Surely it's not easy to create a language and with all the different countries in Europe being so close to each other... Why do they speak different languages instead of just all using the same one? It would've been a lot easier to communicate.
2 Answers 2015-07-23
1 Answers 2015-07-23
So while I was browsing the internet I came across this book: The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity. And it seems judging from the premise of the book it's arguing that the Greeks and Romans had these proto-racist views of their neighbors in a negative sense. I'm just wondering is it true that the Greeks and Romans had racist views of their neighbors and if so how severe was it?
2 Answers 2015-07-23
From what I understand from here, the myth that Hitler's bad choice to stop short at Dunkirk saved the British is false, and the Germans decided not to attack because their logistical support wasn't able to keep up. But Guderian wanted to strike, and I've heard from another source that he was bad at logistics compared to Manstein. Is it true?
EDIT: For the record, the answer turned out to be NO, as expected.
2 Answers 2015-07-23
I just wrote 'Britain Isle', but I am not sure if that is the correct name for it. Aren't the modern day Englishmen the Saxons which once lived in Northern Germania?
2 Answers 2015-07-23
1 Answers 2015-07-23
I'm hoping to gain insight into the competency of these three men, especially the first two, and why they are completely overshadowed in popular perception by Wellesley.
2 Answers 2015-07-23
Unless I am mistaken, in the Jewish tradition, the temple of Jerusalem is supposed to have held some sort of documents that would outline the lineage, leading all the way back to the grandson of Abraham, Jacob. The twelve sons of Jacob now constitute the twelve tribes of Israel, and many Jews would claim to be descendants of these tribes.
How is this reconcilable with the fact that the historicity of Abraham is controversial?
2 Answers 2015-07-23
In casual conversation, I heard somebody say it was because of the inherently feudal/heirarchical nature of Hindu society, as opposed to the tribal society of the other colonies which settlers could coexist with more easily.
2 Answers 2015-07-23
I stumbled upon this article on TV Tropes and was curious about how reliable the info there was. It seems to make sense what they say, but it also seems to paint the Soviets in a bit too good a light. What do you guys think?
The introduction in particular caught my attention:
From the outset the Western Allies and, later, NATO would've failed to use their inferior numbers as a unified force (France was always a bit of a wild-card and it's anybody's guess whether they would have stuck their neck out over an 'Anglo' issue, especially while Stalin was alive - he and De Gaulle were relatively chummy. Worse, even when they finally formed a military of their own in 1955 Western Germany's politicians insisted on using their forces to defend their peace-time borders... which were often totally indefensible, let alone the fact that (because they were right on the border) they could quite easily be encircled, cut off from all food and ammunition supply, and be forced to try to punch their way out through the Soviet defenders or simply sit on their laurels contributing little to NATO's strategic defense), and they had no campaign-plan to counter the Warsaw Pact's (a massive knock-out blow to split NATO's forces in half on the North German Plain, crush the isolated northern pocket, and move on to break up and finish off what was left).
The Soviets military's ability to actually live up to its rhetoric depended very much on the time-period. From 1945-53, Stalin gave the military the resources it needed to carry out this mission - with the expectation that it would fulfill it even with its forces and the German, Polish, Soviet, etc cities that supplied it taking the USA's several-hundred nukes. From 1956, whatever ability the Soviet military might have retained after its one-fifth downsizing by Khruschev was totally negated by his insistence that they adopt and use tactical nuclear weapons (which, in all probability, would've led to the war going nuclear within a matter of days if not hours). Under Brezhnev in the late 1960s the Soviet military was gradually 'restored' to the point that they again had confidence in fulfilling the operation (without any use of nukes, of course). But in the late 1970s Soviet theorists began to fear what they saw as a coming 'revolution in military technology' which would make the campaign difficult if not impossible by the late 1980s, something subsequent studies (using NATO and WP records) have tended to confirm.
On the other hand, the actualy likelhood of the Soviets achieving this operational goal - regarldless of their capabilities - depended very much on how the USA chose to respond with its nuclear arsenal. Throughout the 1940s-70s the USA initially, and later unofficially, had a policy of 'Massive Retaliation Doctrine'. In other words, in the event of any Russo-American conflict whatsoever the USA would have attempted to immediately glass the entire Warsaw Pact. In the 1970s-80s this was replaced by 'Follow-On-Forces' (FOFA) Doctrine, which mandated that the USA would only use tactical nuclear weapons, and only when NATO forces looked like they were losing to boot. The problem with this was that, due to the incredible vagaries of NATO doctrine (which did not have an 'operational' level) it was not clear where the 'tactical' use of nuclear weapons ended and the 'strategic' use of nuclear weapons began (For instance, nuking all the major cities of Poland would have been a key element of stopping Soviet reinforcements, ammunition, and food from transiting through Poland to the frontlines. However, Poland would not have been on the frontlines (and may have been as far as 500km from them) and Polish forces might never have attacked any NATO units up to that point). At pretty much every stage of the Cold War, then, if the US president of the time had adhered to his military's official doctrine then he would've made the war go nuclear rather than lose western Europe. Depending on the Soviet leadership of the time's response, this could've led to the northern hemisphere being cleansed of human life. But, hey, at least it wouldn't have meant negotiating with the Dirty Commies.
