Random history thread

[Virtual ghost]

Since it is generally overlooked that this sub-forum contains History as a topic subject while most of history doesn't generate large and round up threads I will open random history thread. Where all of it should just pile up.






Therefore for the start here is something that I find worth watching (I watched the whole thing). Actually over the years I have enjoyed quite a number of war map reconstructions that make it much more interesting than classic history books. Which is because the strategic dynamic of the war is so much easier to observe.

 

[typologyenthusiast]

I don't get the reason why Hitler attacked The Soviet Union in WW2 by launching operation Barbarossa. There were allied when invading Poland. To me what Hitler did is like disloyalty to Germany's own comrades, which eventually led to their own downfall.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I can only presume this is correct.

 

[Red Herring]

I don't get the reason why Hitler attacked The Soviet Union in WW2 by launching operation Barbarossa. There were allied when invading Poland. To me what Hitler did is like disloyalty to Germany's own comrades, which eventually led to their own downfall.

They never were allies, though. It was a pact of (temporary) non-agression. They were both totalitarian systems but the two countries followed competing ideologies - and had competing geostrategical ambitions. The conflict was a question of time. After all the communists were right up there with the Jews on the nazi kill list. They arrested and killed leftists even before they arrested and killed Jews. So there was an ideological and a geostrategical motive for the invasion. From what I can gather, historians disagree on when exactly the decision was made and how much of it was the implememtation of a plan hetched in 1925 vs a tatical move due to the development of the war at the time of the invasion.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Had the American colonies remained a part of the British empire, I think some of the worst chapters of American history might have been avoided, or been less severe.

In that case the whole history would go into some different path. Not to mention that buying plenty of land from France probably would not happen. What would have severe consequences in how situation is developing on the long run.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Stalin was preparing to invade German territory when Hitler attacked. Decades ago, just after the end of the Cold War, I attended a lecture by a member of the Soviet general staff, who had fought in WW2 as a young man (including at Kursk). Afterwards we talked for several hours.

He told me he found the plans to attack the Germans in '42. The Soviet troops only had maps of German territory, so their retreat was worse due to lack of maps. I later read of this from other sources, as well. Stalin had planned to attack Hitler a week later.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

No World War I or if so it may happen later.

Does Napoleon still come to power?

The French Revolution likely would have happened anyway. The biggest impact of the American Revolution on France was the huge debt incurred by France to support the colonies. Given the ongoing Anglo- French rivalry, they might have incurred this anyway.

The French monarchy was likely heading to failure, due to many factors. The cause of the French Revolution is still a very debatable topic among scholars, with numerous theories.

So, yes to Nappy and WWI, and yes to Marx, etc.

 

[typologyenthusiast]

At the early stage of cold war, we should remember that there was an initiative not to join either side: eastern bloc and western bloc. It is important to remind us the history of this especially at this moment when military conflict breaks up in Ukraine and NATO, a military alliance established in cold war and a proxy war waged by NATO alliance againts Russia. Although it is doubtful whether the eastern bloc still exists until now, as most of Warsaw Pact members have joined NATO. Therefore, arguably Russia is without their cold war Allies now, but the cold war style era proxy war still happens. NATO allies don't get direct involvement in the military conflict with an excuse of not wanting to provoke WW3 but provide support both financial, and military, which the main characteristics of proxy war.
Lets get back to the history of non alignment pact history.

I also want to raise the question is this non allignment pact still applies? I raise the question since Yugoslavia, one of the initiator has become many countries, and some of which are already member of NATO: Croatia, North Macedonia, Slovenia, Montenegro. Although some members has de facto left, no more become a neutral countries, some perhaps still loyal to this pact?

 

[Red Herring]

At the early stage of cold war, we should remember that there was an initiative not to join either side: eastern bloc and western bloc. It is important to remind us the history of this especially at this moment when military conflict breaks up in Ukraine and NATO, a military alliance established in cold war and a proxy war waged by NATO alliance againts Russia. Although it is doubtful whether the eastern bloc still exists until now, as most of Warsaw Pact members have joined NATO. Therefore, arguably Russia is without their cold war Allies now, but the cold war style era proxy war still happens. NATO allies don't get direct involvement in the military conflict with an excuse of not wanting to provoke WW3 but provide support both financial, and military, which the main characteristics of proxy war.
Lets get back to the history of non alignment pact history.

