Inspired by Sean Spicer's slip-up today.
1 Answers 2017-04-11
I was wondering earlier today how sports in America would react if we were involved in another world war. Ex: Would the NFL stop playing? Temporary delay of MLB games? What if players got drafted?
Which made me realize we do have somewhat of historical precedence. The NFL has been around since 1920 and the MLB has been around since 1869, so I assume they had to be affected by the second world war.
I have sort of two questions here:
Sorry for the multitude of smaller questions, but I just really want to know what overall effect the war had on sports of the time so I could try to imagine what would possibly happen now if some crazy scenario broke out (despite these sports organizations being billion dollar companies now).
2 Answers 2017-04-11
Basically title, but today I visited the Illinois Holocaust Museum in which I saw this interesting statistic. Perhaps Finland had concentration camps for Jews and several died from disease or something? Or was it a Denmark like scenario where the majority of the population were saved (I know Denmark was taken over and Finland was an ally/co-belligerent, but still just wondering). Thanks in advance.
1 Answers 2017-04-11
The Franco-Prussian War in 1870 marked the end of France's preeminence as the greatest land power in Europe. Usually a country in that position will make changes to ensure that they would never be humiliated like that again. And yet 45 years later, World War I was something of a debacle for them. What changes do they make after the FP War, and why wasn't it enough to get them ready for WWI? Was it simply technological change?
1 Answers 2017-04-11
Not really a question about history, but rather a question about the study of history
1 Answers 2017-04-11
I happen to have a large number of Churchill's books. Specifically, I've got the four volumes of A History of the English Speaking Peoples and the six volumes of The Second World War, as well as a book of his speeches. They're all signed, and in great condition. But are they good history?
1 Answers 2017-04-11
In school, and even at college level, most of the focus was on the Axis/Allies groups, what happened in Europe, Pearl Harbor being attacked, and some of the political and warfare history. But little was ever given to what was happening further to the SE (from Europe's perspective).
Was China or India involved in the war on either side? If they weren't involved, were they allied or leaning toward one side or another?
1 Answers 2017-04-11
Hello dear users!
As I am sure many of you have already heard, today has seen a certain commotion over comments made by a US government official regarding the Nazis, the use of chemical weapons in WWII and the Holocaust. Because recent experience surrounding the comments of Ken Livingstone has shown us at here at this sub that it is likely that we will be see an uptick of questions surrounding this issue, I have decided to preemptively put together some answers and information surrounding these issues.
According to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons "the term chemical weapon may be applied to any toxic chemical or its precursor that can cause death, injury, temporary incapacitation or sensory irritation through its chemical action." This internationally recognized definition of chemical weapons includes many things, from nerve agents like Tabun and Sarin to the more conventional pepper spray and CS gas. It also includes poison and other gas, both famously used by Nazi Germany to kill millions of people.
The utilization of gas as a means of mass killing has in fact become so strongly related to the Nazis and their policies that it as well as the used gas chambers have become by now almost synonymous with the Holocaust and other Nazi mass crimes, even despite the fact that a lot of other means of killing, foremost among them mass-shootings, were also employed by the Nazis.
Historians generally distinguish between four different kinds of mass killings via gas as employed by the Nazis depending on the technical method of killing:
In the earliest iteration of Nazi mass murder via gassing (1940/41), in the six T4 killing centers (Grafeneck, Brandenburg, Hartheim, Sonnenstein Pirna, Bernburg and Hadamar) the Nazis employed Carbon Monoxide from gas canisters that was funneled into gas chambers. The same methods were also employed during the mass killing of concentration camp inmates unable to work dubbed "Aktion 14f13" and by the so-called Sonderkommando Lange, a special SS and Police unit that used two gas vans with the same method to kill both Polish intellectuals as well as inmates of Polish mental and handicapped institutions around the same time. This method was also later used in the first gas chamber in the Majdank death camp
In the death camps of Aktion Reinhard (Sobibor, Treblinka, Belzec) as well as in the Chelmno death camp and in the Soviet Union and Serbia, the Nazis used exhaust fumes from a variety of motors to mass-kill people. In the Reinhard Camps, a tank engine was hooked to a funnel that lead into a gas chamber while in Chelmno as well as in Serbia, the USSR and Chelmno especially constructed gas vans were used where with the flip of a switch the driver could funnel the motor exhausts in the back cabin of the van.
In Auschwitz – most famously – but also in a second gas chamber in Majdanek, the Nazis used Zyklon B, cyanide-based pesticide invented in Germany in the early 1920s. It was a poisonous gas that interfered with cellular respiration, meaning it's victims would effectively suffocate while air was all around them. Zyklon B was also supplied to the considerable smaller gas chambers in Mauthausen, Ravensbrück, and Buchenwald among others.
