Need help with History topic

[Jinura]

So, I have this paper that for next week in History, i've had quite a bit of time to do it, but just couldn't decide on what to pic, so I'm asking the playground for a subject.

It has to have taken place in 1850-today, that's the only requirement really, so what I want is you to just throw random subjects in.

I'm very intrested in politics, but I have another opinion than what's normal for Denmark ( No nothing that would be considered crazy in anywhere outside of Scandinavia I think ) so it shouldn't get all to controversial..

[Mercenary Pen]

Maybe the Boer war?

[chiasaur11]

Winter War.

If only because Simo Häyhä wrote the book on badass snipers.

[SolkaTruesilver]

The Boxers War? If you include the Tea/Silver/Opium trade, this pretty much redefined the whole East Asian geopolitical picture for the next century.

[Terraoblivion]

There's more to history than wars you three! A lot more. Also the boxer rebellion really didn't have that much to do with the opium war, for one thing it happened sixty years later. Of course without the opium war the European powers wouldn't have had the concessions that the boxers rebelled against, but even so it was not about tea, silver or opium.

Is it world history or Danish history? Because about the only interesting thing that ever really happened in the latter was the developed of the Danish welfare state model. If we are looking at world history there are honestly a lot of choices...Which parts of the world interest you and what sort of topics? I'm a history major so i should be able to give some advice on topics, though my personal knowledge and skill is pretty oriented towards East Asia, with much of the rest focused on American history.

[SolkaTruesilver]

There's more to history than wars you three! A lot more.


Well, the Boxer Wars is just a pivotal point of the whole Tea/Silver/Opium trade period, which saw the foundation of Hong-Kong, the change of regime in England, the first Steamboat ships and increase in health condition in Europe.

[chiasaur11]

Yeah, but wars are the awesome part.

Slightly more seriously, I'm quoting The Third Man here. "In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

Wars make bigger changes than peace, generally.

[Jinura]

Is it world history or Danish history? Because about the only interesting thing that ever really happened in the latter was the developed of the Danish welfare state model. If we are looking at world history there are honestly a lot of choices...Which parts of the world interest you and what sort of topics? I'm a history major so i should be able to give some advice on topics, though my personal knowledge and skill is pretty oriented towards East Asia, with much of the rest focused on American history.


It's both really, though as I said.. My views on the Danish Welfare state is somewhat different than what the average teacher's view. Though it is an exciting subject

[UnChosenOne]

Maybe you should try to write something about role of western powers in the Russian Civil War? Though Danish Welfare state is probaly far better subject for your paper.

[SolkaTruesilver]

It's both really, though as I said.. My views on the Danish Welfare state is somewhat different than what the average teacher's view. Though it is an exciting subject

And you are asking americans of their views of the Danish Welfare state? :smalleek:

I doubt it's gonna spark no controversy. I suggest you stay with history on this board :smallbiggrin:

Maybe you could talk about how the German unification influenced Denmark? I say anything that has Bismark as the study focus is worth writing. :smallcool:

[The Glyphstone]

And you are asking americans of their views of the Danish Welfare state? :smalleek::

The Danish Welfare state? Is that the practice of giving out free danishes every day to unemployed people? I heartily support this practice.:smallbiggrin:[/american]

[Terraoblivion]

No, Solka, that's the first Opium War. The Boxer Rebellion was when the Order of the Harmonious Fist rose to cast out the missionaries from the Shandong Province and Cixi the empress dowager decided to side with them, engulfing China in even more chaos. A unified occupational force of the US, European powers and Japan then went on to occupy Beijing and divide China in zones of interest. It happened in 1900, long after Hong Kong had been established and Shanghai had been opened to foreign trade.

In any case i have a few ideas for what you could make a paper about. Some i won't say since you have too little time to do any real research for them due to their relative obscurity. I'll divide them into Danish and world history sections.

Danish History:
- Danish nationalism and the relationship with Germany. A hugely orthodox topic that i'm pretty sure you have thought about, but i'll still throw it out for good measure.
- Estrup's provisional government and the abolishment of democracy
- Labor struggle and the development of the worker's movement
- Historical development of the Danish welfare state model

World History:
- The Great Depression. Again, an orthodox topic, but definitely an important one and one that allows for connections to many other topics if you want
- The Boxer Rebellion. While it was a long time ago and relatively localized, it is probably second only to the opium war, the Meiji restoration and the second world war in significance in East Asian history. It was the ultimate collapse for China and the first of many events that showed the Japanese that modernization and adoption of European culture didn't change how they were treated in the international community.
- If you have the time and know where to find information about it, Muhammed Ali's attempt at industrializing an independent Egypt should be hugely interesting. I think that it might be hard to find information quickly enough, however
- Deng Xiaoping's reforms and their effect on China. While he is not quite as well-known as he should be, the constant stories in the news about China's startling growth came from the reforms begun by Deng Xiaoping in 1980, so it is kind of a big deal.
- The spread of American pop culture in Europe in the post-war period. A much softer topic to study to be certain, but an important and interesting one. And obvious topic to compare to would the startling growth in popularity of Japanese pop culture over the last decade, though that part might be hard to find information about.
- The relationship between Eastern and Western Europe following the fall of the Berlin Wall.
- The rise and growth of Islamic fundamentalism, though that topic is pretty much going to be a minefield, so unless you are very confident in your skills at research and presentation, i'd recommend avoiding it.

I have more ideas, but those would pretty much be impossible to find information about, so no need to recommend them here. This should be plenty anyway.

[SolkaTruesilver]

The Danish Welfare state? Is that the practice of giving out free danishes every day to unemployed people? I heartily support this practice.:smallbiggrin:[/american]

Right. Sorry. You probably know it more as the European Welfare State. :smallwink: Rings a bell?

[pita]

Denmark saving Jews in the Holocaust. I believe all Danish people are Israeli citizens because of that. You could probably write something interesting about that.
EDITED to avoid adding politics. Sorry.

[Terraoblivion]

God, can we drop the story created by the Danish propaganda bureau in Washington in an attempt to get Denmark registered as an allied country?

Yes, the Danish Jews were saved...by disgruntled German diplomats and Danish fishermen who saw an opportunity to make a lot of money by fleecing the refugees. The Danish population largely didn't care about Jews either way, as anti-semitism was as rampant in Denmark as in the rest of the world at the time. When you read what some of the resistance members who were involved in the operation wrote you'll realize that they were racists themselves, largely only caring because it was an embarrassment to the Germans. Several of them even expressed regret at having to save Jews to get in the way of the Germans.

