I know the gov't is great at contingency planning- but I wonder how chaotic things were when something major like this actually has happened.
1 Answers 2018-03-13
1 Answers 2018-03-13
In the film Inglorious Basterds there's a famous scene where he says once the Nazi takes the uniform off no one knows he's a Nazi, so he's going to give him something he can't take off.
Got me thinking, just because Hitler shot himself... you know... doesn't mean the millions of people fighting his cause suddenly stopped thinking those thoughts. That was the second time in a short period of time the Germans tried to take on the rest of the world.
What was done to make sure the Germans and other nations who joined them did not become what we might call nowadays 'sleeper cells' of right wing head cases?
1 Answers 2018-03-13
And by that I mean why does the Norman invasion mark the beginning of how it’s basically described and recorded. For instance Edward I is Edward I despite previous Edwards being king. What was it about William I that led to this shift?
2 Answers 2018-03-13
At it's peak, the BUF boasted 50,000 members. From 1932, to 1934, one of it's supporters was the Daily Mail, who once ran a headline reading 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts!" It had a following in London's East End, where in the London County Council elections of March 1937, it obtained reasonably successful results in Bethnal Green, Shoreditch, and Limehouse, polling almost 8,000 votes. Some of it's supporters even included members of the House of Lords.
This obviously begs the question: what made the British Union of Fascists so popular before it's decline and eventual dissolution following the start of World War II?
1 Answers 2018-03-13
One thing I've read a lot recently is that while the inaction and incompetence of the British in Ireland contributed, it is wrong to say that the Irish Famine was used as an intentional tool of genocide. This made me wonder how this can be compared and contrasted with the Holomodor of Ukraine. From what I understand many agree the Holomodor was a genocide, yet in both cases we seem to have mass starvation exacerbated by the state's refusal to accept foreign aid and incompetent handling of the situation.
What are the nitty-gritty details that separate these two famines, and how should they be viewed?
1 Answers 2018-03-13
To clarify - The Allies obviously recognized the way things were run or done within Nazi Germany and wanted to change that did the horrors they unleashed were never brought forth again. However, when it came to formulating the 4 Allied zones and eventually the two German states, were there any laws, administrative functions, political boundaries, etc., that were kept because they were deemed to have worked or at the very least, make things run more efficiently until better solutions were found?
1 Answers 2018-03-13
1 Answers 2018-03-13
So I have an assessment for my History class which requires me to research a significant individual out of a small list that was allowed to be researched. I picked Eleanor of Aquitaine as my significant individual. But, so far I haven't been able to find too much on Eleanor. Well I found one interesting primary source which is the effigy of her, but I came to a realization that this source is not very meaningful, compared to something like a letter would be. I need to 2 primary sources and 2 secondary sources on her. This topic isn't the most relevant topic at the moment so I'm not expecting too many responds, but any help is appreciated. Thanks.
3 Answers 2018-03-13
How sure can we be text & sources we use are whole-y genuine? What If say the writings of Cicero and Tacitus were mistranslated or twisted intentionally when copied throughout the centuries.
1 Answers 2018-03-13
It's always seemed terribly unjust to me that a number of probably fine submarine commanders were relived of command for timidness when in fact poor performance in sinking enemy ships could easily be attributed to issues with the Mark XIV torpedo, whose myriad problems are laid out by /u/kieslowskifan in this great comment from last year.
In that same discussion, /u/DBHT14 talks about the way that the Mark XIV's issues were explained away by laying responsibility on the commanders rather than on hardware.
I've read quite a number of submarine memoirs from the war, and of course, the issues with the torpedo design is a common theme for any involving a US Navy sub. I know that there surely were some sub commanders who weren't ready for war patrols and unrestricted submarine warfare, but surely others were all but branded as cowards through no fault of their own.
Did any of those commanders get second chances at command, whether on a submarine or a surface ship, or was being relieved for not being aggressive enough simply too big a black mark to overcome, even in light of the technical issues revealed later?
