The ALL Things HISTORY Thread

[GhostofSparta]

So Asian history is a glaring weak spot in my history geekdom. I know the basics, but I've never really delved into it like I have Western history (and to some extent, African and Middle Eastern history). So here's my question/"What if" scenario:

 

What would it have taken for China to shape the world the way Europe did, only a lot sooner?

 

China invented gunpowder. They had a bigger population and were often more unified than Europe at any point since Rome. They had philosophy (Confucius), military genius (Sun Tzu), various leaders who consolidated large areas of the country (Han, Qin/Chin, etc.), there have even been recent findings of large exploration fleets finding the Americans before Europe did.

 

But there was always a leader who came along and decided "**** the rest of the world. China is the best, anything foreign is evil, we're keeping to ourselves."

 

Is there any 1 point (or a couple close together) where China was poised to do to the world what Europe did in the 1700's and 1800's?

[Going Commando]

China wasn't politically unified. The region has a really huge and ethnically diverse population and suffered horrific wars, plagues, and famines that stunted the progress of civilization.

I believe in geographic determinism. I think you can look at certain idiosyncratic moments in the histories of societies--for instance an individual leader changing the path of development or a society rejecting a new technology for cultural reasons--and still eventually trace back to a root geographic cause for that moment. Geography explains the broadest patterns of human history.

You get to Europe's eventual global dominance in the age of sail and industrialization because Europeans happened to live in the best environment for large scale food production and they were very insulated form the huge conflicts that happened in Asia: the Mongolian conquests, the rise and fall of several Islamic empires, internecine wars in East Asia.

Western Europe organized itself into ethnically homogeneous nations at a pretty early period. France became full of the French. Spain full of the Spanish. And England became English once their Norman and Anglo-Saxon and Danish populations melded together. Austria-Hungary was the only multi-national/multi-ethnic great power in Europe and that was the one whose power progressively declined throughout the colonial and industrial eras. Once Russia escaped the Tatar yoke ethnic Russians filled up and dominated their region and they became a power.

Also Western Europe had a TON of coal, which helped the great nations of that region industrialize before anyone else and thus come to dominate the globe in the first era where a nation could be technologically capable of doing so.

[Predicto]

 

One thing I find interesting ... as soon as I saw the thread title, I thought of a WW2 topic, by scanning a few posts in this thread, I see discussion has already started about the war. 

 

Why is that? I know the obvious reasons, but there are so many topics and events in this world's modern history, and boom, the first thing we all talk about, for the most part is WW2. 

 

 

WWII is endlessly interesting.  The conflict was so huge, and there were so many oversized personalities involved.  Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, Tojo, Mussolini, Yamamoto, Patton, Rommel, MacArthur, Zhukov, Montgomery, Goring, Himmler, DeGaulle... the list gies on and on.   All larger than life figures.   

I need to do the readings on WWII apparently. In the mean time, if anyone wants to know anything about European diplomatic history from the end of the Napoleonic wars to the outbreak of WWI, I'm your man. Or if you want to know about Antiquity, I'll bust out my Plutarch and Livy texts.

 

 

Is Dreadnaught the best book about the causes of WWII?   It is the best one I've read.

[Going Commando]

Europe is lucky to have a pretty uniform temperate climate where almost the entire continent was well forested and arable. Scandinavia has a crappy, cold, dry climate. And their environmental fragility is why Scandinavian civilizations never developed at the pace the more southerly civilizations did. The rest of Europe had it nice and their land was resource rich. Plus there aren't any major geographical barriers to stop the spread of technology and people and ideas. There are the Alps but the Mediterranean and the major rivers make transcontinental transport easy. And there aren't any deserts like in North and South America, Africa, and Northeast and Southwest Asia.

[Predicto]

Did the Russians feign a retreat to trap the Nazis in winter conditions and a long supply lines when they were trying to invade Russia?

 

 

 

No.  They were caught by surprise and their generals were completely incompetent.   All of their competent military people had been purged due to Stalin's paranoia.   They lost millions of soldiers because they had no idea what they were doing.   Nevertheless, their built in advantages remained - massive amounts of land so they could always retreat further, massive amounts of expendable soldiers, the winter, and the mud.  Even incompetent Stalin couldn't give all that away.

[Going Commando]

Is Dreadnaught the best book about the causes of WWII?   It is the best one I've read.

I don't know, I haven't read it and don't know much about the historiography of the war. It's too big for me.

[Predicto]

So Asian history is a glaring weak spot in my history geekdom. I know the basics, but I've never really delved into it like I have Western history (and to some extent, African and Middle Eastern history). So here's my question/"What if" scenario:

 

What would it have taken for China to shape the world the way Europe did, only a lot sooner?