So as great as it is that thousands of people were saved, i dislike the congratulatory story of heroism about it. It is a gross misrepresentation of the historical reality, with all the problems that brings. Really the whole topic of Danish resistance during the second world war is one that has been inflated to grotesque proportions and is mired with misrepresentations and national myths. Nothing good comes from going there.

In general i would recommend avoiding stories of heroism. Those tend to be toxic and more created in latter times for political purposes than anything else. It is only rarely that anything good comes out of repeating them in an academic setting. They also tend to ultimately be quite irrelevant on their own merits compared to larger, more comprehensive topics.

[Mauther]

I'd get behind any pastry based social support system, that's just good sense. Your being smart to avoid anything your teacher considers controversial, despite what many educators claim most don't like being challenged, specially if it requires interpretting social effects. If you suspect that your prof might have an issue being impartial, stay clear. My two kroner worth would be either write about the Scandinavian Monetary Union in the late 19th century of the effects of Danish neutrality in the first World War. I've never heard much about what Denmark was up to during that period, not a great power and not one of the catalysts, so they don't get much play in the whole story. I do seem to recall the end of WWI was pretty big for Denmark (return of Jutland and neutered the monarchy) but I don't remember the specifics. Might be an interesting chapter to write about.

[Jinura]

And you are asking americans of their views of the Danish Welfare state? :smalleek:

I doubt it's gonna spark no controversy. I suggest you stay with history on this board :smallbiggrin:


Thing is, I probably have about the same views as your average American, that's why it's a little controversial over here ( All right i'll stay away from my opinions now )





Danish History:

- Estrup's provisional government and the abolishment of democracy
- Labor struggle and the development of the worker's movement
- Historical development of the Danish welfare state model

World History:
- The Great Depression. Again, an orthodox topic, but definitely an important one and one that allows for connections to many other topics if you want

- The spread of American pop culture in Europe in the post-war period. A much softer topic to study to be certain, but an important and interesting one. And obvious topic to compare to would the startling growth in popularity of Japanese pop culture over the last decade, though that part might be hard to find information about.
- The relationship between Eastern and Western Europe following the fall of the Berlin Wall.
- The rise and growth of Islamic fundamentalism, though that topic is pretty much going to be a minefield, so unless you are very confident in your skills at research and presentation, i'd recommend avoiding it.



Those were of interest :smallwink:

Some of them are rather political, so i'll have to thread carefully there. I know about zero when it comes to Asian, save for some of the largest events, mongol invasions, colonization, etc..

[SolkaTruesilver]

Thing is, I probably have about the same views as your average American, that's why it's a little controversial over here ( All right i'll stay away from my opinions now )


That is why I said don't go there. There ain't no "average american". It's a myth created by pundits who want to make people believe what "you should believe". They set it as the benchmark, usually favoring their own views.

Trust me, I see the same thing happening in Quebec. By the same kind of pundits/politicians. It's a fallacy.

In reality, there might be quite a high number of people in favor, or against. But the sample you will interrogate will always being quite heterogeneous. Which is why these topics are dangerous, as you will see people arguing from both side of the issue, and see this thread locked down quicker than you can say {scrubbed}

[Brewdude]

And you are asking americans of their views of the Danish Welfare state? :smalleek:

I doubt it's gonna spark no controversy. I suggest you stay with history on this board :smallbiggrin:

Maybe you could talk about how the German unification influenced Denmark? I say anything that has Bismark as the study focus is worth writing. :smallcool:

Did you say the Bismark?

What most Americans think when you say Bismark. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KecIdlEAKhU)

[SolkaTruesilver]

Did you say the Bismark?

What most Americans think when you say Bismark. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KecIdlEAKhU)

Right.

And Nimitz, J.F. Kennedy and Lincolns are all aircraft carriers, right?

Sorry, I don't believe in the stupidity of the american people.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Slightly more seriously, I'm quoting The Third Man here.

Quoting villains is a great way to justify your point.

But then again. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StrawmanHasAPoint)

Remember, there is no good or evil, just power and the strength to use it.

That quote's pretty much nonsense since Switzerland never had 500 years of peace and democracy and Leonardo D'Vinchi had quite a few projects ruined by wars which meant no one had the money to pay him. War tends to screw over just as many areas as it encourages. One of the greatest eras of medical advancement happened just after a war when France and Germany's rivalry got channeled into less violent pursuits. Then there's the arguement over whether or not you count the Cold War as a war for this purpose.

[JonestheSpy]

Yeah, but wars are the awesome part.

Slightly more seriously, I'm quoting The Third Man here. "In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."


I think you should take that as a challenge and write about something Swisstastic. I mean, hello, some of the best chocolate in the world (not to mention Rousseau, Carl Jung, and H.R. Giger (http://illbethejudgeofthat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/hr_giger_elp_xi.jpg)?

It's also interesting to note that during the exact time the Borgias were running around causing mischief, the best infantry in Europe was from Switzerland - the famous Swiss pikemen.

[The_JJ]

Bismark is boss. "Not by speeches and votes of the majority are the great questions of the time decided — that was the error of 1848 and 1849 — but by iron and blood."

[Kobold-Bard]

Write about Nazi occultism. Everyone loves supernatural Nazi theories.

[Riffington]

In general i would recommend avoiding stories of heroism. Those tend to be toxic and more created in latter times for political purposes than anything else. It is only rarely that anything good comes out of repeating them in an academic setting. They also tend to ultimately be quite irrelevant on their own merits compared to larger, more comprehensive topics.

The world is full of heroism and villainy. It is convenient for some people to think that history is all about large socioeconomic issues - but personalities make a difference. There are great men and women whose decisions (good or evil) shaped the course of history, and it is well worth learning about these. I don't even know what "toxic" means in this paragraph - but the imperfections of certain heroes should not negate their heroism, and the saving of thousands of lives should not be dismissed because it is accompanied by requests for money.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

I sense British history being neglected here!

No really, Britain underwent a great deal of fundamental change in the period you set out, and since for a sizable amount of it Britain was the world's foremost power with the largest empire in human history, events in Britain had a huge effect on world events.

If you want particularly interesting changes, you could look at the early twentieth century - plenty of social movements, political turbulence, war and strife to sink your teeth into.