The gas chambers in Sachsenhausen and Natzweiler used a different compound that was also based on Hydrogen cyanide or prussic acid as it was called that was liquid.
In these actions combined, the Nazis killed more than 3 million people using gas. The original idea to do so was developed by Reichsleiter Philipp Bouhler, the chief of Hitler's personal Chancellery and Karl Brandt, Hitler's personal physician whom Hitler charged in 1939 with designing and carrying out the T4 killing program against handicapped and mentally ill in German institutions. Bouhler and Brandt decided on the use of gas for two reasons: First, they deemed it economical and in line with the mandate that the program should be carried out in secret (it would have been hard to hide mass shootings in Germany) and secondly, they thought that if details of the program would became known to the public, they could at least claim that its victims "peacefully fell asleep".
In reality however, death by Carbon Monoxide poisoning is far from "peacefully falling asleep". Rather, as witnesses to the T4 gassing have described it, death took anywhere from 3 to 15 minutes all the while the victims were shaken by painful cramps and panicked.
The T4 program and its way of mass killing was what also later lead to a similar method employed in the Aktion Reinhard Camps and with the gas vans. It was in fact the about 500 employees of the T4 killing centers who when the program was stopped due to public outrage got with a delay transferred to the Reinhard Camps, camps designed to kill the Jews of Poland from spring 1942 onward. Because pure Carbon Monoxide in gas canisters was hard to obtain / deliver in occupied Poland, the instead opted to use the tank engines as their source for gas.
The gas vans were originally an idea of the Sonderkommando Lange and while the origin of the first two models is unclear, it is very likely that Lange build them himself. Taking this idea and with the input from the T4/Reinhard personnel, it was the Kriminaltechnische Institut (KTI or Criminal Technological Institute) in Germany that developed the more "refined" versions of the gas vans that were used for mass killing in Chelmno, Serbia and the Soviet Union.
To understand how the use of Zyklon B came around, it is important to understand that the Auschwitz personnel under commandant Rudolf Höss was actually competing with the Reinhard Aktion for who could build the more effective and useful concentration / death camp. Höss and his personnel were looking for more effective and economic ways to mass murder people and after several experiments, including the first gassing in Auschwitz of Soviet POWs, in 1942 they settled on Zyklon B.
Zyklon B as a Hydrogen cyanide has – according to Höss – several advantages over exhaust gasses. Unlike in the reinhard Camps were the tank engines had broken down several times due to over-use, this would not happen with Zyklon B. Also, Höss argued that it generally killed faster. While exhaust gasses could take anywhere from 8 to 18 minutes to kill a gas chamber full of people, Zyklon B was able to cut down this time by about half thus making the time between killing actions shorter and subsequently being able to kill more people per day.
While all this occurred, the use of liquid cyanide in Sachsenhausen was actually experimental in order to find an even more economical and faster way to kill thousands of people daily.
So, in conclusion, the Nazis made extensive use of gasses that fall well within the definition of chemical weapons and killed more than 3 million people using this method.
/u/kojin has answered this question previously on our sub here. Summing up the findings of the report he Problem of Chemical and Biological Warfare: A Study of the Historical, Technical, Military, Legal and Political Aspects of CBW, and Possible Disarmament Measures. published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) (Stockholm, 1971). Vol IV., they have shown that Germany albeit producing gasses such as Sarin and actually inventing Tabun, the German General Staff was not interested in using gasses as part of conventional warfare, wanted to avoid retaliatory attacks, and had generally little in the way of prepartation for the use of gasses in warfare.
As they write:
In the end German non-use is an interesting case. There were a range of proponents for use at various stages throughout the war with ample opportunity to do so. Much like the other belligerents, Germany certainly had the capacity to at least initiate use on some level throughout the war. However, the a general lack of readiness, materiel constraints, differing priorities, a collection of reluctant actors inside German leadership, and the ever-present threat of retaliation-in-kind proved sufficient to block its introduction.
This, again, is not true. Of the 240,000 Jews that were still living in Austria and Germany in 1939, 210,000 or about 90% perished in the Holocaust, most of them gassed.
The problem with this statement unfortunately worded as it is, is that it rhetorically – most likely unintentionally - reproduces a view of the world shared by the Nazis, namely that Jews could not be German. I have written previously about this notion here and in connection to Hitler here and here and it can be summed up as the view
that the Jews not only constituted their own "race" but also that they were dangerous and on contrarian terms with the Aryan race, was intended to show that not only was this a new way to understand the world but also to lend themselves scientific credence. Heinrich von Treitschke, who popularized the term "anti-Semitism" in Germany, used it to argue that Jews, no matter how areligious they were and how "German" they had become in the manners how they lived their lives, were always different from the Germans and a danger to the national German character since they, as a people without a homeland, were comparable, in his mind, to parasites undermining "Germanness".
