I know the Austrian Empire ended at the conclusion of WWI, but what happened to the Hapsburg family? Did they flee Europe? Did they ever try to reinstitute their monarchy? Are there any living descendants around today?
1 Answers 2018-02-18
How was part of the Austrian empire inside of the Holy Roman Empire while the rest of it wasn't? Similar things go for Prussia. How could entities which were part of the Holy Roman Empire expand and yet those new territories would not belong to the Holy Roman Empire?
1 Answers 2018-02-18
What was written about it? Did they see them as categorical the same or different as anglo-saxen white "Ayran" people? Where they ever targeted for elimination in the same ways as other ethnic groups? I understand that the axis powers where going to bomb Ireland at one point but was that because there was a inherit hatred to their ethnicity or because it militarily tactical? I ask because I found a fringe group of twitter Nazi's that claim to be white even though they are of Irish heritage. Also if there any good books on the subject, thanks.
1 Answers 2018-02-18
1 Answers 2018-02-18
Hello!
Since it is so widely praised, I started watching The World at War, and, already, in the very first episode, I am disappointed to notice omissions and misinformation.
The new Germany began to round up its enemies - Communists, Socialists, impertinent journalists, even Reichstag deputies. At Oranienburg concentration camp, conditions were at first crude rather than brutal. At this time the camps were run by the Sturmabteilungen - the SA. They bullied more than they murdered. From the first moment, Hitler unleashed his promised campaign against the Jews. The SA organised boycotts of Jewish-owned shops. The real point was to encourage the German people to think and act anti-Semitic as a matter of course. The outside world was horrified, but there were those, including many German Jews, who thought the anti-Jewish campaign the work of Nazi extremists - something Herr Hitler would put a stop to when he felt more secure.
As far as I know, the world was NOT horrified by Hitler's measures. In fact, most people shared his views. After all, eugenics wasn't Hitler's idea, and it was already popular in many countries around the world, including the US and France. In fact, the Unites States was the first country in the world to start performing systematic forced sterilizations.
So, why no mention of eugenics? Why no mention of the antisemitism already existing in other countries? Why is the documentary falsely claiming that the world was horrified by Nazi Germany, when there's evidence that it wasn't? Henry Ford used to say pretty much the same things about Jews as Hitler did, and nobody was horrified. In fact, many fancied him as a presidential candidate. Plenty of American eugenicists saw Hitler as an ally, and eugenics was considered a progressive idea at the time. People who didn't believe in eugenics, like the Church (not for humanitarian reasons, but because it opposed all manners of birth control), were considered backwards and anti-progress.
Now, I know these issues remain controversial even today, and I'm not saying all this to bash Americans or to defend the Nazis. My point is that it's important that history is told correctly, without sugar-coating, because this is the kind of thing that lead people to make the same mistakes. If we simply see the Nazis as "evil" and not as a product of humanity itself, then the entire point is lost.
Is the rest of the documentary even worth it? Because I'm getting a huge Gell-Mann Amnesia vibe from it. If there's such a grievous mistake so early in the very first episode, who knows how many more mistakes it contains that I won't even be able to notice.
1 Answers 2018-02-18
I was wondering: when and why did it become normal practise to have an actual surname? As a Dutch student, I was often told that Napoleon introduced the use of surnames in the Netherlands.
I found this particularly strange, because I know for a fact that Romans used "surnames" as well. For example, Gaius Julius Caesar - Gaius of the Julii-clan, specified as of the Caesarian "part of the family". Likewise, Greeks used their city of origin: Herodotus of Halicarnassus, for example.
So is there any truth to what I was told in school? Was it Napoleon? Or was it a habit forgotten, only to be revived?
Thank you in advance.
1 Answers 2018-02-18
Hello all, I apologise if this is not the correct place for this question I could not find any better sub.
I am looking for background on a portrait of King Jadwiga which seems to constantly come up in my research into her and her husband, unfortunately as I do not speak Polish I can't seem to find many details about when it was painted and who by, as well as any other general details which may be available.
The portrait in question is the first one on this page: http://ludzie.info/lista/krolowa-jadwiga/
Just wondering if anyone here could help out? Thanks!
1 Answers 2018-02-18
My understanding of the conflict is that the Argentine junta was flailing and turned to the Falkland Islands for an upsurge of nationalist support, anticipating that the 8,000 miles between the islands and their sovereign would be enough to prevent the British mounting any serious defence of the islands.
But when it became apparent the British would be sending a task force to engage them, why did the Argentinians not withdraw. My understanding is that they were reasonably badly equipped and despite outnumbering the British, their landing force was mainly poorly trained conscripts. Were they genuinely under the illusion that the British could be defeated?
3 Answers 2018-02-18
When governments began discussing and implementing public schooling, how did people react? Were the majority of citizens in favor, or was it controversial?
1 Answers 2018-02-18
1 Answers 2018-02-18
I've heard a lot that most historians are religious because evidence shows that Jesus being God is actually one of the best explanations for many of the things that occurred. There is no explanation for what happened to Jesus' body after his death that makes very much sense as no group of people had any good motivation to take it and it wasn't there. The apostles were all also willing to die for the belief that he dead resurrect from the dead. I don't want to start any sort of arguments I'm just curious about historians views on the idea.
3 Answers 2018-02-18
1 Answers 2018-02-18
2 Answers 2018-02-18
1 Answers 2018-02-18
To add, this is of course not limited to Pushkin, it's simply happened so much in his stories it's made me curious.
1 Answers 2018-02-18
As we all know, Nazi Germany and, to a lesser degree, Fascist Italy were responsible for some of the most abominable crimes in human history. There is no doubt about this and I don't wish to discuss this in this question.
However, I am interested in any (legal, civic, organisational ...) reforms, improvements, changes, resolutions etc., passed in Germany/Italy at the time, which were actually good and sensible, helpful and beneficial for the general population, and have served as a basis for further improvement or are even still in force today?
Thank you!
1 Answers 2018-02-18
2 Answers 2018-02-18
1 Answers 2018-02-18
Today:
Welcome to this week's instalment of /r/AskHistorians' Sunday Digest (formerly the Day of Reflection). Nobody can read all the questions and answers that are posted here, so in this thread we invite you to share anything you'd like to highlight from the last week - an interesting discussion, an informative answer, an insightful question that was overlooked, or anything else.
7 Answers 2018-02-18
1 Answers 2018-02-18
1 Answers 2018-02-18
To clarify, I mean did any nation have the will and the means to invade the continental United States?
I am aware that the USA became a superpower following the events of the second World War but before that did they ever have enemies?
During the cold War the USSR had considerable military might which was held in check by America and NATO also having sizable forces. If this hadn't been the case, would the USSR had the will to conquer?
3 Answers 2018-02-18