Anyway, now I'll let everyone else continue to ignore Britain in this period.

[Terraoblivion]

I mean that in this context using the story about the hero obscures the issues at hand. Stories of heroism are also a stable of people using history to push their political agendas, no matter what they are. Above all, however, stories of heroism largely gloss over why the people were heroic, why the deed in question is to be considered heroic in the first place and really anything essential.

To take the examples of the Danish Jews being evacuated to Sweden, the story about the heroic Danish people banding together to save the Jews has to ignore a lot of facts to work. A quick listing of facts ignored in order to produce this story. 1. The power struggles within the German bureaucracy that made it possible in the first place. 2. All the unpleasant traits of the people who actually carried out the operation. 3. That there was no actual risk involved since the leadership of the occupational forces were actively looking aside. 4. That a vanishingly small percentage of the Danish population was involved. 5. The few actual examples of Jews being captured during the operation were all carried out by Danish police officers and not by the occupational forces. Any one of these facts would seriously mess up the story about how the Danish population saved the Jews, even though the end result that the evacuation took place is the.

The problem with heroism is that it over simplifies. History is not so simple that you have heroes. You have hugely important individuals and even freak accidents, Ögedai Khan's heart attack probably being the most extreme and famous, that change history. However, all of those only do that due to context and a host of complex issues and the more complexity you add the less iconic a story becomes. That means that the reductionist writing that is needed to provide stories of heroism at best becomes poor scholarship and at worst becomes outright political manipulation. It is also very possible for the first of the two to be used as the latter.

[Mistral]

I think you should take that as a challenge and write about something Swisstastic. I mean, hello, some of the best chocolate in the world (not to mention Rousseau, Carl Jung, and H.R. Giger (http://illbethejudgeofthat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/hr_giger_elp_xi.jpg)?

It's also interesting to note that during the exact time the Borgias were running around causing mischief, the best infantry in Europe was from Switzerland - the famous Swiss pikemen.

Yes. The Swiss were far from peaceful in the mid- and late-medieval period, from kicking Charles the Bold up one side of Lorraine and down the other (and thereby leading to the extinction of his dynasty and sealing the fate of the Low Countries), to invading the Duchy of Milan and getting beaten back by France, to taking on the Swabian League and the Holy Roman Emperor and winning (which led to their independence in the Peace of Westphalia). If you want an in-time example of the Swiss willingness to resort to arms, the Sonderbund War was just outside of the period in question (1847) and led directly to the modern, centralized Swiss state.

[Soras Teva Gee]

I don't know about Denmark in particular but I think Decolonization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization) would be a great topic for any history class in Europe. Or stateside for that matter but its almost ignored here in between the blissfulness about winning WWII (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AmericaWinsTheWar), the Cold War, and the 60s. Despite probably being more important (in the long run) then any of those topics.

[Brewdude]

1850 to 1914 is really all about imperialism. It's the period that all the western powers did their best to expand their territory as far as it could go. Like all History, my favorite way to learn about it is via a board game, and the one for this era is Pax Britanica. 1870s are particularly interesting in the building of the railroads and settings of westerns in the USA, and the fall of the supremacy of the samurai in Japan. If you are looking for interesting not well known wars of the era, try the Russian/Japanese war of 1906 or the US civil war (well known in US, not so well known outside i hear). For a good movie that captures the essence of that era, watch any western (Watch the man with no name trilogy for class! A Fist Full of Dollars (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqjcoTzhaIk); For a Few Dollars More (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zk7XHtvDZ_E) and Theme (http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=mLXQltR7vUQ&feature=related); and The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13EUXqIwDkQ) and Theme (http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=1hYV-JSjpyU&feature=related)), The last Emperor, The last Samauri (yeah it's Tom Cruise in Japan, whatever), or, my personal favorite, The Men Who Would Be Kings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dJf5rO0-BM), staring Michael Caine and Sean Connery

[Platinum_Mongoose]

The best essay I ever wrote in college was on Wyatt Earp and the events surrounding the OK Corral. Good topic if you want to take a break from 19th century Imperialism.

[Riffington]

I mean that in this context using the story about the hero obscures the issues at hand. Stories of heroism are also a stable of people using history to push their political agendas, no matter what they are.
This is an outdated and narrow view. Heroes can be respected without any political agenda, simply by historians, an interested public, and grateful beneficiaries. In particular, the people celebrating the heroism of Swedes and Danish in WWII tend to be people with a strong claim to gratitude but little personal political interest in US-Danish relations (i.e. Survivors).




1. The power struggles within the German bureaucracy that made it possible in the first place.
Taking advantage of enemy political chaos is hardly bad.



2. All the unpleasant traits of the people who actually carried out the operation.
Fewer unpleasant traits than the average European of the time, and far more positive ones. Also, if a man saves my life, I would hardly balk at paying him; nor would I care what he writes in his diary after.



3. That there was no actual risk involved since the leadership of the occupational forces were actively looking aside.
Thwarting Hitler was never risk-free.



4. That a vanishingly small percentage of the Danish population was involved.
Well, actively physically involved, sure.


5. The few actual examples of Jews being captured during the operation were all carried out by Danish police officers and not by the occupational forces.
Yeah, that's how the Nazi occupation worked in most countries. The difference was that the Danish Jews nearly all survived due to Danish and Swedish heroism.



However, all of those only do that due to context and a host of complex issues and the more complexity you add the less iconic a story becomes. That means that the reductionist writing that is needed to provide stories of heroism at best becomes poor scholarship and at worst becomes outright political manipulation. It is also very possible for the first of the two to be used as the latter.
This is not true at all. The "debunking" type of revisionist history is outdated, and is just as narrow as the straw man "heroic history" it purports to fight. A complex and complete history aknowledges heroes while situating them within a full cultural and historical context. Heroes need not lose their heroism when you deal with complexity, at least not unless you have a very simplistic view of heroism.

[Terraoblivion]

Heroic Sweden? You mean a country so heroic that it compiled a list of every Jew, communist and known homosexual in the country to prepare to hand over to the Germans after the war? One of the many countries that had adamantly refused to accept any refugees from Germany during the 30s, except for the ones who had been persecuted for membership for the Social Democratic party. The country that was absolutely safe from invasion by anybody during the war by giving both sides what they wanted, while being out of the way for any larger strategic concerns.

