The History Thread!

There's no clear hard and fast sense of when the university and the academic world as we understand it came to originate.

Yes Oxford is old...but Cambridge which was founded by Oxford rejects was vastly more important historically. Isaac Newton is from Cambridge, he studied there and he was the great genius of the age of The Enlightenment. But at the same time, universities were developing in many provinces of the German Holy Roman Empire, also in France under Louis XVI. Colleges and other institutes were patronized by Kings and other royals. The Netherlands were also quite important. The Germans more or less codified the academic world, guys like Linnaeus, Humboldt, Leibniz, Gauss.

In general the protestant nations had a leap because of the greater literacy and what Weber said was the Protestant Work Ethic. The Catholic Nations like France wanted to catch up, but the Censorship and Index stymied thought and experiments. Kept knowledge restricted. Robert Darnton pointed out how most of the ideas before the Revolution flourished underground in pirated works and often disguised or inserted in pornography.

I do love Isaac Newton...unquestionably a brilliant man, but he stuck indigo into the visible spectrum for no better reason than to make the colors in it number 7 (cuz, you know, 7 is magic). It's sad when you find even someone that brilliant feels the need to adjust facts to fit his prejudices.

I think all anyone was saying by bringing up the various universities is that intellectual communities did exist, of a kind and in limited form certainly, prior to the 18th century. I don't think anyone was equating age with quality or historical importance, only trying to demonstrate that, if you consider a university to be an intellectual community, they've been around for a long time.

edited 15th Jan '17 11:02:46 AM by Robbery

Well the particular institutional academy of the age of The Enlightenment, the Republic of Letters as it is called now, was a new thing. It more or less codified academic study, citation rules, and so on. It meant that discoveries in one place could be peer-reviewed circulated and spread across borders. That's the kind of institution that aided and sped up the progress and development of science.

It's just that it's one of those things that seems gradual, and step-by-step without a clear starting point and it took a while before people realized they were doing something that hadn't been done and was totally new. That's something historians focus on these days, that sometimes people do new innovative things but are so caught up in doing that, that it takes some time to register what they have done and put it in context. That happens to us in our interconnected modern world where every fad is considered an innovation when it is more likely that it will end up being disposable.

Newton was a weird guy and he was obviously not perfect since Einstein has provided a deeper and more thorough and less exact a vision of physics than he provided. And personally and morally, he was a major careerist asshat, who railroaded Leibniz's reputation for petty grudges. A grudge with Voltaire Loony Fan of Newton that he was, took up and also raided Leibniz's reputation over. But then as life and history tells us, great men are not necessarily good men and greatness and goodness do not necessarily correlate.

Does anyone know why the USSR decided to split like it did when it got rid of its communism?

You know like why did Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan etc. all decide to split from it?

In one sentence, numerous territories native to non-Russian ethnicities saw The '90s as a chance to finally gain independence from centuries of Russian domination.

Well that has to do with a complex series of issues that go back to dear old Lenin.

As Stephen Kotkin notes here:

There's a book on this subject, The Affirmative Action Empire. Basically, Lenin wanted to encourage national culture in the various soviet republics. He did this because he felt that the big threat to the Bolsheviks was "Great Russian Chauvinism" and to this end he encouraged affirmative action, insisting that local soviets promote communists of native ethnicity, that missives and others are done in languages. In some cases, thanks to the Russian Empire's Russification policies, the local languages had been suppressed so long that the alphabet was Russified so in that cases, the Bolsheviks invented the alphabet for them to use.

A lot of people see Russia as the Big Brother of the USSR oppressing and dominating the native SR. That was true to some extent, but it's not the whole truth either, because the USSR in many cases revived nationalism and fixed some regional grudges. And there's also the fact that these days when all these Eastern Europeans go on about how they were oppressed by Russia, they forget how Russians themselves suffered under communism. Like the 1933-1934 famine claimed a million Russian lives, alongside the lives of Kazakhstanis and others, but everyone calls it a Ukrainian famine. Most of the people who got sent to the Gulag were Russians. USSR was pointedly not a herrenvolk state where good stuff came to Russians first, and then the next.