 

China invented gunpowder. They had a bigger population and were often more unified than Europe at any point since Rome. They had philosophy (Confucius), military genius (Sun Tzu), various leaders who consolidated large areas of the country (Han, Qin/Chin, etc.), there have even been recent findings of large exploration fleets finding the Americans before Europe did.

 

But there was always a leader who came along and decided "**** the rest of the world. China is the best, anything foreign is evil, we're keeping to ourselves."

 

Is there any 1 point (or a couple close together) where China was poised to do to the world what Europe did in the 1700's and 1800's?

 

 

Not really, not as far as I know.   China was united, and more or less controlled everything around it, other than Japan.  No one ever threatened them, except for the Mongols.  They were hemmed in by enormous mountains and deserts from going west.   It was a They had little economic incentive to push out, and they had no religion that they wanted to spread to the rest of the world.   Plus, they viewed China as the center of the world, and the primary goal was to keep everything else out, not to get out themselves.  

 

Meanwhile, in Europe you had competition between the English, French, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, Venetians etc, all of whom were pinned in on small plots of land with limited resources, and needed to expand for economic reasons, plus some wanted to spread Christianity, etc.   A very different set of incentives that made colonialism much more appealing to the Europeans.  

[GhostofSparta]

A book I've always wanted to read by never got around to was "Guns, Germs, and Steel." Seems like as good a place as any on here to ask: is it good?

 

I can get it on Amazon for about $4 with shipping, so there's no reason not to get it, but I'm curious if there are any major flaws or issues that any who read the book knows of?

[Predicto]

A book I've always wanted to read by never got around to was "Guns, Germs, and Steel." Seems like as good a place as any on here to ask: is it good?

 

I can get it on Amazon for about $4 with shipping, so there's no reason not to get it, but I'm curious if there are any major flaws or issues that any who read the book knows of?

 

 

Its a tremendous book.   Everyone should read it.  It opens your mind to new ways of thinking about these issues.

 

I have seen disputes about some of its conclusions, but that is fine.   No theory is perfect - every theory should be questioned.    

[Going Commando]

No.  They were caught by surprise and their generals were completely incompetent.   All of their competent military people had been purged due to Stalin's paranoia.   They lost millions of soldiers because they had no idea what they were doing.   Nevertheless, their built in advantages remained - massive amounts of land so they could always retreat further, massive amounts of expendable soldiers, the winter, and the mud.  Even incompetent Stalin couldn't give all that away.

I think this is one of the things that seems most alien to our culture. How can Russians have such a tolerance for loss and suffering? "Such is life in Moscow" is the joke, but there is a spirit of truth to it.

Hugely disproportionate losses happened during the Crimean War too. The British and French forces lost something like 60,000 combined and it was absolutely devastating to their morale and created the pressure that led to a pretty unsatisfying and indecisive end to the war. In both countries it led to their unwillingness to get involved in the American Civil War. Russia lost ten times that many men--a huge chunk of those losses came simply trying to transport their armies to the front--and yet next generation they're back and aggrandizing again and scaring the Western powers.

There is just kind of a stoicism and patience for misery and injustice in the Russian national character. I find Russian history depressing. Saying that, I want to be careful and point out that there's a strong current of Germanic racism in European history that we need not fall into when we think about Russian history and "national character." Germanic peoples (including the English and Scandinavians) have long seen Russians (and other Slavs) as dog-like/servile, politically disorganized and unambitious, lacking vigor, and generally inferior. That they were cow-like people that needed a master to rule them. This goes back to Scandinavian settlement and rule in the 800's.

[Going Commando]

A book I've always wanted to read by never got around to was "Guns, Germs, and Steel." Seems like as good a place as any on here to ask: is it good?

 

I can get it on Amazon for about $4 with shipping, so there's no reason not to get it, but I'm curious if there are any major flaws or issues that any who read the book knows of?

It's one of the great works of my lifetime. Jared Diamond is the Charles Darwin of our time. I found Collapse really influential too. He's a genius thinker who has traveled to the most remote places on Earth and done incredible research. Darwin on the HMS Beagle in the Galapagos. Diamond in a dug out canoe or small plane in New Guinea, Greenland, and Easter Island.

And he's a genius at communicating history too, anyone can follow him.

[dfitzo53]

Wow, great to see this thread already taking off.

 

I'm David/Dave.  I was a history and anthropology double major, and now I'm teaching middle school math, so make of that what you will.

 

I'm also interested in WW2 history, but medieval and ancient history around world is my favorite.  I'm willing to go way back into prehistory for that matter.

[MartinC]

I really appreciate the link TJ. Really do so I hate to say this: for this thread I was think questions being answered by folks whose passion is the topic behind the question. Like a WWII nut for my question. And then they provide a link to back up their answer.