And spent the entire war profiteering by selling products to the Germans, most notably granite for Hitler's grotesque plan of rebuilding Berlin as Germania. You will find very few historians, no matter their national origin, who has much kindness to say about the conduct of the Swedish government during the second world war.

As for Denmark being heroic in general, i would like to point out that Free Corps Denmark recruited between 6,000 and 10,000 individuals for service on the frontlines in the Soviet Union. While reliable research into the exact number of resistance members is hard due to the strong incentives to claim membership, as well as the larger interest in presenting the country as actively resisting. However, active armed resistance fighters involved in sabotage and assassination of suspected collaborators cannot have been very large simply due to the scarcity of such activities. The figure i, as a history major in Denmark, has most often heard is roughly 1,000, but i'm not sure how accurate it is.

And of course history aimed at tearing down heroes is just as useless and politically charged as history aimed at building their story, that is part of why focusing research on heroes is largely fruitless. The only point where i truly believe it serves a purpose to discuss heroism or lack of heroism is when the personal traits of an individual or group has become central in popular perceptions of a given event. As an example the wholly fictional myth that still gets bandied around in the US that Christian X put on a yellow star in sympathy with the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. Or for an example of a story of heroism from a different part of the political spectrum than the conservative Danish king, the messianic portrayal of Che Guevara is another example of an entrenched story of heroism. In both those cases i can see it be relevant to try and deal with the story of heroism, not because the people in question deserves to be portrayed otherwise but because it blocks reasonable debate.

However, outside endemic, entrenched stories i ultimately consider debating heroism to be fruitless. At best you can use it as an example of how opinions were divided over a given topic and that people acted differently. Otherwise all you are left with is microhistory, along the lines of The Cheese and the Worms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menocchio), though for that it is more common to use something that is odd or quirky than something emotionally charged. Otherwise a focus on heroes and heroism, is ultimately just a navel gazing focus on a topic too small to ultimately be relevant.

The story about how the evacuation of the Jews from Denmark have been used in later political debate is of great interest and importance, but the evacuation itself is ultimately just a historical footnote. Denmark had one of the smallest Jewish populations in Europe before the war, one so small that even though almost every single member of it escaped it only makes up a fraction of the total amount of European Jews who avoided the concentration camps. In any off itself it is not a very big story, as part of the larger story of the relationship between the Danish population and the German occupation it is a major chapter that should be told.

I cannot truthfully think of any example of history that is taught through the lens of heroism that is truly a major, relevant story to be told on its own merits. Stories of heroism are just minor events that get inflated significance because they are useful to someone, ultimately not something worthy of scholarship except as part of a larger inquiry. With so many big, fundamental questions still desperately demanding exploration, such as why Europe suddenly began its rapid social and economic development in the late 18th century, why should we focus our energy on such relatively minor topics as who did what in the most peaceful part of Europe 67 years ago? It is as irrelevant as the discussion of who murdered Erik Klipping (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_V_of_Denmark) or what Eisenhower's private letters say.

[Riffington]

Heroic Sweden?
I said Swedes, not Sweden.
You don't get to cast any aspersions on that true Hero, Raoul Wallenberg, or his allies.


As an example the wholly fictional myth that still gets bandied around in the US that Christian X put on a yellow star in sympathy with the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto.
The truth behind that myth (which you slightly misquote) is that Christian X stated that if the Jews in Denmark were forced to wear the star, "perhaps we all should wear it". Partly due to this, the Jews were never forced to wear the star in Denmark.
As you can see, here the myth is closer to the truth than the "debunking" is.


With so many big, fundamental questions still desperately demanding exploration, such as why Europe suddenly began its rapid social and economic development in the late 18th century
The answer requires an understanding of (among others) Benjamin Franklin, Frederick the Great, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Daniel Bernoulli. Heck, if Sir Isaac Newton had not been chosen to head the Royal Mint nearly a century prior, everything would have been different. Understanding European economic development requires an understanding of scores of heroes and villains.

[Poison_Fish]

The answer requires an understanding of (among others) Benjamin Franklin, Frederick the Great, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Daniel Bernoulli. Heck, if Sir Isaac Newton had not been chosen to head the Royal Mint nearly a century prior, everything would have been different. Understanding European economic development requires an understanding of scores of heroes and villains.

Actually, no, understanding the social and economic development of Europe doesn't require a strong understanding of a small number of individuals. A better understanding of overall ideology and broad policies (Social, economic, and political forces) are the primary means of observing growth. Not individuals, but discourse of the time and power is what moves things. The specific study of individuals is more icing on the cake.

I'd like to remind you that while your attempting to call Terra's view outdated, that in modern academia, your view is actually the outdated one for an overall picture and understanding. Where as focusing on individuals, "heroes or villains", if you will (never mind how that's already attempting to moralize history, which is a dangerous game to play) is more micro-history. The overall macro picture is less about them and more about broad movements as a whole.

Now as for casting historical figures as heroes and villains... that's actually something I take issue with. I'm not speaking for any evil or good, but I'll remind again, that sort of perspective, in the act alone of casting it, is rife full of issues that can easily lead to being mislead. There is benefit for both Emic and Etic perspectives, don't get me wrong. But a primary perspective such as that for history as a whole? That is just the wrong road to take.

[Terraoblivion]

Well, there are several reasons why Jews were not forced to wear the
yellow star in Denmark. The most simple, however, is that by the time the yellow star was introduced in occupied territories there were hardly any Jews left in Denmark, most of them having gotten away and the last few already deported. Also important to remember is that Denmark did not have a nazi government, nor a puppet government installed by the nazis. Instead the prewar social democratic government kept governing the country until late 1943, where it was deposed and martial law was declared, effectively ending all legislation and civilian governing in the country.

Even following the military take-over, the primary German principle in governing occupied Denmark was to try and stay on as good terms with the local population as possible. Again, there were multiple reasons for this, but among the most important was the fact that Denmark was safe and secure and there really was no real need to rock the boat. Germany had full control of Denmark and access to substantial agricultural resources with only a token force occupying the country. They just needed to keep the situation stable and they could reap the benefits of shielding their northern flank and gaining the means to feed their people. So if the Danish population didn't care for yellow stars, which it didn't because it would be an order coming from the occupational forces, they could just hold off on them. It was essentially the same principle that explained why they didn't care about Sweden harboring refugees from continental Europe, they had more important things to worry about than what docile neighbors to the north did. And by the end when we saw events like the death marches nazi Germany was collapsing too much to begin passing and trying to enforce laws in Denmark.