As noted by Noam Chomsky: "The Soviet dominion was in fact that unique historical perversity, an empire in which the center bled itself for the sake of its colonies, or rather, for the sake of tranquility in those colonies. Muscovites always lived poorer lives than Varsovians...Throughout the region, journalists and others report, shops are better stocked than in the Soviet Union and material conditions are often better. It is widely agreed that 'Eastern Europe has a higher standard of living than the USSR".

Isn't it a mostly a matter that a lot of Soviet Republics that had once been distinct nations simply elected to be distinct nations again, once given the chance?

Well that begs the question of how an internationalist ideology that had bound these nations for all these decades crack to the extent they turned to nationalism?

The crackdown on USSR happened because of complex issues dealing with demographics, with an economic failure, the war in Afghanistan. The real point of no return was when Ukraine elected to leave the Soviet Union and then Russia elected to leave it, forcing Gorbachev to dissolve it.

That's actually one reason a lot of Russians don't want the Soviet Union back. They more or less see the USSR and the Communist ideology as backbreaking work and suffering done on behalf of other nations and the world at large, with little to no reward coming to the Russian people themselves. And much as that is based on emotional grudges and nationalist butthurt, but it's not inaccurate.

It's not far from how Tiberius Gracchus described the army's relation to The Roman Republic: "The savage beasts in Italy have their particular dens, they have their places of repose and refuge; but the men who bear arms, and expose their lives for the safety of their country, enjoy in the meantime nothing more in it but the air and the light.They fought indeed and were slain, but it was to maintain the luxury and wealth of other men.They were styled the masters of the world, but in the meantime had not one foot of ground which they could call their own." Replace "italy" with Russia and some handwaving for the act that thanks to global warming and urbanization even the savage beasts don't have places of repose and refuge, and "masters of the world" for "liberators" and you have the sentiments of the Soviet Union at the end of the 80s and early 90s.

I need help on designing a board wargame based off the Spring and Meuse-Argonne Offensives. If I base the unit level on Corps, Germany would have nearly 50 infantry units while the Entente would only have half a dozen each at the most, but if I have the units based off Divisions the Entente would have 50 at the most, but Germany gets nearly 200.

If you are going for accuracy in terms of historical accuracy it is what is. Try looking at how those various numbers were used or actually available plus the defensive and armament situation for both sides. There are likely other factors then raw numbers to consider.

A quick peek suggests the sum total allied forces were quite a bit larger then that. Also the battle opened up with a massive chemical weapon attack on the Germans which incapacitated possibly up to 10,000 troops. There was also a massive conventional artillery barrage and 9 double strength AEF divisions participating.

This site here has some data gathered on some general stats. At the time of the Meuse-Argonne Offensive the Germans had a notable drop in man power while their enemies had a notable increase. This seems to match up with several pieces of info I am seeing that several of the German divisions at the battle were at less then organizational strength while at the outset of the battle the allies were at strength or in the case of some of the US forces over strength. In fact it seems the Germans were outnumbered not the other way around.

For the German Spring Offensive the German's were not able to sustain their assaults due to supply problems and the advance ultimately failed. The allies also abandoned or left only lightly defended ground that was of little or no strategic value shifting most of the forces to key points to blunt the offensives. Combined with the allies shifting forces where needed and a lack of an ability to sustain their advancing assault the German offensive was bogged down and stopped. Then to make matters worse the American forces brought in hefty 1 million + fresh troops and a large counter offensive was launched before the end of the Spring Offensive. The Germans at best held a temporary advantage in numbers but their supply lines couldn't support those numbers and the rapid advance and they were not able to punch through in time before the AEF joined the front lines.

edited 17th Jan '17 5:41:48 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Yeah, but how exactly were they organised? That's what I'm looking for.

