[deleted]
1 Answers 2016-03-29
I was watching a TV show and realize that it always seemed to be the women that are colourful while the man has almost no choice in their attire (bow tie, smoking etc.). I am assuming that it has something to do with 'showing off' your wife similarly to an accessory, but would like some more information on the topic.
Edit: To clarify the question, why was it the women that wore colour as opposed to the men themselves knowing that it was usually the men that did the business/diplomacy etc. in History
2 Answers 2016-03-29
1 Answers 2016-03-29
For example, do German historians write the best history on Nazism and Hitler? The reasoning for that would seem obvious. They know the language, they are close to the sources and locations, and they grew up among people who are contemporaries.
On the other hand, a bit of distance might produce work that is more objective.
In general terms. Speaking of tendencies. Are the works of the local people better? Is the best book on Hitler written by a German? What about countries like China and India? Can a westerner even come close to understanding the people, culture and languages to compete with the locals? Are Western historians of the East read by Easterners?
2 Answers 2016-03-29
2 Answers 2016-03-29
Previous weeks' Tuesday Trivias and the complete upcoming schedule.
This is a re-run! It’s time for you to channel Emily Post or Miss Manners or Dear Abby if you must and tell us all what is “correct” and “incorrect” behavior through history. Any time, any place, any class, good manners are a broad concept.
Next week on Tuesday Trivia: Ever visited a minorly historic building and been disappointed to find out it’s surviving only as something really unromantic, like a dentist’s office? We’ll be talking about the unexpected afterlives of historic places, buildings and artifacts.
7 Answers 2016-03-29
A country, which had the small government and a rather pacifist foreign policy as the main principle of the governing between 1776-1941(there have been small advantures in 1898 and 1917-19, but still, they are really nothing if you consider the post Truman Doctrine Period), suddenly felt the urge of controlling the globe and containing the communism and eventually to destroy it. It seems weird to me, even when Nazi Germany invaded France in 1940, most Americans were skeptical about going to another war, and US Military was kept small, and in 1950, when Chinese-Soviet backed North Korea invaded the South, a country which majority of the US Public of 1940s never heard of, they intervened very quickly.
I've few questions about it actually, well I should say that I'm a big despiser of conspiracy theories, were there anything going on behind the closed doors? Did a business&politics elite, that aren't very publicized(yes those mysterious dark powerful old men), put pressure on Truman Administration when they saw that European countries like UK and France are no longer in position to be a world police after 1945, and save their global interests from the communist expansion?
Another one, when did the US Government know the Cold War was incoming? Were they already preparing for it before the end of World War II? Did the consecutive land gains of Red Army in late 1944 started to alarm them or were they still happy about Soviets destroying Nazis?
Also, did they actually believe that Soviets would take over the world? Or was it an exaggeration to keep the military industrial complex alive, while the Soviets didn't pose a direct threat to the US Soil. Or did they?
And why did Cold War started to calm down after mid-60s? While in the early 50s, it was the main agenda of the US, however, in 80s, the main public almost forgot that there was still a Cold War. Reagan told a few humorous quotes about Soviets in public speechrs, few coups in Latin America and Middle East, and that was about it. The anticommunist soul was dead.
1 Answers 2016-03-29
[deleted]
1 Answers 2016-03-29
While Jews made up the bulk of holocaust victims, most people know there were other people persecuted for their race, culture, ethnicity, our political beliefs. Were Roma or communists treated the same as Jews? Were they in the same camps, and would they have had the chance to interact?
1 Answers 2016-03-29
Could a Chinese slave end up in Scandinavia during Viking Ages?
1 Answers 2016-03-29
Introduction:
This question is not really a ''history question'', but simply one that has something to do with history (heritage, artefacts, archeology, etc.). I've been reading this forum for a long time, and I know that there are a lot of experts here, so I assume some of you have knowledge on the question I am about to ask.
The question:
A lot of Western countries, in particular the UK, France, and the US, possess artefacts that were found in other countries. An example is the Louvre's ''Khorsabad'' collection. These objects were ''retrieved'' from Northern Iraq, but are no longer in the possession of that country.
