History thread

[fishfoodie]

Whoa!

Next thing you'll be telling me that the US didn't capture the codebooks & enigma that were crucial in breaking the Naval Enigma code, & Errol Flynn didn't recapture Burma single handed

.... perhaps the lack of any fluency in a 2nd language for English speakers isn't a new thing, & it's a fucking incredible handicap if you plan on escaping a POW camp ?

[Biffer]

Also, another thing I stumbled on the other day. The America hero of the My Lai massacre, Hugh Thompson, a helicopter pilot. This is a moving piece, he was obviously a very noble man and it seems his story should be more widely known. He was flying over where the massacre was taking place, landed and placed himself between the American forces and the Vietnamese people they were killing and said that if they opened fire on the Vietnamese then he would open fire on them:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/l ... story.html

Yeah, and the way he was treated afterwards was disgraceful

Yeah, death threats, senators trying to get him court martialled. Died in his sixties, as did Colburn, and Andreotta was killed in Vietnam. But that bastard Calley is still fucking alive, but Henderson and Medina dies in theiir seventies.

[Hugo]

Also, another thing I stumbled on the other day. The America hero of the My Lai massacre, Hugh Thompson, a helicopter pilot. This is a moving piece, he was obviously a very noble man and it seems his story should be more widely known. He was flying over where the massacre was taking place, landed and placed himself between the American forces and the Vietnamese people they were killing and said that if they opened fire on the Vietnamese then he would open fire on them:
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/l ... story.html

Yeah, and the way he was treated afterwards was disgraceful

Yeah, death threats, senators trying to get him court martialled. Died in his sixties, as did Colburn, and Andreotta was killed in Vietnam. But that bastard Calley is still fucking alive, but Henderson and Medina dies in theiir seventies.

Looking at the Calley sentence he was convicted on 22 counts of murder which started out as life imprisonment and ended up with Nixon giving him 3 years of house arrest. This happened only three days after the court martial ended.
In the first place Nixon had no intention of him being held properly accountable:

. President Richard M. Nixon made public statements prior to the trial that were prejudicial to the defense, resulting in a letter from Daniel taking the President to task.

You always hear about how Vietnam vets were treated with contempt by Americans citizens after the war and I would assume stuff like the My Lai massacre (and Calleys trial) contributed to shifts in public opinion with them being seen as murderers rather than soldiers.

[Margin__Walker]

Remember first reading Four Hours in My Lai in uni.

The aftermath and extent of Calley's support is almost as shocking as the massacre.

This thread from a couple of years ago fleshes out that article a bit with respect to Thompson's bloody mindedness.

[fishfoodie]

Yeah, and the way he was treated afterwards was disgraceful

Yeah, death threats, senators trying to get him court martialled. Died in his sixties, as did Colburn, and Andreotta was killed in Vietnam. But that bastard Calley is still fucking alive, but Henderson and Medina dies in theiir seventies.

Looking at the Calley sentence he was convicted on 22 counts of murder which started out as life imprisonment and ended up with Nixon giving him 3 years of house arrest. This happened only three days after the court martial ended.
In the first place Nixon had no intention of him being held properly accountable:

. President Richard M. Nixon made public statements prior to the trial that were prejudicial to the defense, resulting in a letter from Daniel taking the President to task.

You always hear about how Vietnam vets were treated with contempt by Americans citizens after the war and I would assume stuff like the My Lai massacre (and Calleys trial) contributed to shifts in public opinion with them being seen as murderers rather than soldiers.

It's always interesting to contrast the commentary about Calley, & the self same peoples comments about John Kerry's testimony to congress.

One was a decorated hero, who they called a traitor, & a communist; & the other was a convicted murderer, who they somehow morphed into a patriot & a victim !

Always, always, always remember that key moment where Johnson had finally fucking realized the futility of the war, & that the US had chosen the wrong side & just wanted the killing to stop; & he decided that the Paris peace talks had to succeed ..... & in came Nixon, & in the greatest single act to betrayal for which he should have hung, Nixon send messages to North Vietnam, sabotaging the peace efforts of Johnson, by promising his own ones, & >50,000 more Americans died in Vietnam !!!