Yeah, I got nothing here. This was just stepping in it.
24 Answers 2017-04-11
Hello everyone. I decided it was easier to just make my way through a massive multi-volume reference work than to sift through the askhistorians list and try get piecemeal views on particular subjects in order to build a solid general understanding of history.
My question is Cambridge Ancient History which goes from prehistory to late antiquity in 14 volumes (technically 19 if you count v1 part 1, v2 part 2, etc.) still up-to-date / worth the read? The thing is the first volume in this massive set was first published in 1970, but was reprinting for the 6th or 7th time in 2006; the last volume was first published in 2000 and reprinted in 2007...So I'm hoping that because these were reprinted within the last 10 years they are fairly up-to-date? I don't need perfection, just competency.
If this is out of date, do you have any suggestions for anything comparable in scope and up to date?
Here is a link to the complete series: https://www.cambridge.org/core/series/cambridge-ancient-history/010C506409EE858277F898C129759025
Thank you.
1 Answers 2017-04-11
Hi, I remember at one point in time hearing a story about Henry Ford. What I remember is that he was having trouble in his factories because most of the working class at the time were illiterate and couldn't do basic math. So he turned to the President of the time about creating public schools to help with that. I can't find any information about this, can someone shed some light? Thanks!!
1 Answers 2017-04-11
I am Dr. Sowande' Mustakeem, an Associate Professor at Washington University in St. Louis. My most recent book, from the University of Illinouis Press, is "Slavery at Sea: Terror, Sex, and Sickness in the Middle Passage".
Live and ready to take any questions that may come to mind on this new book on the Middle Passage, published by Univ of Illinois Press.
19 Answers 2017-04-11
Were any other others aboard able to make it out besides the two shown on film?
1 Answers 2017-04-11
Hello, dear Redditors, I am currently writing a paper in my freetime concerning the Iranian Basiji child soldiers in the Iran Iraq war.
I'm under the bewilderment of finding reliable sources (I'm new to historical research) and I was wondering if any of you just happen to know of any literature/articles concerning Iranian child soldiers that I could use? I would be very grateful if you could do so. An immense gratitude in beforehand ^^
Any tips for writing a historical paper is also very much appreciated.
1 Answers 2017-04-11
Have there been any attempts to unify North and South Korea after the Korean War? I was reading a post on my front page where someone was saying that kids in SK are often taught to be sympathetic to the people of NK and "dream of unification," and also that political figures will differ in how they believe this could be achieved. Has unification been attempted in the past ~50 years and how have these attempts played out (if any)?
1 Answers 2017-04-11
[deleted]
1 Answers 2017-04-11
1 Answers 2017-04-11
[deleted]
1 Answers 2017-04-11
I saw this image billed as an ad for birth control in the 19th century, but I can't tell if it's legitimate. Is it?
1 Answers 2017-04-11
I'm an history major and I'm taking a course in religious studies. Today we had a lecture about how the Greek-Roman religious tradition was just one among the many and certainly not in any way a "starting point" for the history of religion. Plenty of peoples around the world already had their "religions" (or comparable concepts) and it's important to keep that in mind to have a less ethnocentric approach to the study of the subject.
Our professor also mentioned how the general view that the Romans were infinitely many times ahead of any other people on earth in their day is part of an ethnocentric construct mainly intended to paint us as the heirs of some mythical old forgotten wisdom (an inherently conservative position) and, as a consequence, works as a premise for our colonial approach towards non-european peoples.
This really enticed me so I asked him if he could recommend me something to read on the subject. He said he couldn't think of anything that cohesively elaborated an analysis in those terms and he would have to refer me to a number of different writings instead. And also, that since his specialties was religious studies, I could've probably gotten a better answer from an historian of that specific field.
So, I'm looking for books that elaborate on the role of the Roman Empire describing it in an (apparently) more realistic and less ethnocentric way. Can you help me?
EDIT: I see someone added "Balkans" to the title of my thread, what does it mean?
1 Answers 2017-04-11
I'm thinking maybe it's the difference between Christianity and Islam?
1 Answers 2017-04-11
[deleted]
2 Answers 2017-04-11
More specifically, I'm reading a book about the Napoleonic Wars, and the descriptions of the uniforms, particularly the British and the French, are very puzzling to me. Like, the idea of the British wearing ornate bright red uniforms during ranged combat seems very counter-intuitive. Same with the French and wearing blue while they invade Egypt and Syria.
Mainly I was curious as to what drove this more colorful uniform design, and when this shifted to a more camouflage oriented uniform similar to what we see today? Like, was there an underlying function of the more brightly colored uniforms that I'm missing?
Thanks!
3 Answers 2017-04-11