How does something like this work? What gives a distant country the right to take the historical heritage of a region/country? Are there agreements between the countries? Are the objects ''leased'' for exposition? Can they be retrieved on grounds of historical/cultural heritage claims?
Just something I am curious about. It's probably a sensitive subject because I understand the renowned museums in Europe don't want to give up their prized possessions, but it is, obviously, not fair to the country/communities these artefacts were from. Besides the cultural heritage argument, there is also the argument that income is lost (tourism) - we're ignoring the unstable situation in some of those ''source countries'' for the sake of argument here, as I understand such objects are safer under the care of world-class museums in the West.
I apologise if this question is out of place :).
2 Answers 2016-03-29
Hi! I have 2 questions.
1 Answers 2016-03-29
As the Arab world is (according to my American perception) at perpetual odds with the Jewish and Christian ethos, what is the general feeling among Islamist historians toward a 3rd party institutional genocide of their opposition?
1 Answers 2016-03-29
Hi, I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but posting on r/Fullcommunism didn't get me anything so I'm trying this. I'm working on a comic graphic novel about a dialogue between Lenin and Trotsky, a sort of "slice of life" of the two, and I would love to find some letters sent between the two and base my work around their real life discussions. Would anyone here know where I could find archived letters from the two? Books etc is also welcomed, I'm desperate hehe.
I appreciate the help.
1 Answers 2016-03-29
I was interested to read a theory that suggests large populations of Cave Hyenas living in what is now the Russian far East may have delayed the human colonization of North America. http://www.asu.edu/research/researchmagazine/2003Summer/sum03p34-37.pdf
This made may wonder what would have been the historical outcomes of a similar predatory population limiting us to Africa for thousands of years longer than we were?
1 Answers 2016-03-29
Either from the British, Irish, or civilians side.
1 Answers 2016-03-29
Everyday, this sub sees new additions to its vast collection of questions and answers concerning the topic of Hitler's thoughts on a vast variety of subjects. In the past this has included virtually everything from Native Americans, Asians, occultism, religion, Napoleon, beards, and masturbation.
This in fact has become so common that in a way has become something of an in-joke with an entire section of our FAQ dedicated to the subject.
I have a couple of thoughts on that subject, not as a mod but as frequent contributor, who has tried to provide good answers to these questions in the past and as a historian who deals with the subject of National Socialism and the Holocaust on a daily basis.
Let me preface with the statement that there is nothing wrong with these questions and I certainly won't fault any users asking them for anything. I would merely like to share some thoughts and make some suggestions for any one interested in learning more about Nazism and the Holocaust.
If my experience in researching National Socialism and the Holocaust through literature and primary sources has taught me one thing that I can put in one sentence that is a bit exaggerated in its message:
The person Adolf Hitler is not very interesting.
Let me expand: The private thoughts of Adolf Hitler do not hold the key for understanding Nazism and the Holocaust. Adolf Hitler, like any of us, is in his political convictions, in his role of the "Führer", in his programmatics, and in his success, a creation of his time. He is shaped by the social, political, economic, and discursive factors and forces of his time and any attempt at explaining Nazism, its ideology, its success in inter-war Germany, and its genocide will need to take this account rather than any factors intrinsic to the person of Adolf Hitler. Otherwise we end up with an interpretation along the lines of the great man theory of the 19th century which has been left behind for good reason.
Ian Kershaw in his Hitler biography that has become a standard work for a very good reason, explains this better than I could. On the issue of the question of Hitler's personal greatness -- and contained in that the intrinsic qualities of his character -- he writes:
It is a red-herring: misconstrued, pointless, irrelevant, and potentially apologetic. Misconstrued because, as "great man" theories cannot escape doing, it personalizes the historical process in the extreme fashion. Pointless because the whole notion of historical greatness is in the last resort futile. (...) Irrelevant because, whether we were to answer the question of Hitler's alleged greatness in the affirmative or negative, it would in itslef explain nothing whatsoever about the terrible history of the Third Reich. And potentially apologetic because even to pose the question cannot conceal a certain adminration for Hitler, however grudging and whatever his faults
In addressing the challenges of writing a biography of what Kershaw calls an "unperson", i.e. someone who had no private life outside the political, he continues:
It was not that his private life became part of his public persona. On the contrary: (...) Hitler privatized the public sphere. Private and public merged completely and became insperable. Hiter's entire being came to be subsumed within the role he played to perfection: the role of the Führer.