.... and still you'll get Republicans who spout the fucking drivel that Nixon was the last President with a foreign policy !!!!

[Hugo]

Good piece on the interference in the trial of Calley by Nixon. https://nypost.com/2014/03/15/richard-n ... e-coverup/

It is said that Nixon personally ordered the attacks on Hugh Thompson to try and discredit his testimony. He had the senator from SC do so on his behalf.

[Hugo]

. Always, always, always remember that key moment where Johnson had finally fucking realized the futility of the war, & that the US had chosen the wrong side & just wanted the killing to stop; & he decided that the Paris peace talks had to succeed ..... & in came Nixon, & in the greatest single act to betrayal for which he should have hung, Nixon send messages to North Vietnam, sabotaging the peace efforts of Johnson, by promising his own ones, & >50,000 more Americans died in Vietnam !!!

.... and still you'll get Republicans who spout the fucking drivel that Nixon was the last President with a foreign policy !!!!

Nixon really was an evil bastard.

and yes its so brand for the GOP to betray their fellow Americans for political purposes and then try and portray themselves as patriots. Didn't the Reagan campaign do something similar in 1980 where they undermined Jimmy Carter's negotiations with Iran? Sure I read that somewhere.

[fishfoodie]

. Always, always, always remember that key moment where Johnson had finally fucking realized the futility of the war, & that the US had chosen the wrong side & just wanted the killing to stop; & he decided that the Paris peace talks had to succeed ..... & in came Nixon, & in the greatest single act to betrayal for which he should have hung, Nixon send messages to North Vietnam, sabotaging the peace efforts of Johnson, by promising his own ones, & >50,000 more Americans died in Vietnam !!!

.... and still you'll get Republicans who spout the fucking drivel that Nixon was the last President with a foreign policy !!!!

Nixon really was an evil bastard.

and yes its so brand for the GOP to betray their fellow Americans for political purposes and then try and portray themselves as patriots. Didn't the Reagan campaign do something similar in 1980 where they undermined Jimmy Carter's negotiations with Iran? Sure I read that somewhere.

Yep, pretty much the identical situation, destroying any chance of them releasing the hostages before the election.

[Hugo]

Remember first reading Four Hours in My Lai in uni.

The aftermath and extent of Calley's support is almost as shocking as the massacre.

This thread from a couple of years ago fleshes out that article a bit with respect to Thompson's bloody mindedness.

Thanks for posting this. As the thread progressed the lump in ny throat got bigger and bigger. What a bloody hero he was.

[Margin__Walker]

As with anything like this, it's the killing of kids that gets me. Seeing the pictures taken afterwards of dead children and hearing testimony from the massacre concerning them takes my breath away.

It's hard to put yourself in the shoes of others, but I can never get in the headspace of someone that could do that. Regardless of the external pressures

[Uncle fester]

As with anything like this, it's the killing of kids that gets me. Seeing the pictures taken afterwards of dead children and hearing testimony from the massacre concerning them takes my breath away.

It's hard to put yourself in the shoes of others, but I can never get in the headspace of someone that could do that. Regardless of the external pressures

Peer pressure
Just following orders
And then the realisation that you need to cover your tracks so everybody has to go

[Uncle fester]

Holy land is in the news these days. Gets me thinking, was there ever a realistic chance of any of the Crusader states lasting longer than they did?

They were always living on borrowed time but certainly didn't help their cause picking fights when they didn't need to or their disunity.

[Woddy]

Holy land is in the news these days. Gets me thinking, was there ever a realistic chance of any of the Crusader states lasting longer than they did?

They were always living on borrowed time but certainly didn't help their cause picking fights when they didn't need to or their disunity.