Finally i would like to remind you that Christian X's quoted comment to Wilhelm Buhl was not recorded until after the war, when all parts of Danish society were trying their hardest to play up their resistance credentials. Arguably the very fierce legal afterplay to the war that Denmark witnessed, which saw more convictions than the rest of Europe combined and more executions than any country but Norway, can be seen as the nation collectively trying to wash away the guilt of collaboration. In any case, a single quote said in private and not mentioned until it was politically expedient hardly makes Christian X seem like a great hero.


The answer requires an understanding of (among others) Benjamin Franklin, Frederick the Great, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Daniel Bernoulli. Heck, if Sir Isaac Newton had not been chosen to head the Royal Mint nearly a century prior, everything would have been different. Understanding European economic development requires an understanding of scores of heroes and villains.

Funny how all the great men needed for the industrialization just happened to be born in Western Europe at exactly the right time.

[Serpentine]

The life and death of Ned Kelly, and his transformation from a notorious murdering criminal into an Australian national hero. I can get you a copy of the newspaper articles announcing his capture, for that extra punch.

Also, I recently stated in an honours essay that, arguably, most modern history can be considered Revisionist, and that it was one of several important developments in history since WWII. I'll let you know if the lecturer agreed when I get it back.

[Eldan]

Yeah, but wars are the awesome part.

Slightly more seriously, I'm quoting The Third Man here. "In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."

Wars make bigger changes than peace, generally.

Which, of course is outright stupidity. We didn't invent the cuckoo clock, that was the germans.

On the other hands, we fought one war after the other for at least three hundred years in a row, sometimes on both sides.

[Serpentine]

You don't wanna mess with the Swiss! They were kicked out of wars because it was unfair for the side that didn't have 'em!

[Riffington]

Well, there are several reasons why Jews were not forced to wear the
yellow star in Denmark. The most simple, however, is that by the time the yellow star was introduced in occupied territories there were hardly any Jews left in Denmark, most of them having gotten away and the last few already deported. Also important to remember is that Denmark did not have a nazi government, nor a puppet government installed by the nazis. Instead the prewar social democratic government kept governing the country until late 1943, where it was deposed and martial law was declared, effectively ending all legislation and civilian governing in the country.
These are factors, but you can't just pretend they would have fallen out the way they did absent Christian X. Had he been less wildly popular, the Germans would have deposed him earlier (it is noted that he could always ride out without bodyguard, as the Danish people were his bodyguard).
You speak of a need to 'avoid rocking the boat'... but the Nazis typically improved civilian compliance/pleasure by harming the Jews. If they were so concerned about Danish compliance and Denmark was "just another nation" they would have been all the more certain to round up the Jews. Yet something was different there, and you cannot explain the Danish difference without reference to heroes.


It was essentially the same principle that explained why they didn't care about Sweden harboring refugees from continental Europe, they had more important things to worry about than what docile neighbors to the north did.
Sure, and to be consistent, they would never tie up half their railroads on a "social project" while fighting a very logistically difficult 2-front war, right?


Finally i would like to remind you that Christian X's quoted comment to Wilhelm Buhl was not recorded until after the war, when all parts of Danish society were trying their hardest to play up their resistance credentials. Arguably the very fierce legal afterplay to the war that Denmark witnessed, which saw more convictions than the rest of Europe combined and more executions than any country but Norway, can be seen as the nation collectively trying to wash away the guilt of collaboration. In any case, a single quote said in private and not mentioned until it was politically expedient hardly makes Christian X seem like a great hero.
The sentiment was well-known to the Danish people, even if the specific quotation was not. Which explains their exemplary behavior during the war - shielding Jews, then saving them, then sending aid to the few that were rounded up. It is typical of revisionist historians that they discard the pieces of evidence that seem to exalt heroes, without any better evidence - just on the political basis that "heroes must be bad"




Funny how all the great men needed for the industrialization just happened to be born in Western Europe at exactly the right time.
I don't understand. Obviously a hero needs a context. If Newton had been born in Egypt, he would not have overseen the British mint, and the world would be different. It took both England as it was and Newton as he was to change the British economy forever. Or are you just criticizing me for primarily including Europeans in my partial list when the question you asked was about Europe?

And now for the glaringly obvious:
Please explain how the Holocaust would have occurred if Hitler were never born.

[Poison_Fish]

The sentiment was well-known to the Danish people, even if the specific quotation was not. Which explains their exemplary behavior during the war - shielding Jews, then saving them, then sending aid to the few that were rounded up. It is typical of revisionist historians that they discard the pieces of evidence that seem to exalt heroes, without any better evidence - just on the political basis that "heroes must be bad"


Pro-tip for you. Revisionist history, in almost all cases is exalting someone to a hero status. Not the other way around. Please understand the purpose of symbolic meanings.

Understanding how someone is portrayed as a hero and for what purpose is fine, it allows you to see what sorts of power is being played and for what goals. Them actually being heroes or not has nothing to do with it however.


Please explain how the Holocaust would have occurred if Hitler were never born.

I respond to your trap with a simple answer: Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur. WW2 just happened to actually affect most of the world.

Further edit: We should really just take this to PM's.

[Terraoblivion]

Or the Germans just never deposed of the king since he was a beloved figurehead monarch without actual power. Like you know, they didn't. They deposed of provisional prime minister Erik Scavenius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Scavenius) when he became incapable of keeping control of the country for them.

Furthermore except for the one, possibly apocryphal quote, King Christian X never really addressed the question of Jews very much because it was not what the Danish population cared about. Above all the Danish population cared about the political bogeyman of the country through the last eight hundred years had occupied their country. The king became a symbol to rally about not because of his fondness for Jews, but because he was a symbol of the nation of Denmark. It's the same as the British used the threat of making us all speak German to rally about, not a crusade to save the Jews. Had that been the case they had probably accepted Jewish refugees before the war began. By and large the resistance movements in Europe as well as the armed resistance of countries were to save their own nation from foreign occupation, not to save Jews, Romas, Jehovah's Witnesses or any other group persecuted by the nazis. Many of these governments including the Danish and Swedish had been persecuting those groups themselves before the war.