That said, tensions between the alliances were low throughout this period until the "Second Cold War" of 1979 onward, which saw the first proper (i.e. intense) arms race between the two. The former Sovietologist Christopher Donnelly has likened the Cold War to two players preparing for a game of chess, in which NATO focused on crafting the best pieces possible...and the USSR focused on becoming a Grand Master. Broadly, the Soviets focused on fighting simple and fighting smart - using simple and easy to maintain weapons, focusing on logistics, planning, and leadership. Similarly, the Soviets had (simple, but devastatingly clever) campaign plans that they would make months and years in advance and in agonising (and astonishingly accurate) detail.
2 Answers 2015-07-23
Obviously, he's not a historian so much as a commentator that includes a lot of history in his commentary. I'm not an expert in most of the history he talks about, but his sourcing (Family Properties, The Warmth of Other Suns, Race and Reunion etc.) seems good.
I just bought his new book and am looking forward to reading, so I wanted to know of there were any red flags in his interpretation of the scholarship he's dealing with.
1 Answers 2015-07-23
Hello again! I'm reposting this, because last time i didn't make myself very clear, which i'm very sorry for, i hope i'm not becoming annoying. So i've cleared my questions. Which modern day countries did the USSR occupy and which were a part of the RSFSR when it was established in 1917? And i'm wondering how did people accept the USSR in the different republics, i mean, did they like being a part of the union or not? I only know about the Baltics, that hey pretty much hated all the time the fact that they part of the USSR. Thanks in advance!
1 Answers 2015-07-23
Did Jews return to Germany? How were they received? Was anti-semitism still prolific? How did the population grow or change after WWII?
EDIT: I like messed up like the title.
1 Answers 2015-07-23
I know in Islam Arabic is seen as the most perfect version of the verses of the Quran and prayers are recited in Arabic. I also understand Latin was used because of the Roman Empire. What I don't get is why didn't the Church require its members to speak the language of Christ or at least write in Hebrew which what the Bible was originally written in.
1 Answers 2015-07-23
1 Answers 2015-07-23
Mostly I know Quantz because he was a cool beatnik musician, backpacking around Europe and meeting famous composers and singers, and luckily for us later providing great historic records of these people. But Quantz was also a woodwind specialist when these instruments didn't get a lot of love, and I know he not only helped some composers see the potential of these instruments, but improved the flute in its design. But what exactly did he do to flutes? Also my entire knowledge of flutes comes from sitting in the same row as them in band class, as a head's up.
1 Answers 2015-07-23
I'm curious as to what happened to Austria post-WWII up until around the end of the Cold War, so between 1946-1988 roughly. During this time Germany was split up, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe was completely under Soviet control, but I never hear anything about Austria. Could anyone help out and shed some light for me?
2 Answers 2015-07-23
Positive and negative? Thanks.
1 Answers 2015-07-23
While watching a PBS documentary on Napoleon Bonaparte, there were several generalised comments on the ineptitude of much of the commanding officers he served under during his early years, much of which was attributed to the ease of advancement enjoyed by the majority of those officers due to their aristocratic upbringings. I'm curious as to how factual these statements were in relation to both the general competence of most French commanders, as well as to how influential a soldier's social background could be on his military career vis-à-vis his talents and aptitudes. Were gifted officers often overlooked in favour of a noticeably less able noble?
1 Answers 2015-07-23
I'm wondering in particular about contact with the Haida, since "gwai'i" (as in Haida Gwai'i, the islands of the Haida) seems superficially similar to "hawai'i" and could have been a borrowing. I'm well aware that these sorts of similarities are often coincidences, but that was the line of thought leading to the question.
3 Answers 2015-07-23
1 Answers 2015-07-23
I am a Bangladeshi but I look much different than the other people from there. I've been told that I have a Mongolian appearance, with my facial structure, eyes, skin tone...etc. I wanted to know how Genghis Khan or his direct sons related to the area that is now Bangladesh, and which Khan it was. I don't know much about my family history and can't ask my parents since they are not here. The only information that I have is that my grandma's last name is Khatun which I have read was the same last name of one of Khan's wife.
1 Answers 2015-07-23