|
Here we ask questions about history, and answer those questions, and debate the answers, and even debate the questions. Only two rules: 1. Do not debate the morality of dropping the atom bomb on Japan. 2. Do not get into the minutiae of your favorite alt-historical fantasy. Let's go!
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 13:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
My questions: 1. Can anyone give me a rundown of recent Canadian history? I know about Trudeau, the conscription thing in WWI, and all the back and forth with Quebec, but are there any other big things I'm missing? 2. Can anyone tell me about the history of the Indian subcontinent between Alexander and the Muslim invasions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:
everything was great and fine and everyoen was happy and prosperous till some loving worst canadian cuckservatives decided they wanted to steal more from the taxpayers than they already were and get hella more kickbacks so they found a dupe named justin trudeao and installed him as president and now the cucks in the background are stripping the country dry and sending it to overseas accounts (this is actually totally happening) and in a few years time we will once again kick them out for being corrupt motherfuckers and install a new set of corrupt motherfuckers
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 13:45
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:My questions:
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
Why are the people most oppressed by despotic governments the most likely to support the principles behind despotic governance?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Why are the people most oppressed by despotic governments the most likely to support the principles behind despotic governance? Because nobody really thinks it's going to happen to them till it does.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 03:45
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Why are the people most oppressed by despotic governments the most likely to support the principles behind despotic governance? The worse things get the more attractive strong leaders are. Canny demagogues obfuscate their own role in systems of oppression and tell the people they're on their side, all their problems are because of those other people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 11:39
|
|
|
When should we say the industrial revolution started?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:When should we say the industrial revolution started? Which one, and for which country? Broadly speaking, in a Hist 101 sense, we usually say that the 1st Industrial Revolution kicked off in late 18th century Britain with precursor moves like enclosure and mercantilist economic developments preparing the way for the first forms of industrial manufacture of cloth, but if you want to break it down by country it gets a lot more complicated, and even in the more general sense there were subsequent waves, the most commonly-cited one coming in the mid-19th century with dawn-of-the-gilded-age type stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 18:21
|
|
|
Lawman 0 posted:When should we say the industrial revolution started? the mid-1970s with the founding of Industrial Records by Genesis P-Orridge of Throbbing Gristle and Monte Cazazza; on Throbbing Gristle's debut album The Second Annual Report, they coined the slogan "industrial music for industrial people". In general, the style is harsh and challenging. AllMusic defines industrial as the "most abrasive and aggressive fusion of rock and electronic music"; "initially a blend of avant-garde electronics experiments (tape music, musique concrète, white noise, synthesizers, sequencers, etc.) and punk provocation"
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
Around when did society turn from the enjoyment of bloodsport like Gladiators to shunning it? I assume the rise of modern religions moved it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
OldTennisCourt posted:Around when did society turn from the enjoyment of bloodsport like Gladiators to shunning it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMKFIHRpe7I
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
OldTennisCourt posted:Around when did society turn from the enjoyment of bloodsport like Gladiators to shunning it? I assume the rise of modern religions moved it.  These men felt terribly shunned, as they did this terrible act forbidden by Christ.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
I was almost certain that was going to happen. Okay, sports involving literally murdering people in front of spectators
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
doverhog posted:
okay yeah that is gross i guess i prefer wraslin!
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
OldTennisCourt posted:I was almost certain that was going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Never mind.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
OldTennisCourt posted:Around when did society turn from the enjoyment of bloodsport like Gladiators to shunning it? I assume the rise of modern religions moved it. The rise of Christianity did place a great deal of moral opprobrium on the games, but more important were practical constraints. The games were publicly funded and as the western empire went into progressive decline there just wasn't nearly as much cash to be wasted on public spectacle as there had been in the glory days.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Why are the people most oppressed by despotic governments the most likely to support the principles behind despotic governance? Terry Pratchett posted:If it continues long enough, even a reign of terror may become a fondly remembered period. People believe they want justice and wise government but, in fact, what they really want is an assurance that tomorrow will be very much like today
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Christians started whining and protesting against gladiatorial combat, and then an incident occurred around 400 where a protesting monk fell into the ring at the Colosseum and was killed by the gladiators and after that it fell out of favor. The monk became a saint and the Romans focused all their energies on horse racing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 19:28
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:Christians started whining and protesting against gladiatorial combat, and then an incident occurred around 400 where a protesting monk fell into the ring at the Colosseum and was killed by the gladiators and after that it fell out of favor. The monk became a saint and the Romans focused all their energies on horse racing. nascar
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
How did Carter get so dunked by Reagan that one election? Also same but with McGovern vs Nixon
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 19:39
|
|
so that means I can be a cheapskate and post about posting instead of having some wit or spending any more on comedy avs for people. Which I'm also incapable of. Comedy.