Also you do know that the Endlösung, which is what i believe you refer to when saying "a social project" was not put into effect until early 1943 and was in fact the direct cause of the Jews being evacuated from Denmark. Also the nazis were spottily irrational, rather than comprehensively trying to turn everyone against them. They left Sweden and Denmark be as much as possible because they believed they could come back to deal with them after they had won the war. So if the Danish could be made to support their war effort by not implementing a few largely symbolic policies then that was the simplest way of achieving their goals, even the utterly mad ones such as industrialized genocide in the middle of a war.


I don't understand. Obviously a hero needs a context. If Newton had been born in Egypt, he would not have overseen the British mint, and the world would be different. It took both England as it was and Newton as he was to change the British economy forever. Or are you just criticizing me for primarily including Europeans in my partial list when the question you asked was about Europe?

No you don't understand and that is exactly the problem. If every single one of these people were needed in order for the industrialization to happen in Europe and only in Europe, then it happening is a miracle. If something as small as which job the specific man Isaac Newton held could have changed something as major as where and when the industrialization happened history is no longer scholarship, it's soothsaying and divination. If everything comes down to individuals like that history ceases to be about cause and effect and instead becomes random chance or to put it differently, magic.

And if they were in fact replaceable then you are flatout wrong that they were needed. They were just the people who happened to be the catalyst for deeper social currents.

[Killer Angel]

Pro-tip for you. Revisionist history, in almost all cases is exalting someone to a hero status. Not the other way around. Please understand the purpose of symbolic meanings.


I'm pretty sure we can't discuss history, so I won't give RL examples (only in PM, if you'd ask me), but it's common to have a revision of the history, to throw some mud on past heroes that were against the current winning side, or that supported ideas different from the ones of the current leader.

[Poison_Fish]

I'm pretty sure we can't discuss history, so I won't give RL examples (only in PM, if you'd ask me), but it's common to have a revision of the history, to throw some mud on past heroes that were against the current winning side, or that supported ideas different from the ones of the current leader.

That's basically what I am saying. The hero exalting is for a purpose. History gets revised all the time for whatever goal. This is why I'm getting annoyed. History can't be summed up by just individuals and little bits of trivia. Calling the observation of sociopolitical/economic forces, human movement as a whole, as revisionist and then going around saying people are heroes and villains and that's the larger factors of history is a whole can of worms that's been opened here.

[Killer Angel]

That's basically what I am saying. The hero exalting is for a purpose. History gets revised all the time for whatever goal.

Ah, now I see your previous point. On this, we have an agreement. :smallwink:

[Samurai Jill]

...If everything comes down to individuals like that history ceases to be about cause and effect and instead becomes random chance or to put it differently, magic.

And if they were in fact replaceable then you are flatout wrong that they were needed. They were just the people who happened to be the catalyst for deeper social currents.
Yes, but a catalyst does, by it's nature, accelerate those changes, while it's absence- or the presence of an equally influential but opposed leader-figure- could temporarily stymie them. So individuals should, in theory, make a difference.

I'm not particularly well-educated on the subject, but FWIW, I have a theory: history is like the weather. There are reliable long-term trends and probable short-term forecasts, but medium-term outcomes are not, in any meaningful sense, deterministic.

I think it comes down to what you might call 'pressure fronts'. Two opposing forces of roughly equal strength- embodying different political, cultural or economic ideologies- wind up vying for control of a resource base- land, customers, air time, research grants, or what have you- and under those circumstances, strong, charismatic, cunning leaders can be a decisive factor in tipping the balance.

Oh, in the long run, there are constant facets of human nature and technological trends that tend to favour particular systems of government and commerce and cultural ideals. But within the space, of, say, several centuries, I'd reckon all bets are off.

Again, my knowledge of these things is really fairly sketchy, but I might propose Lenin, Stalin, and the New Economic Policy as a possible example. The deterministic argument would go that (A) Stalin's power-base would have usurped Lenin sooner or later, (B) if he had lived, Lenin would have returned the country to pure communism as soon as possible, and (C) impending domestic and military threats would have made a command economy neccesary regardless.

But this all strikes me as rather hypothetical. A richer country might have consolidated Lenin's political support, Stalin might have had the stroke, and both domestic and external threats might have been less pressing if Russia hadn't been the communist bogeyman.

Much I enjoyed reading Asimov, I think the concept of Psychohistory short-changes the role of individuals.

[Serpentine]

Arguments over metahistorical theory...

Possibly reassuring fact: Professional, qualified, published historians are having arguments about these very topics right now :smalltongue: (some of them, substantially less civily...)

[Kobold-Bard]

Arguments over metahistorical theory...

Possibly reassuring fact: Professional, qualified, published historians are having arguments about these very topics right now :smalltongue: (some of them, substantially less civily...)

Indeed, a large part of my future ideal career depends on this fact :smalltongue:

[SolkaTruesilver]

Maybe he could talk about the downfall of the Spanish colonial Empire following the end of the Napoleonic war?

Trafalgar went a long way toward weakening Spain's hold over South America, if I remember right.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

In addition to beginning the Pax Britannica as it is traditionally understood. Trafalgar itself, though, is of course before 1850, and so outside of your period.

[SolkaTruesilver]

In addition to beginning the Pax Britannica as it is traditionally understood. Trafalgar itself, though, is of course before 1850, and so outside of your period.

But the collapse of the Spanish Empire occured after 1850, did it not?

Or the American-Spanish war might be interesting. Two juicy pieces of real estate went into the U.S.'s strategic assets: the Phillipines and Guantalamo Bay.

[Mistral]

But the collapse of the Spanish Empire occured after 1850, did it not?

Or the American-Spanish war might be interesting. Two juicy pieces of real estate went into the U.S.'s strategic assets: the Phillipines and Guantalamo Bay.

Depending on how you look at it. After the Spanish lost everything from Colorado to Tierra del Fuego, what was left of their colonial empire was merely a few scraps for America and Germany to, respectively, seize and purchase. Unlike, say, Britain or France, there really wasn't the ability or will to replace their first empire with new African and Asian holdings despite their efforts in Morocco and Equatorial Guinea. They had their hands full simply keeping a lid on Cuba and the Philippines, though they did show the flag a few times in South America and stir the pot there. They're also conspicuously absent from the Eight-Nation Alliance that took part in suppressing the Boxers in China just two years later, too, though they were one of the nations that maintained a legation there.

[Riffington]

I respond to your trap with a simple answer: Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur. WW2 just happened to actually affect most of the world.



