds and if they showed promise they could move on to be a fireman and would start being educated by their employers eventually working up to becoming an engineer. Specifics varied widely but the general arc was the same.

Another path was opened to men with formal education which involved running them through an in house program of engineering. When they finished they were rated to run a locomotive but the programs tended to be geared towards management. These men would spend some time on the rails but the idea was to give them practical experience they could use when later in their careers they were building timetables, managing groups of engineers etc.

Either way, by the the 1860s you had railroad companies lead by life long railmen who often had worked up through the ranks. These guys as a group valued formal education to such a degree that they pushed hard for the Morrill Act of 1862 which set aside government land and funds for education in the Mechnical and Agricultural arts.

the 1st Quarter Century of Steam Locomotives in America

The Education of Engineers in America before the Morrill Act of 1862

Reporting for Success: The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad and Management Information, 1827-1856

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/civil_war/MorrillLandGrantCollegeAct_FeaturedDoc.htm#:~:text=First%20proposed%20when%20Morrill%20was,law%20on%20July%202%2C%201862.

Fucking Australia.

Only thing motr hard core then a fucking python trying to drag your kid to his death is a 76 year grandfather diving in and attacking said python.

Do you have some history to the discussion that went into that that you can link?

My german is just sufficient to work through a page but not good enough to catch subtle details that allows me asses if Im reading a good source or not.

Also the anglonet pretty much shits on its self when i try to search in english.

I guess my issue is in part this is being presented like it's new info by a European author in a European publication and it has an Amerikkkan slant.

That's especially erroneous to me because America and the Soviet Union were the primary drivers behind attempts to bring the industrialist to justice and several countries actively sought to undermind us. Specficly France (the Jacobist is HQed in Paris) and the Netherlands (im thinking the author is based there) had many ties with the Nazis.

That's not to say that the French werent willing to go after Nazis, they just didnt cooperate with the prosecution of industrialists. Menthon and Ribe specifically were both very effective here but contrast them against Vabres who single-handedly shot down entire categories of prosecution and specifically seemed to shield european and German civilians.

All that said I hope the author is just trying to get people jazzed up over his new book and the book itself will yield high-quality and possibly new info.

Saw The Jacobin and hoped it was a post in /bad history.

I get having to drive engagement for a book but except for the staff at the Jacobin, this is new news to exactly no one. It was hashed out extensively back in the 1950s in news and print. Books have been written and "new" stories have popped up regularly in the decades since.

While I am looking forward to giving the book a read the article is kinda crap. Many small contextual issues and I feel that the author, David De Jong is almost criminally misrepresenting not only the American position on the trials but also the European position.

1st of all the "capitalism on trial argument" was essentially a sound bit. Politicians had little say on the actual docket. In several cases, the prosecution did not feel it had the evidence it needed. In others, the jurists argued the court had no legal standing.

2cd acting like the US somehow brushed aside UK and French opinions is frankly insulting. Both the United Kingdom and France sent world-class jurists, judges, and staff to the trials, and men like Auguste Champetier de Ribes could not have cared less about American political sensibilities. And that leaves the Soviets. Love them or hate them they immediately from 0 to OFF WITH THEIR HEADS* in every case brought to trial.

3rd the limited cases of industrialists being prosecuted were all brought to court by the Americans. Not the Allies but the American government brought Krupp, Flick, and IG Farben to trial, and pretty much everyone in Europe shit on them for it.

Most of the charges were dropped due to lack of standing and evidence or should I say lack of admissible evidence. The major charge that stuck was international plunder followed by slave labor and that's not a coincidence, those are the charges supported to the greatest degree by the European powers.

And then after the war, again in well described and greatly discussed fashion most of the criminals saw their punishments commuted, charges dropped and in general got to walk. None of this is new, non of it was secret and in fact much, if not most of it was publicity available info until relatively recently when European powers started "protecting privacy" by eliminating access to much of the history here.

• This is hyperbole, the Soviet judges preferred a single shot through the crown down into the base of the skull which left the head quite attached to the neck.

Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

That woman was every bit as foul as her father.