I also want to raise the question is this non allignment pact still applies? I raise the question since Yugoslavia, one of the initiator has become many countries, and some of which are already member of NATO: Croatia, North Macedonia, Slovenia, Montenegro. Although some members has de facto left, no more become a neutral countries, some perhaps still loyal to this pact?

Are you serious?

 

[Kephalos]

Call it a contemporary historical document:

Susan Sontag reacting to 9/11 in The New Yorker remains essential reading.

Today is a sad day. Concentric circles of mourning radiate, outward and infinite, from the morning of September 11, 2011: for the deepest of personal tragedies; for the dark swerve of history’s arc…

lithub.com

"Let's not be stupid together." Susan Sontag.

The disconnect between last Tuesday’s monstrous dose of reality and the self-righteous drivel and outright deceptions being peddled by public figures and TV commentators is startling, depressing. The voices licensed to follow the event seem to have joined together in a campaign to infantilize the public. Where is the acknowledgment that this was not a “cowardly” attack on “civilization” or “liberty” or “humanity” or “the free world” but an attack on the world’s self-proclaimed superpower, undertaken as a consequence of specific American alliances and actions? How many citizens are aware of the ongoing American bombing of Iraq? And if the word “cowardly” is to be used, it might be more aptly applied to those who kill from beyond the range of retaliation, high in the sky, than to those willing to die themselves in order to kill others. In the matter of courage (a morally neutral virtue): whatever may be said of the perpetrators of Tuesday’s slaughter, they were not cowards.

Our leaders are bent on convincing us that everything is O.K. America is not afraid. Our spirit is unbroken, although this was a day that will live in infamy and America is now at war. But everything is not O.K. And this was not Pearl Harbor. We have a robotic President who assures us that America still stands tall. A wide spectrum of public figures, in and out of office, who are strongly opposed to the policies being pursued abroad by this Administration apparently feel free to say nothing more than that they stand united behind President Bush. A lot of thinking needs to be done, and perhaps is being done in Washington and elsewhere, about the ineptitude of American intelligence and counter-intelligence, about options available to American foreign policy, particularly in the Middle East, and about what constitutes a smart program of military defense. But the public is not being asked to bear much of the burden of reality. The unanimously applauded, self-congratulatory bromides of a Soviet Party Congress seemed contemptible. The unanimity of the sanctimonious, reality-concealing rhetoric spouted by American officials and media commentators in recent days seems, well, unworthy of a mature democracy.

Those in public office have let us know that they consider their task to be a manipulative one: confidence-building and grief management. Politics, the politics of a democracy—which entails disagreement, which promotes candor—has been replaced by psychotherapy. Let’s by all means grieve together. But let’s not be stupid together. A few shreds of historical awareness might help us understand what has just happened, and what may continue to happen. “Our country is strong,” we are told again and again. I for one don’t find this entirely consoling. Who doubts that America is strong? But that’s not all America has to be.

—Susan Sontag

 

[ceecee]

At the early stage of cold war, we should remember that there was an initiative not to join either side: eastern bloc and western bloc. It is important to remind us the history of this especially at this moment when military conflict breaks up in Ukraine and NATO, a military alliance established in cold war and a proxy war waged by NATO alliance againts Russia. Although it is doubtful whether the eastern bloc still exists until now, as most of Warsaw Pact members have joined NATO. Therefore, arguably Russia is without their cold war Allies now, but the cold war style era proxy war still happens. NATO allies don't get direct involvement in the military conflict with an excuse of not wanting to provoke WW3 but provide support both financial, and military, which the main characteristics of proxy war.
Lets get back to the history of non alignment pact history.

I also want to raise the question is this non allignment pact still applies? I raise the question since Yugoslavia, one of the initiator has become many countries, and some of which are already member of NATO: Croatia, North Macedonia, Slovenia, Montenegro. Although some members has de facto left, no more become a neutral countries, some perhaps still loyal to this pact?

smh

 

[The Cat]