|
Retarded Goatee posted:How did Carter get so dunked by Reagan that one election? Also same but with McGovern vs Nixon Carter got wrecked by the dual hits of the 70s crash and Iranian Hostage Crisis (which Reagan actively worked to prolong so as to prevent Carter getting any cred for the hostage release). McGovern suffered from an intensely, acrimoniously divided party and his VP choice being outed as having had mental health issues in the past, while Nixon added to by basically painting him as a pinko idiot who couldn't govern his way out of a wet paper bag.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 19:44
|
|
|
How did the USSR actually catch up to the US nuclear program so quickly? If espionage, are any details actually known from reliable source about what was stolen and how? Were the majority of scientists on both sides actually taken from occupied germany and Hitler's (not actually very long lived) nuclear program? Were both sides working off the same, reasonably well understood theoretical basis? (I.e. were the advances necessary in the development of the bomb primarily engineering problems, or was there a race on both sides to solve some outstanding theoretical problems first?)
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:How did the USSR actually catch up to the US nuclear program so quickly? If espionage, are any details actually known from reliable source about what was stolen and how? Were the majority of scientists on both sides actually taken from occupied germany and Hitler's (not actually very long lived) nuclear program? Were both sides working off the same, reasonably well understood theoretical basis? (I.e. were the advances necessary in the development of the bomb primarily engineering problems, or was there a race on both sides to solve some outstanding theoretical problems first?) There's a number of angles here that need addressing to answer the question accurately. First, the Soviets had infiltrated the Manhattan Project, in particular via GRU agent George Korval who'd returned to the US in 1940 (he'd been born in the US but emigrated to the USSR during the Depression), joining the army via the draft and working his way into Oak Ridge by 1944 where he had wide access to pretty much everyone via his duties as a radiation control officer. Declassified Russian military records from the period credit him with obtaining the technical data necessary for their 1949 atomic detonation of a plutonium bomb on the Fat Man model. He was not the only set of eyes Stalin had in Los Alamos and elsewhere. Klaus Fuchs, a German emigre, had been passing British nuclear secrets to the NKVD since 1941, and when he got transferred to the Manhattan Project in 1944 he continued to do so, most notably technical data on how the implosion detonator worked, which likely saved at least two years of design time for the Soviets. Second, Stalin had his own bomb project under Igor Vasilevich Kurchatov working at full speed since 1942 (Kurchatov was already one of the USSR's leading minds in nuclear physics by that point). It was, shall we say, "overseen" by Lavrenty Beria, the murderous head of the NKVD, which no doubt both increased its resource allotments and contributed to motivating the science team. There wasn't nearly as much take away for either America or the USSR from the Nazi bomb project to be honest, as it never was afforded all that high a priority by Hitler and, like so much in the Third Reich, various arms of the military/government had competing projects that spent most of their time squabbling over resources and prestige.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
OldTennisCourt posted:I was almost certain that was going to happen. most gladiator fights didn't end in them being killed edit:whoops icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Jan 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 20:45
|
|
|
Man if Beria was holding gladiator fights in his science gulags, it truly is impressive the Russians caught up so quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Retarded Goatee posted:How did Carter get so dunked by Reagan that one election? Also same but with McGovern vs Nixon this was the high water mark of stagflation and the appeal of Reagan/Thatcherite libertarianism to the middle class. also carter had a terrible relationship with Congress and was seen as a smug, incompetent elitist liberal for that and for doing things like daring to tell middle class suburbanites they should use less oil. then the iran hostages and revolution sealed his fate as for nixon, pure lower middle class white resentment politics
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:most gladiator fights didn't end in them being killed Uhh, I think you miiiight be replying to the wrong question.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
Carter lost because everything was poo poo in the 1979, and as president he took (mostly unfairly) the blame. Carter did have some major faults though. His stellar post-presidential career has made people kind of forget about them. His backing of the Shah long after his sell-by date was really loving stupid and basically set the stage for the hostage crisis that hosed him over. Then he ordered the botched rescue attempt that just poo poo things up even more. He was also spectacularly bad at working with his own party in Congress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 21:01