(As a side note, the German inability to reinforce their troops +American reinforcements is modelled by the Germans being unable to replenished reduced units or building replacements for destroyed units. All Entente units can restored reduced unit steps, while the Americans can outright rebuild destroyed units. Germans are considered out of supply once they reach a certain point beyond the German border, and so are automatically destroyed rather than having steps reduced)

edited 17th Jan '17 5:51:17 PM by SantosLHalper

The organizational structures were a bit of mess vs what their official on paper structure said. I haven't seen any definitive break down of individual units just the overall counts.

I heard another one of my favorite history jokes from Seinfeld. :)

They made the manager of Elaine and her then-boyfriend's favorite Chinese restaurant a constantly angry shouting guy, like the villain in a propaganda movie.

This early 19th century American folk magic grimoire apparently contains a mean pumpkin molasses recipe.

What's the main difference between "God Save the Queen" and "Rule, Britannia!"?

The actual music is the difference. American's would recognize the the first one as it is used in "Our Country Tis of Thee". It is also an anthem. "Rule Britania" is a patriotic song. This one showed up in a masque which was basically a fancy play put on for the royal court.

edited 27th Jan '17 10:02:01 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Aren't they both patriotic, though?

Yes and no. One was purposely made as a patriotic song the other was designed as an anthem.

I was writing about the Republican's transition from white abolitionists to the scumbags they are now.

Just wanted some input on inaccuracies or if I should add anything else in:

A Decent Beginning:

The Republican Party was always pro-business but it started off as a party that wanted to free the slaves and in favor of free labor. They were a coalition of people who thought slavery was morally wrong and people who believed slavery was economically inferior to free labor and that free men should get the land of the west not the southern slavers.

But I'm going to share something that isn't widely talked about enough. These white republican abolitionists might have been opposed to slavery but that didn't stop them from being racists. They had a moral opposition to slavery in general. Many of them did not view African-Americans as equals. The racial element was always there.

Anyways Fremont was my state's(California) first senator and he was the first to run for the presidency under the Republican Party. The slogan was: "Free soil, free silver, free men, Frémont and victory!" He didn't win. He lost to President Buchanan, our worst president (soon to lose that position to Trump) and then Lincoln won after that and Civil War. The Republican Party went into a "then what" mode after they won. They completed their final objective after all.

Reconstruction Era/When Republicans Abandoned African Americans :

So Republicans fought over whether to be aggressive with the South and force them to treat African-Americans to the standards of the north. President Grant followed President Johnson(Lincoln's VP at the time he was assassinated) and he was harsh on the South to protect the rights of African-Americans.

He sent freedmen (free African-Americans) carpetbaggers (northerners) and scallawags(southerners who believed in the ideals of the old Republican party at the time) south to build a Republican Party in the southern states and he had federal troops stationed in the south to support them. If he had succeeded, America would've been better off and the South of today would be closer to the rest of the country.

Republicans made gains in the South but they also were starting to separate into factions then the Southern Democrats won control of the House and the southern states.

When Rutherford B Hayes won the presidency after Grant, he pulled out federal troops from the south which were ensuring the fair treatment of African Americans. Some scallawags(southerners who believed in Republican ideals) were pressured by their neighbors into joining the Democrats.

And the leftover southern Republicans starting split into two factions, the lily-white party Republicans (all white party that wanted to appeal to white democrats) and the tan and black party Republicans (bi-racial group of white and black people).

The lily-white party began due too many African Americans demanding offices that they wanted to give to scallawags(white southern republicans). These republicans only wanted their votes not to put them in leadership positons.

Many southern republicans lost their minds when a black man took over the Republican chairmanship in Texas and switched to the Southern Democrats or the new lily-white Republican Party. (remind you of any other black man achieving success that galvanizes republicans into a more racist party line hint hint Obama and the Republican Tea Party)

I don't think it's a big secret but eventually the tan and black party disappears completely and the lily-white party achieves total dominance by 1964. From this well springs the modern Republican Party of today.

The withdrawal of federal troops and the internal factional division between the Southern Republicans, the Southerner Democrats took back the South. They couldn't take away the right to vote from African Americans but they could enact their own laws that made it hard for African Americans to vote from a poll tax to literacy tests to fraud, intimidation and violence.