I hope I'm not coming across as a dick with this. That's just the vision I had for this. Thank you again, so much, for the info and link though.

You have to understand that the stated objective of Barbarossa was not the conquest of the territory of Russia but the destruction of their armed forces and the establishment of a German occupied territory whose boundary was outside the range of any Russian air attack on Germany and which incorporated the economically productive regions of Russia.

Here is the relevant part of the operational order for Barbarossa.

"The mass of the Russian Army in western Russia is to be destroyed in daring operations, by driving forward deep armored wedges, and the retreat of units capable of combat into the vastness of Russian territory is to be prevented"

http://germanhistorydocs.ghi-dc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=1547

In that context the decision to shift Guderians Panzer army from the central front Southwards to form one arm of the pincer around Kiev makes some sense. It resulted in the destruction of several Soviet armies and vast quantities of armour and guns. German generals argued at the time and later though that Army group South did not need the additional support from Army Group Centres Panzers and that the main Russian reserves would be found and engaged in and around Moscow.

The Germans also severely underestimated the strength of the Red Army and had no real knowledge of the fresh divisions in reserve East of Moscow who were released from their positions covering the Japanese border after the attack on Pearl Harbour and confirmation from Russian spies that Japan had no plans to attack Russia and was fully committed in the Pacific.

The diversion of the main German Panzer Armies to the South both wore down those forces (mechanical break down in particular - there were no tank transporters in those days) and caused a critical delay on the drive on Moscow.

When the winter hit and the German drive bogged down just outside Moscow the Siberian divisions counter attacked and the Germans were forced back.

It's debateable if Germany would have been ultimately successful even if they had taken Moscow but it's pretty much accepted that the strategy they employed of a three pronged attack in 1941 was fatally flawed from the outset. The German attacked with 3 Army Groups - North attacking towards Leningrad, Centre towards Moscow and South towards Kiev, Karkhov and the Ukrainian oilfields. The Whermact though just did not have the strength or critically the mobile forces to maintain these 3 separate thrusts which did not support each other (remember for all the talk of Panzers and blitzkrieg the vast majority of German soldiers marched into Russia with guns pulled by horses).

[pjfootballer]

Regarding the question as to why the countries in Asia never tried to take over the rest of the world, would it be wrong for me to form my own opinion that they had such good trading partners during those times when the Far East was discovered that they didn't want to ruin their cash cow of Europeans?  Or am I way off base? 

[Elessar78]

Not really, not as far as I know.   China was united, and more or less controlled everything around it, other than Japan.  No one ever threatened them, except for the Mongols.  They were hemmed in by enormous mountains and deserts from going west.   It was a They had little economic incentive to push out, and they had no religion that they wanted to spread to the rest of the world.   Plus, they viewed China as the center of the world, and the primary goal was to keep everything else out, not to get out themselves.  

 

Meanwhile, in Europe you had competition between the English, French, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese, Venetians etc, all of whom were pinned in on small plots of land with limited resources, and needed to expand for economic reasons, plus some wanted to spread Christianity, etc.   A very different set of incentives that made colonialism much more appealing to the Europeans.  

Was reading a book about Genghis Khan and Chinese isolationism on some level was triggered by the Mongol Occupation. The Plague reduced the strength of the Mongol empire enough that it allowed a Chinese insurrection. Once they were rid of the Mongols they closed their doors to the outside world.

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

What happens if Hitler doesn't declare war on the US first after Pearl Harbor?

My understanding is that FDR and Co saw Hitler as the much bigger threat than Japan, thus why we devoted so much more of our resources to Europe to start.

They were also worried about the American Public not giving a **** about Hitler since he didn't attack us and FDR and Co were thrilled when he declared war on us..

So what happens if he doesn't declare it?

(post spurred by "Secrets of WWII" on AHC (they REALLY need to go back to the Military Channel). It's about the explosive balloons Japan set off to the US West Coast. Pretty interesting actually.)

[codeorama]

I love history as well. I teach HS history, specifically Ancient history, Homo Sapiens up to the Renaissance. I really love Ancient Greek and Roman History as well as WWII history.

[Going Commando]

GACOLB wasn't Germany treaty-bound to declare war on the U.S. because we declared war on Japan?

I've got a diplomatic history book that covers the war years I'm about to have to crack open.

[MartinC]

GACOLB wasn't Germany treaty-bound to declare war on the U.S. because we declared war on Japan?I've got a diplomatic history book that covers the war years I'm about to have to crack open.

It was not a requirement of the triparte treaty (Axis pact - Germany, Japan and Italy) that other members declare war on any other nation that declared war on one of the other members. But it certainly made the German action of declaring war on the US much more likely.