It is obviously true that genocides have occurred before Hitler, and will occur after him. But when they occur, who lives or dies, and how they reshape the globe... those depend on the actions of individuals. If Hitler had never existed, the world would look dramatically different. Perhaps we'd all be speaking Chinese... neither you nor I can pretend to know.


Or the Germans just never deposed of the king since he was a beloved figurehead monarch without actual power.
You mean in the "how many divisions has the Pope" sense of 'actual' power?



No you don't understand and that is exactly the problem. If every single one of these people were needed in order for the industrialization to happen in Europe and only in Europe, then it happening is a miracle.
Certainly they were needed in order for the industrialization to happen as it happened where it happened. How different the world would be is a question we can't answer without a time machine. It is easy to see how (absent Newton) France might have spearheaded the Industrial revolution instead of England, and how industrialization and colonialism might have progressed far differently as a result.
Heck, if Castro had a better hairdresser in 1962 the world might have ended in nuclear death.



If something as small as which job the specific man Isaac Newton held could have changed something as major as where and when the industrialization happened history is no longer scholarship, it's soothsaying and divination.

No, it just means that history is no longer completely predictable... oh wait, it isn't. If you discover otherwise, there is a fortune to be made on Intrade. But alas- the best historians' formulas seem to work only in hindsight.
I realize you want to simplify history by eliminating the effects of weather, individuals, natural disasters, etc... but unfortunately for you, it's actually incredibly complicated. You may scoff at complexity as "soothsaying and divination"; I call it chaos theory.

[Poison_Fish]

It is obviously true that genocides have occurred before Hitler, and will occur after him. But when they occur, who lives or dies, and how they reshape the globe... those depend on the actions of individuals. If Hitler had never existed, the world would look dramatically different. Perhaps we'd all be speaking Chinese... neither you nor I can pretend to know.

So, your essentially invalidating your point. Leaving a "Who knows what cold happen" question doesn't make a case, and essentially becomes pulp history, much like the History channel and some of it's more popular shows (Stalin's Ape men I can totally suggest for a funny time, who knows what Ape grunts marching in formation with nuclear missiles would do? Imagine the great Berlin wall, apes with guns atop it.)


No, it just means that history is no longer completely predictable... oh wait, it isn't. If you discover otherwise, there is a fortune to be made on Intrade. But alas- the best historians' formulas seem to work only in hindsight.
I realize you want to simplify history by eliminating the effects of weather, individuals, natural disasters, etc... but unfortunately for you, it's actually incredibly complicated. You may scoff at complexity as "soothsaying and divination"; I call it chaos theory.

Perhaps rather the constructing your idea of what we are saying in your head, you could go back to the actual criticisms of what your saying. I see no-one other then yourself claiming that history is completely predictable, and that's just within your nice little formed strawman there.

Edit: Further thought, your use of the concept of chaos theory is a bit silly. By bringing history down to only individuals, that is simplification. Chaos theory is utilizing multiple factors. Something we've already said is part of history.

[Terraoblivion]

I can say with one hundred percent certainty that had it not been for Hitler we would still not have been speaking Chinese. Even discounting the fact that China's economy and politics were such that it could not have grown dominant over the entire globe, mind you no country has ever managed such power nor does it look it will in the future, there is the simple fact that you cannot eradicate every other language in such short time. There is a lot you can predict and that you can infer if you look beyond the most banal of knowledge, that of trivia. An China in the middle of a civil war could not have materialized the economic power to control the world if we removed Hitler. I don't even need to refer to the specific circumstances of early 20th century Chinese history to argue this much. Anybody with even the slightest knowledge of economics will back me up on this. You just don't take over the world on an economy of tenant farmers and absentee landlords, you actually do need industry. Just like you actually need the means to project power beyond your own borders, something China is still struggling with. So no, we would not have all been speaking Chinese without Hitler.

And when i say that the king had no actual power, i mean in the sense that he was legally mandated to not talk about politics and had been since the 1912 constitution. European monarchs have no power. Their job is to look regal and cut ribbons. They don't appear in parliamentary sessions, cannot appoint any political officials and if they try to declare war it is a huge embarrassment for the government and they are promptly deposed. The only power they have is appealing to the public which makes it a decidedly bad idea to depose of them without serious reason. And i'll be honest, i'd prefer if you did even the most cursory research before arguing about a topic. It is hard to maintain a meaningful debate unless both parties have at least some knowledge about what they are talking about.

Similarly i have never once said that individuals don't matter. I even started out giving an example of a random event happening to one individual having significant historical ramifications, that event being Ögedai Khan getting a heart attack during the siege of Vienna forcing the Golden Horde to return to Mongolia and electing a new khan. That was a major change in the history of Europe that happened because one man, one single man, got a heart attack.

What i did say is that if something as large and complex as the industrialization required the presence of at least eight specific men to happen in the first place, then studying history is meaningless. It is essentially just random events happening and we cannot use it for even the most tentative predictions of the future, nor for describing the presence. However, if it could in fact have happened, with some of the particulars changed, without those people then it is in fact not the individuals who are the most important, but the underlying social forces that the individuals are specific manifestations of. Individual events and people matter, that is the consensus of all but a few older Marxist historians, but they are not the primary driving force of history. There is in fact a middle ground between individuals not mattering in the slightest and individuals being all that matters. Individuals essentially shape and guide the exact path history takes, even if they are limited and created by impersonal forces. Had it not been for Hitler it is overwhelmingly likely that the Weimar Republic would have collapsed, but there are numerous options of what would have replaced it. We might have seen a military dictatorship or an aristocratic oligarchy, we might even have seen a communist Germany allying with the Soviet Union. But we wouldn't have seen Germany becoming the 49th state or declaring war on Paraguay.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Riffington, I have a question.

Do you have a source for any of what you're saying about Denmark besides this novel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_the_stars)?

[Riffington]

So, your essentially invalidating your point. Leaving a "Who knows what cold happen" question doesn't make a case, and essentially becomes pulp history, much like the History channel and some of it's more popular shows (Stalin's Ape men I can totally suggest for a funny time, who knows what Ape grunts marching in formation with nuclear missiles would do? Imagine the great Berlin wall, apes with guns atop it.)

That's just silly. My point is not and has never been to speculate on counterfactuals. My point is that to understand the history that actually happened, you need to know about the milieu that actually existed, the disasters that actually occurred, and the great personalities that actually made the key decisions.