What happened to the Northern Republicans/ Post Reconstruction:

Northern Republicans actually had contempt for their southern republican bretheren and they focused on strengthening their hold on the North over establishing a southern foothold once federal troops were withdrawn.

And when Southern Democrats made it hard for African- Americans to vote, their biggest bloc in the south, they had even less interest in African American problems instead looking to form bi-partisan coalitions with southern democrats which also meant not touching the African-American voter suppression issue too much. They'd toss a loaf of bread every now to keep them happy though.

Status quo was king at that point. Republicans reigned supreme for the most part until the Great Depression. African-American liberties weren't needed for their supremacy.

Important Note: The First Great Migration happens from 1910-1940 where millions of African-Americans move from the South to the North gaining more of an influence because these areas didn't try to suppress their vote like in the South. (Important to how Nixon gained so much support in the South)

Great Depression to Dwight D Eisenhower:

The Great Depression happened. People blamed the Republican President, Herbert Hoover, and African- Americans voted for the Democrat FDR in record numbers. That's when African-Americans began the shift to the Democrat Party.

FDR died in 1945 and Democrat VP Harry Truman takes over and desegregated the military and set up a law against racial bias in federal employment in early 1948 probably as a political move since he was up for re-election. Majority of black voters start to identify as Democrats at that point and help vote him back in. A gradual powerbase shift from the south to the north happens.

The addition of a civil rights plank led the Southern Democrats split off from the Northern Democrats becoming the Dixiecrats beginning an internal power struggle until the late 60's where most of them start defecting to the Republican Party.

Republican Dwight D Eisenhower gets elected after Truman and is probably the last decent Republican president before the Republicans start to the full transition into who they are today. He's the president that helped support the desegregation of schools. Unfortunately he took Nixon on as his VP.

Important Note: The Second Great Migrations starts in 1941-1970 which leads others groups of millions of African American to migrate from the South to the North and West.(Important to how Nixon gained so much support in the South)

Nixionian Era:

JFK supported the Civil Rights movement and got in good with MLK's dad. African-American voters went with him. He dies and Lyndon B Johnson his VP who was a Southern Democrat runs for president. Republican Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater sees the division within the Democrat Party which had split between northern liberal Democrats and southern Democrats opposed to Civil Rights. The Southern Democrats did not like where their party was taking them in concerns to African-Americans despite liking their economic proposals.

Lyndon B Johnson gets the southern democrats to vote for him by making it seem like he wasn't going to pass the Civil Rights bill but he goes back on that and helps push it through forever alienating his white southern powerbase who turned on the Democratic Party en masse for Nixon.

Nixon used Barry Goldwater's standard to develop his Southern Strategy which meant appealing southern whites by exploiting racial fears and advocating for states' rights. The South was a lot whiter by that point due to the First and Second Great Migration. He won the election and re-election. VP Ford followed Nixon after he was impeached and resigned. Democrat Jimmy Carter won the next election and followed Ford but he proved unpopular. And then Reagan came on the scene.

Reagan Era/ Birth of the Modern Republican Party:

He fully committed to the southern strategy that Goldwater and Nixon developed. He associated the liberal programs that racist white people loved with minorities (along with communists). Welfare queens, strapping young bucks etc. Reagan is the president that began the dog-whistling and popularized with republicans. Reaganomics also advocated the high tax cuts on the wealthy

So this coalition was made up of racists, southerners who glorified the Confederacy, Evangelical nuts( who went Republican when the Republicans start advocating states' rights) and the rich.

edited 30th Jan '17 11:27:22 PM by MadSkillz

It ain't exactly Academic with citations and footnotes but it's more or less an accurate summary. It happened gradually and step-by-step.

Eric Foner, perhaps the greatest American historian of the last twenty years, would point out that President Grant for all his virtues and determination started to backtrack already from Reconstruction to the tail end of his administration which became quite controversial and even the famous Carl Schurz was thinking of throwing African-Americans under the bus. Grant would admit privately that Reconstruction was a failure and pushing African-Americans was a mistake. Now of course he said that after a lot of personal attacks and controversies and he was always a little thin-skinned but fundamentally the good and the bad side of the Republican Parties co-existed and kept being in tension with each other from the beginning. In the end the bad side won.