EDIT: sorry, didn't realize it's funeral week, feel free to remove this if it's not appropriate. I'm not sure if there's a way to remove the "funeral" tag from the question
1 Answers 2018-03-13
[deleted]
1 Answers 2018-03-13
I think it was a few years back now but I remember in address to Australia, China said that they have had a presence in Australia before the English settled and that they used to often interact and trade with the Aboriginals in northern Australia. Is there any truth to this?
1 Answers 2018-03-13
1 Answers 2018-03-13
1 Answers 2018-03-13
1 Answers 2018-03-13
Also, were there monasteries (or similar religious institutions) that had defensive structures or troops stationed on site? Did that change at all over the course of the Middle Ages, or were there any differences across regions?
And on a related note, did Christian Kingdoms ever sack each other’s churches or monasteries during war (outside of the fourth crusade)? Perhaps during post-reformation Catholic/Protestant conflicts?
1 Answers 2018-03-13
When a Roman Dictator resigned and / or was removed (or theoretically was to be removed), what was the name of the act?
1 Answers 2018-03-13
I'm specifically talking about after the European countries themselves stopped taking direct part in the slave trade. Thus, I'm not asking about the Americas, where European powers themselves introduced the forms of slavery that characterised the colonial period there. (Of course, slavery existed among pre-Columbian civilisations too, but European invaders replaced the pre-existing systems with their own.)
I'm more concerned with the "New Imperialism" in 19th- and 20th-century Asia and Africa. Slavery existed there before colonisation, and for some time after colonisation too in many countries. But before a country in question abolished it (whether the colonisers themselves or their post-colonial successors were responsible), did European administrators own slaves themselves? If so, how prevalent was it?
EDIT: I also know the British Empire itself abolished slavery in 1833, and extended the ban to the East India Company's territories ten years later, but did it keep going on in territories under British suzerainty but not direct rule? I looked up the timeline of abolishing slavery on Wikipedia, and some of the 19th- and 20th-century dates refer to countries that were British colonies at the time, but presumably they weren't all directly administered territories.
1 Answers 2018-03-13
Okay, so I'm about as far into medieval village research as Dante Alighieri was in his trip to Hell. I need to string a few loose ends together.
1.) Medieval open field system: I know serfs were granted a house complete with crofts, and tofts, which held both food and livestock for the serf's family. Were they given extra acres to work for themselves and the demense was a seperate field, or were the neatly divided rows of farmland that show up in the example maps all part of the lord's demense?
2.) There were serf and freemen. Serfs lived in villages inside longhouses and recieved: land, animals, protection, communal government, permanent occupation. Freemen lied in cottages and received: next to nothing. So how did freemen survive? Were they the craftsmen of the village and exchanged goods for food and sold excess to merchants who traveled through during market days? Did they live out in the Commons and wild country like pioneers? Surely Fiefs didn't cover every square mileage of medieval England or France?
3.) Military. How did the King of England organize an army between 25 barons(noted in the Magna Carta) in which their baronies varied greatly in size and power. Was their military training overseen by the local Lords--who were knights? or maybe the Marshal?
4.) Was their a hierarchy of knights? According to the feudal system, if you aren't the king you are technically a vassal. So that means that Dukes were Royal Blood and personal friends to the King, Counts were relatives and personal friends of the Dukes, Barons were relatives and personal friends of the Counts, Lords were relatives and personal friends of the Barons? I'm sure small local Lords could have just been individuals who proved themselves in battle and were promoted. So could a lowly Lord's 2nd son be a squire to a Count? or a Duke? Would that elevate a knight's social ranking that he could marry into a higher family and become a Baron himself? Or did squires stay in the same social ladder as their fathers? Or were all knights just considered as one tier?
4.) So Nobility didn't like merchants. at all. How did merchants come together and grow into large cities? Most medieval cities I have researched all have castles, which is indicative of a noble presence. I figured the merchants would have settled into territory of their own after they bought it off the Lords. Did some nobles see the opportunity to massively increase their wealth by allowing merchants to consolidate in their lands? Or did merchants grow independent of Lords/Barons/Counts/Dukes/King until the nobility realized that their wealth was directly proportional to the success of cities built by guilds, and therefore decided to move in and fortify?
1 Answers 2018-03-13