Perhaps rather the constructing your idea of what we are saying in your head, you could go back to the actual criticisms of what your saying. I see no-one other then yourself claiming that history is completely predictable, and that's just within your nice little formed strawman there.

As he posted after yours, Terraoblivion is indeed very interested in simplifying history so that it is much more predictable.



Riffington, I have a question.

Do you have a source for any of what you're saying about Denmark besides this novel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_the_stars)?

Yes (primarily Yad Vashem). Which parts do you think are incorrect?


I can say with one hundred percent certainty that had it not been for Hitler we would still not have been speaking Chinese.
I'll grant it's unlikely, for many of the reasons you suggest.




The only power they have is appealing to the public which makes it a decidedly bad idea to depose of them without serious reason. And i'll be honest, i'd prefer if you did even the most cursory research before arguing about a topic. It is hard to maintain a meaningful debate unless both parties have at least some knowledge about what they are talking about.
WTF?
You straight up admit that he has the same kind of power the Pope has, and then in the next sentence criticize me for not knowing he has no power?



Similarly i have never once said that individuals don't matter.

Then, if they matter, why not study them?



There is in fact a middle ground between individuals not mattering in the slightest and individuals being all that matters. Individuals essentially shape and guide the exact path history takes, even if they are limited and created by impersonal forces. Had it not been for Hitler it is overwhelmingly likely that the Weimar Republic would have collapsed, but there are numerous options of what would have replaced it. We might have seen a military dictatorship or an aristocratic oligarchy, we might even have seen a communist Germany allying with the Soviet Union. But we wouldn't have seen Germany becoming the 49th state or declaring war on Paraguay.

I think on all this we agree perfectly.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Yes. Which parts do you think are incorrect?

The parts where you're ignoring a Danish history student's statements instead of addressing them with any kind of substantive evidence.

[Riffington]

The parts where you're ignoring a Danish history student's statements instead of addressing them with any kind of substantive evidence.

Start by seeing
http://www1.yadvashem.org/righteous_new/pdf/leni_yahil.pdf
More to the point, I don't think we had very different ideas on what occurred factually - only what is heroism. Whether, for instance, a smuggler who carries a person for money can be called a hero. I believe that all heroes are complex and possessed both of good and evil traits - but that what they do matters tremendously.

[Terraoblivion]

You know, a lot of people might be inclined to the view that a page dedicated to "Holocaust martyr's and heroes remembrance", could be seen as a somewhat biased and tendentious source. It is not like there aren't significant entrenched interest in keeping this story alive, especially in Denmark and Israel. Just saying, you know.

[Poison_Fish]

That's just silly. My point is not and has never been to speculate on counterfactuals. My point is that to understand the history that actually happened, you need to know about the milieu that actually existed, the disasters that actually occurred, and the great personalities that actually made the key decisions.

Then I suggest not speculating on things that truly would be improbable as a way of attempting to make your point.


As he posted after yours, Terraoblivion is indeed very interested in simplifying history so that it is much more predictable.

Um, no, actually, you've demonstrated far more attempts to simplify history. To go back to the industrialization example, you pinned it on only 8 men. We said no, there are far more factors then 8 men.


Then, if they matter, why not study them?

History does study them. There is a field of history called microhistory. But it's not the only means of history nor the primary method of understanding history. Individuals do matter, but not to the extent you suggested with industry.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Start by seeing
http://www1.yadvashem.org/righteous_new/pdf/leni_yahil.pdf
More to the point, I don't think we had very different ideas on what occurred factually - only what is heroism. Whether, for instance, a smuggler who carries a person for money can be called a hero. I believe that all heroes are complex and possessed both of good and evil traits - but that what they do matters tremendously.

Not seeing much about Christian X in here. More of a general policy of passive resistance and cleverness on the part of the Danish democratic government and the Danish people in general, aided by the fact that the German occupiers were distracted with more practical concerns, like military matters and avoiding the creation of active, armed resisters.

In other words, what Terra's saying.

[Riffington]

You know, a lot of people might be inclined to the view that a page dedicated to "Holocaust martyr's and heroes remembrance", could be seen as a somewhat biased and tendentious source. It is not like there aren't significant entrenched interest in keeping this story alive, especially in Denmark and Israel. Just saying, you know.

Yad Vashem is probably the most authoritative historical respository on the Holocaust. You may like some of its resources better than others (that one just happened to be convenient since it's on the web), but criticizing it for being "biased" is bizarre. All historians have their own political agendas, but what agenda do you think Yad Vashem has towards Denmark other than gratitude?

[Riffington]

Um, no, actually, you've demonstrated far more attempts to simplify history. To go back to the industrialization example, you pinned it on only 8 men. We said no, there are far more factors then 8 men.
I said "The answer requires an understanding of (among others) Benjamin Franklin, Frederick the Great, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Daniel Bernoulli."

But nice try.

[Poison_Fish]

I said "The answer requires an understanding of (among others) Benjamin Franklin, Frederick the Great, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Daniel Bernoulli."

But nice try.

And yet it doesn't require an understanding of them. But good job of ignoring half of what's been said already.

[GenPol]

[QUOTE=Terraoblivion;8720037]I can say with one hundred percent certainty that had it not been for Hitler we would still not have been speaking Chinese... /QUOTE]

I think Riffington was just using that as a random example.

And by the way, I am really enjoying this thread. I don't really have anything of substance to add, so I'll just be lurking in the corner here with my popcorn. :smalltongue:

[Riffington]

And yet it doesn't require an understanding of them. But good job of ignoring half of what's been said already.

Can't have it both ways.
Either I'm ignoring what you're saying, and actually you all do agree that it requires an understanding of those men (among many other things) to know how the industrial revolution happened the way it did, or I'm not ignoring it, and it *does* require an understanding of those men.

[Terraoblivion]

I'm afraid i cannot answer that without violating site rules. Let's just say that the idea of Danish heroism during the war is part of at least two major ideological constructs, one being Danish nationalism and the other being Zionism. There are numerous reasons that i would be happy to tell you in a private message if you really want to, why it is a central and important story for both. More to the point, however, the bias comes from the simple fact that it was the accepted version for more than two decades and it is clear from how this site presents itself that it tries to take a position as guardian of orthodoxy.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: This topic seems intrinsically bound up with real world politics and history from the OP forward. Thread locked.