|
|
|
Retarded Goatee posted:How did Carter get so dunked by Reagan that one election? Also same but with McGovern vs Nixon As mentioned McGovern made a few big mistakes and got stabbed by his own party, but the other side of the coin is that Nixon was probably the most effective campaigner of the last century and also had the fundamentals locked the gently caress down. Economy was good, foreign policy successes and so on and so forth all boosting his incumbent advantage. Basically the Democrats could have raised FDR from the dead and he would most likely still have lost to Nixon in 72.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 21:02
|
|
|
OldTennisCourt posted:I was almost certain that was going to happen. Is there a lot of evidence that suggest that gladiators killed each other constantly? Because that seems inefficient.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 21:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Is there a lot of evidence that suggest that gladiators killed each other constantly? While deaths in the arena were hardly unheard of, neither were they as common as what you see in the movies, at least among the professionals. Gladiators themselves, though usually (but not always!) slaves, were an expensive investment and not one to be thrown away on a whim. Now, the various criminals and prisoners that got thrown in to serve as victims, on the other hand, those guys basically were there to die in as entertaining a fashion as possible. Cerebral Bore posted:As mentioned McGovern made a few big mistakes and got stabbed by his own party, but the other side of the coin is that Nixon was probably the most effective campaigner of the last century and also had the fundamentals locked the gently caress down. Economy was good, foreign policy successes and so on and so forth all boosting his incumbent advantage. Basically the Democrats could have raised FDR from the dead and he would most likely still have lost to Nixon in 72. Which makes it all the more bizarre that he'd resort to the sort of underhanded poo poo he did. I mean sure, knowing what we know about his weird, paranoid personality it makes a bit of sense, but he wouldn't easily walked away with the election anyway, so why risk it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Nixon had the 1960 election stolen from him and he was covering all his bases.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:There's a number of angles here that need addressing to answer the question accurately. First, the Soviets had infiltrated the Manhattan Project, in particular via GRU agent George Korval who'd returned to the US in 1940 (he'd been born in the US but emigrated to the USSR during the Depression), joining the army via the draft and working his way into Oak Ridge by 1944 where he had wide access to pretty much everyone via his duties as a radiation control officer. Declassified Russian military records from the period credit him with obtaining the technical data necessary for their 1949 atomic detonation of a plutonium bomb on the Fat Man model. So was it boradly equal measures of self-funded work and espionage that got the bomb out the door on the Soviet side, or could one point to one source of progress as the main contirbutor? That tiny window of time between the US having the bomb and literally nobody else is pretty crazy to think about - it seems the US was somewhat caught be surprise with the soviet test while still in the process of figuring out just how much peen they really want to throw around and where, using their fancy new city-eradication weapons. The actual bipolar nuclear standoff we got is often read as being extraordinarily dangerous and unstable, but one can't help but think about how close we were to an exclusivley US-lead nuclear world-hegemony.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
What was a normal dinner for a peasant in the Middle Ages?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
What was a normal dinner for a pheasant in the Middle Ages?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Were the Irish Republicans correct to reject Michael Collins' Anglo-Irish Treaty, leading up to the Irish Civil War, or were the Nationalists correct in seeing the big picture and working towards a future Republic?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 7, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:So was it boradly equal measures of self-funded work and espionage that got the bomb out the door on the Soviet side, or could one point to one source of progress as the main contirbutor? I don't think the US could have prevented the USSR from getting the bomb, nor other major powers. It's not like the physics works differently in Russia, they could have figured it out eventually. Even if the US had a larger window in which they were the sole nuclear power I'm not sure what geopolitical effects it would have had. Maybe North Korea wouldn't exist because the threat of being nuked by China/USSR wouldn't exist. I don't think we would have used nukes in China to prevent Mao from winning there. Other than that I don't think things would have been too different
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2017 01:58
|
|