Fundamentally it's apt to see the Republican Party at the moment of finding as a certain coalition that united best against the interests of the Southern slave states and their insane expansionism. That built consensus, unity, ideology but once that ended, they struggled to clearly articulate that unifying consensus and vision...and they fell to dominant money interests at the expense of African-Americans. I will say that until Ronald Reagan, it was possible to draw continuities between the Civil War Republicans.

But Reagan just totally erased that and made a new identity. I would say the modern Republicans descend from Reagan: Fake-As-Hell Media Nostalgia, Homey!Just like Dad approchability that's actually a mask for Anti-Intellectualism, union-busting, oligarchical-theocratic tendencies and more or less cultivating a progressively sociopathic partisanship and cult like mentality.

I've always figured that cult-like partisanship stems from Gingrich in 1994. Like I always thought Reagan built an unearned cult of personality around himself and Gingrich took advantage of that by turning it into a cult for the Republican Party which is why they always call on Reagan as if he were their patron god.

@Julian When did the military start becoming a Republican safe spot? I don't actually know that part.

When did the Republican Party start advertising itself as some party of patriotism?

I would argue around the early 1900's and it intensified around the time of the First Red Scare. It was part and parcel a response to the concerns about the rise of communism/socialism in the US. It got a lot worse around the time of WWII when the US and USSR started competing more directly. It was seen as a necessary step to be as much of the polar opposite to communism as possible. That was seen as the right wing.

It of course has gotten worse over the years. To the point where even being centrist is seen as being too far left.

edited 31st Jan '17 2:07:20 AM by TuefelHundenIV

A fascinating Ph D dissertation from the Helsinki University. While the full thing is in Finnish, there's an English abstract:

Secret Weapon Brothers: Finno-German Security Service Cooperation 1933-1944

Also the AskHistorians thread on the subject.

edited 31st Jan '17 4:29:28 AM by TerminusEst

Well obviously as time goes on, new and new features are added to the orthodoxy. Reagan was extreme right-wing crazy by the standards of the 70s (where social democracy was more or less seen as mainstream) but he seems moderate compared to what came after. As it was said of the Greyjoys the same can be said of the Republicans: "Reagan was mad, Dubya was madder, Trump is the maddest of them all."

They always did, but we definitely owe that to Reagan. He brought the hokey fifties Hollywood (or stereotypically fifties Hollywood, the actual time was more interesting) into the mainstream.

The Red Scare had bipartisan consensus, especially the original Red Scare. It was Democrat Woodrow Wilson who ordered the deportation of the Palmer Raids. The Democrats at the time were anti-socialist precisely because they loathed the internationalist anti-racist nature of socialism as a threat to their herrenvolk notions of the American Common Man ("White Male") as being first in line. The modern Democrat party begins with FDR, the first US President who recognized the USSR. Now the second Red Scare also had consensus between Democrats and Republicans, the former were quick to help in purging Communists from unions, but there was more dissent. And in the second Red Scare, the Republicans were more purely mercenary than actually ideological...Eisenhower used Joseph McCarthy to get elected and get the Republicans back in government after two Democrat decades, as soon as he stepped in office, he moderated and helped the party dump him.

Initially yes, but once it looked like communism was here to stay and once The Great Depression hit, everyone realized that changes had to be made. So then the goal became to find a way to bribe the people by means of The Moral Substitute. That was the Social Democrat consensus that both Dems and Republicans shared until the mid-70s.

Still from inside the military perspective those are the time frames it appears to start. When the most overt efforts to instill numerous "anti-communist" values like Christianity, capitalism, and of course rampant nationalism.

While those have always been present they were not as heavily focused on until around those time frames. There was and still is a belief that brute force instilling of those values is an inoculation against the enemy, manipulation, and of course "Anti-American" thought.