Once Germany did declare war on the U.S. the war was no longer winnable for Germany (it arguable was already not winnable when Germany failed to knock Russia out of the war in the 1941 campaign). Germany just did not have the economic capacity or manpower to fight Russia, the U.S. and the resouces of the British Empire (the later being much less of a factor than the former two).

[Going Commando]

That's interesting Martin. That means the Axis alliance was weaker than I expected. I wonder how many nations had mutual protection pacts going into WWII? I'm guessing those kinds of security treaties were avoided after WWI. Do you know if England and France guaranteed Belgium's borders?

[MartinC]

That's interesting Martin. That means the Axis alliance was weaker than I expected. I wonder how many nations had mutual protection pacts going into WWII? I'm guessing those kinds of security treaties were avoided after WWI. Do you know if England and France guaranteed Belgium's borders?

There were lots of 'non aggression' and mutual assistances agreements between individual nations or blocks of nations - and trans national treaty bodies like the League of Nations. The Germans and Russians of course had a non agression treaty! The only explicit guarantee to a nations borders though was Britain and France's guarantee to Poland. It was the German invasion of Poland which triggered that agreement and led to Britain and France declaring war on Germany.

In relation to Belgium you might be thinking of the guarantee of Begiums neutrality before WW1 - but that was a treaty signed by all the major European nations including Germany along with Britain, France, Russia and Austria/Hungry.

You get the sense all these International treaties might not be exactly water tight ....

[China]

I'll just leave this here.

 

The 14 Most Loathsome Figures of the Second World War

 

When putting together this list, I decided to exclude some of the most obvious high-level personalities, including Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, Herman Göring, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Emperor Hirohito, and Japanese ministers Hideki Tojo and Fumimaro Konoe. Their contributions to the war are firmly established, so it's not worth repeating them here.

 

Click on the link for more

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

Sorry for the bump...

Watching one of the 45 Hitler shows that air every day, Nazi Collaborators. This one is titled: "The Jew Who Fought for Hitler". It's mainly about the Nuremberg Laws and how they determined who was a Jew.

My question, how did so many Jews make it to Europe? Why was Poland their most popular spot? Why were Eastern European Jews more Orthodox than Western Europeans Jews?

Just curious. I know they've been there for centuries. Just wondering when the starting point was and why

[The 12th Commandment]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews

 

Strangely enough, my dad just got his dna analysis back and he was surprised that he was 97% Ashkenazi.  Doesn't mean much to me other than explaining why I like jewish food so much, but we always thought on his side that he was half and half ukrainian jewish/catholic german.  My grandfather made up stories that indicated as much, wish he were around so I ask why.  He left Germany long before the Nazis.  Anyway, it caused me to do a little research on just the questions you have put forward and I found that wiki was enlightening.

[Riggo-toni]

Jews typically ended up in Europe as traders and financiers because they were able to move relatively freely between Christendom and the Islamic world. The most common estimate is that 10% of the Roman Empire was Jewish, but after the collapse of the Bar Kochba rebellion, Jerusalem was renamed Aeia (sp?) Capitolina, and Jews were forbidden to enter the city.

Large numbers of Jews followed the Moors into southern Spain, which during the high middle ages was the most advanced and tolerant civilization in Europe. The architect of the Alhambra was Jewish, and Maimonides, the greatest Jewish scholar of the middle ages, lived in Spain. Eventually the Moorish kingdoms fell, and Jews were forced to convert or be expelled at least in part because they were seen as collaborators with Muslims. Many fled to Portugal, which tragically soon adopted the same policies. A portion fled to Sarajevo, where they were allowed to live freely right up until the Bosnian civil was in the 90s.

Trade routes along the Rhine brought prosperity to numerous Jewish communities in the area around Mainz. These were slaughtered in appalling numbers by fanatics following Peter the Hermit during the People's Crusade. Various rulers expelled their Jewish populations at various times, and most often the reason was to avoid paying debts. Polish nobility recognized the erudition of the Jewish populace, and welcomed them into their community. Subsequently, they would often delegate unpopular bureaucratic functions to Jewish citizens like tax collection, which in turn led to resentment and widespread antisemitism. Poles and Lithuanians were often more enthusiastic in about rounding up Jews during WW2 than German citizens.

One common myth is that Jews became bankers because Christians confiscated their farmlands and then outlawed them from commerce. Though this certainly did happen, the strongest contributor to Jewish preeminence in finance was the unusually high literacy rate - a perhaps unintended consequence of the destruction of the temple and the subsequent diaspora. In order to retain their faith, diligent study of the tanakh and the talmud was required.