“The Irishman,” the recently released Martin Scorsese film based on an allegedly true story about organized crime in and around Pennsylvania, frequently introduces a minor character along with a brief on-screen note explaining how and when they died. In almost all of those notes, the cause is violent and premature, which I presume is the main lesson Scorsese intends to impart. But the majority of those deaths are also in either 1980 or 1981, which seems random — the film is primarily set in the 1950s and 1960s, with nothing acted out between 1975 and roughly 2003.
I see general online debate over the accuracy of other aspects of the movie (and another AskHistorians post from two weeks ago with this same question but no answers), but no indication of why (or if) a large number of gangsters who were prominent in 1950s and 1960s Philadelphia would be killed in 1980 or 1981. What was going on around this time?
1 Answers 2019-12-13
What was the NSDAP's official position on religion?
Did they try to create their own organised religion? Were they secular? Are the crazy things we hear about Nazi's religious beliefs an underground thing and up to each individual?
What did it's members actually believe in? Did it deviate much from the party stance?
I've heard everything ranging from "the Nazis hated Christianity" to "actually the Nazis were traditionalist conservative Christians." I've also heard that Hitler was an atheist or that he and some high ranking members were occultist obsessed with mythical items like the Ark of the Covenant (as portrayed in Indiana Jones). How true is that?
My understanding so far is that they hated Christianity (antisemitism, anti-Vatican). But at the same time a lot of their values seem to be based on Judeo-Christian morals (position of women in society, views on homosexuality). However their revival of Germanic mythology appears to be blatant neo-paganism...
I would appreciate if someone could clarify this for me.
Disclaimer: I do not support Nazism/NSDAP or any other type of racist fascist organisation. I am simply trying to understand this from an academic perspective.
1 Answers 2019-12-13
What size were the stones used for castles approximately? I can’t seem to find anything about this, wether online or in books. All I’ve found I joe castle walls were made, what materials were used and even how thick the walls were. But nothing about the size of the actual stones.
1 Answers 2019-12-13
Me and my friend have been talking about it for a while and I’m just looking for another opinion on the subject. I only ask because of how disproportional the casualties are between the Soviets and the US. Any answer is much appreciated.
1 Answers 2019-12-13
I've visited the infamous prison in Phnom Penh on holiday. It was a shocking and terrible place. I was wondering however, surely there were other places like this during the Khmer Rouge regime? If so, what were they like and were they different to S-21?
1 Answers 2019-12-13
I was curious to see if anyone had any book recommendations on the Wild West and Native American history.
1 Answers 2019-12-13
I suppose this is a better question for /r/asksnobs, but I was just watching a video on 100-year-old aged cheese, and the first thing that popped into my mind was "wait, the first world war ended about a hundred years ago." Did the World Wars influence the production of long scale, time related goods like luxury cheeses and wines? Did farms particularly redirect a large amount of their resources to supporting the war efforts that we had a shock in the cheese market a hundred years later, or was this sort of production so negligible to the overall output of the farms, that there wasn't a change in the quantity produced.
Edit: please forgive the typo in the title
2 Answers 2019-12-13
So what are some practical tips? Perhaps looking up sources for a dissertation before you apply? Perhaps start studying a second language before you apply? How important is it to find the right professor/department? How are living conditions expenses? The workload? Any practical advice that potential scholars could use.
1 Answers 2019-12-13
2 Answers 2019-12-13
1 Answers 2019-12-13
Was the matter considered resolved if the opponent was only wounded? What happened if they both missed?
1 Answers 2019-12-13
If there were, were they like horse drawn or something like that? And were there people on those carriages that would treat those in need on the way to . . . wherever they would be taken to?
1 Answers 2019-12-12
My understanding is that the threat of mutually assured destruction made the use of nuclear threats between well-armed great powers and their core interests such as the US and NATO vs. the USSR and the Warsaw Pact not credible for fear of retribution worse than any profit that could be gained.