The task of the biographer at this point becomes clearer. It is a task which has to focus not upon the personality of Hitler, but squarely and directly upon the character of his power - the power of the Führer.
That power derived only in part from Hitler himself. In greater measure, it was a social product - a creation of social expectations motivations invested in Hitler by his followers.
The last point is hugely important in that it emphasizes that Nazism is neither a monolithic, homogeneous ideology not is it entirely dependent on Hitler and his personal opinions. The formulation of Nazi policy and ideology exist in a complicated web of political and social frameworks and is not always consistent or entirely dependent on Hitler's opinions.
The political system of Nazism must be imagined -- to use the concept pioneered by Franz Neumann in his Behemoth and further expanded upon by Hans Mommsen with concept of cumulative radicalization -- as a system of competing agencies that vie to best capture what they believe to be the essence of Nazism translated into policy with the political figure of the Führer at the center but more as a reference point for what they believe to be the best policy to go with rather than the ultimate decider of policy. This is why Nazism can consist of the Himmler's SS with its specific policy, technocrats like Speer, and blood and soil ideologists such as Walther Darre.
And when there is a central decision by Hitler, they are most likely driven by pragmatic political considerations rather than his personal opinions such as with the policy towards the Church or the stop of the T4 killing program.
In short, when trying to understand Nazism and the Holocaust it is necessary to expand beyond the person of Adolf Hitler and start considering what the historical forces and factors were behind the success of Nazism, anti-Semitism in Germany, and the factors leading to "ordinary Germans" becoming participants in mass murder.
This brings me to my last point: When asking a question about National Socialism and the Holocaust (this also applies to other historical subjects too of course), it is worth considering the question "What do I really want to know?" before asking. Is the knowledge if Adolf Hitler masturbated what I want to know? If yes, then don't hesitate. If it is really what Freudian psychology of the sexual can tell us about anti-Semitism or Nazism, consider asking that instead.
This thread about how Hitler got the idea of a Jewish conspiracy is a good example. Where Hitler personally picked up the idea is historically impossible to say (I discuss the validity of Mein Kampf as a source for this here) but it is possible to discuss the history of the idea beyond the person of Adolf Hitler and the ideological influence it had on the Nazis.
I can only urge this again, consider what exactly you want to know before asking such a question. Is it really the personal opinion of Adolf Hitler or something broader about the Nazis and the Holocaust? Because if you want to know about the latter one, asking the question not related to Hitler will deliver better results and questions that for those of us experienced in the subject easier to answer because they are better historical questions.
Thank you!
42 Answers 2016-03-29
Was their combat doctrine to use the tanks as assault guns with a higher profile using both turrets to suppress their enemies with rapid fire, or as a heavy tank?
On another note, is there any other armoured vehicles with similar design characteristics?
2 Answers 2016-03-29
1 Answers 2016-03-29
We just recently discussed this topic in my History 101 class, the years prior to 8000 years ago. I find this to be absolutely fascinating, and I would like to know what we know about this time period.
1 Answers 2016-03-29
1 Answers 2016-03-29
Obviously the concept of jihad is an old one, but is the amount of attacks that happen now unique in history? Or has this element of radical Islam always existed?
1 Answers 2016-03-29
Like, did the average civilian or soldier really believe that Perseus killed Medusa, or Theseus killed the Minotaur? Or that the 12 trials of Heracles actually happened?
Did they believe that somewhere in the world, there were monsters?
What was the views on these stories from the actual people?
1 Answers 2016-03-29