However, there were non-aligned countries which were not under any nuclear umbrella and were not part of any great power's core interests. Nuclear weapons had already been used in war by that point against Japan in World War II as a more efficient and effective means of delivering strategic bombing so as to compel the submission of a non-nuclear power to a nuclear-armed great power through the credible threat of annihilation (though if I understand it correctly, there are credible arguments to be made that in the specific case of WWII Japan the Soviet invasion of Manchuria had an equal or larger role than US strategic bombing in compelling the Empire of Japan to surrender because the invasion signaled the closure of the option of having the Soviets approach the Allies to bargain for Japan's conditional surrender, because what remained of the Imperial Japanese Army was mostly annihilated in Manchuria and thus would be unavailable to transport back to the home isles for the final defense, and because the invasion cut off the sources of what little food made it through the US Navy's blockade of the home isles thus bringing assuring starvation within days rather than months).
It would seem as though the example of Japan could have been interpreted by nuclear-armed great powers could leverage their arsenals to get countries outside of the core interests of the nuclear-armed powers (and thus outside of the credible threat of nuclear retaliation even if they got a treaty placing them under a nuclear umbrella).
Additionally, great powers during the Cold War were willing to use conventional strategic bombing on large scales against civilian targets to de-industrialize and compel non-nuclear powers to obey them as they had during World War II (strategic bombing during the Korean War, strategic bomding during the Vietnam War) Why did they not use nuclear weapons as more efficient means of achieving de-industrialization and compliance, as they had in the first and so far only uses during conflicts?
Finally, did policymakers in non-nuclear powers that weren't credibly covered by nuclear umbrellas believe that nuclear-armed great powers would use their nuclear arsenals against them if they went significantly against those great powers' interests? How did they pursue (foreign) policy in such a hostile environment?
1 Answers 2019-12-12
I want a good and easy to read book about the Alamo as a gift for someone without a great deal of historical background. I was asked for one by a Fox News host, but I don't think that would be a very good source. My field isn't American History, so any suggestions would be great! Thank you.
1 Answers 2019-12-12
I'm wondering if there are records of individual Americans or small units of American volunteers who fought for either side (but primarily for the British or French) during WW1 prior to official US entry into the war in April of 1917?
By Americans I meant US citizens but I'm interested in all inhabitants of the Americas at large.
Feel free to ask follow up questions for specificity or to refer me to previous posts asking the same question.
1 Answers 2019-12-12
Not only Hiroshima and Nagasaki but also killing defenceless civilians in the Vietnam War? If just because it "shortened the war" It just doesn't add up or, do I miss some points? Please enlighten me.
1 Answers 2019-12-12
How often did Roman v/s Roman battles maintain a disciplined formation and not end in a chaotic, free-for-all melee?
Also, how would soldiers distinguish friend from foe if everyone wore standard Roman armor?
2 Answers 2019-12-12
1 Answers 2019-12-12
I recently read an article about Biblical archaeology, saying that there are a lot of discoveries that lend credence to the idea that the Bible is a completely reliable historical document. Locations, objects, and such, as well as the discovery of tombs of Jewish crucifixion victims that demonstrate that one could both be buried and crucified. It looked pretty veracious... then I got to the bottom and suddenly it started going on about the Shroud of Turin. That kind of cast a shadow over the rest of the article for me, and so I'm left asking, just how much did it get right? Does the article accurately represent the discoveries, and if so, is their conclusion justified?
2 Answers 2019-12-12
"Incompetent" is a joke--I just wanted to emphasize that he was not whitewashing them. 'Stubborn psycho-crusaders' is probably a more accurate description of Crowley's story. My current guess is that there was an equilibrium in the Indian Ocean where war was discouraged by the sheer profitability of peace, so that there was less state-subsidized military innovation than in Europe, where states invested heavily in military technology. Also, while not explaining why the Portuguese had like longer-ranged canons, the fact that they were not on home turf really did allow them much more military flexibility, so it is not like their success was completely tech-determined.
1 Answers 2019-12-12
In latin american history, there were many periods where foreigners tried to control the governmental systems of the native peoples. In what ways would a historian most directly compare the actions of early conquistadors and the american government's interventions into south american politics during the latter half of the 20th century?
1 Answers 2019-12-12