Yeah, definitely a chance. But it would have needed far more unity among the Christian states, and more importantly more continued disunity among the neighbouring Muslim powers. And the Christian states were probably too small to stand for themselves without help from Byzantium or European states which ultimately had more pressing issues to deal with.

[Biffer]

Holy land is in the news these days. Gets me thinking, was there ever a realistic chance of any of the Crusader states lasting longer than they did?

They were always living on borrowed time but certainly didn't help their cause picking fights when they didn't need to or their disunity.

You might be interested in this place

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/

[Uncle fester]

Holy land is in the news these days. Gets me thinking, was there ever a realistic chance of any of the Crusader states lasting longer than they did?

They were always living on borrowed time but certainly didn't help their cause picking fights when they didn't need to or their disunity.

Yeah, definitely a chance. But it would have needed far more unity among the Christian states, and more importantly more continued disunity among the neighbouring Muslim powers. And the Christian states were probably too small to stand for themselves without help from Byzantium or European states which ultimately had more pressing issues to deal with.

They certainly didn't have much luck on that front, running into both Saladin and Baybars.

[Uncle fester]

Holy land is in the news these days. Gets me thinking, was there ever a realistic chance of any of the Crusader states lasting longer than they did?

They were always living on borrowed time but certainly didn't help their cause picking fights when they didn't need to or their disunity.

You might be interested in this place

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/

Thanks but I'd like to do it here.

[Biffer]

Holy land is in the news these days. Gets me thinking, was there ever a realistic chance of any of the Crusader states lasting longer than they did?

They were always living on borrowed time but certainly didn't help their cause picking fights when they didn't need to or their disunity.

You might be interested in this place

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/

Thanks but I'd like to do it here.

Purely a suggestion for additionality for you, nothing more

[Hugo]

This is an interesting one. How the Chinese set down on a path toward Communism as a consequence of WWI.

Wanted to participate in the Great War but was essentially given a supporting role by the Entente whereby they did not provide soldiers but workers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Labour_Corps

Then upon the conclusion of the war their requests at Versailles were not met. Essentially the Treaty gave Japan the right to Shandong which had previously been under German control. The Chinese were pissed off and refused to sign the Treaty: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180964532/

This led to an upsurge in Chinese nationalism, a rejection of traditional Chinese (Confucian) values and anger at the European/western powers, the emergence of the May Fourth Movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Fourth_Movement

[Uncle fester]

This is an interesting one. How the Chinese set down on a path toward Communism as a consequence of WWI.

Wanted to participate in the Great War but was essentially given a supporting role by the Entente whereby they did not provide soldiers but workers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Labour_Corps

Then upon the conclusion of the war their requests at Versailles were not met. Essentially the Treaty gave Japan the right to Shandong which had previously been under German control. The Chinese were pissed off and refused to sign the Treaty: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180964532/

This led to an upsurge in Chinese nationalism, a rejection of traditional Chinese (Confucian) values and anger at the European/western powers, the emergence of the May Fourth Movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Fourth_Movement

Fascinating. Knew about the laborers (they featured in an episode of Who Do You Think You Are) but not the political ructions it kicked off

[Hugo]

This is an interesting one. How the Chinese set down on a path toward Communism as a consequence of WWI.

Wanted to participate in the Great War but was essentially given a supporting role by the Entente whereby they did not provide soldiers but workers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Labour_Corps

Then upon the conclusion of the war their requests at Versailles were not met. Essentially the Treaty gave Japan the right to Shandong which had previously been under German control. The Chinese were pissed off and refused to sign the Treaty: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180964532/

This led to an upsurge in Chinese nationalism, a rejection of traditional Chinese (Confucian) values and anger at the European/western powers, the emergence of the May Fourth Movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Fourth_Movement

Fascinating. Knew about the laborers (they featured in an episode of Who Do You Think You Are) but not the political ructions it kicked off

Yes, it is fascinating to me that China's refusal to sign the treaty of Versailles is so consequential but it doesn't seem to be common knowledge.



Just a random tidbit I picked up, Hugh Laurie's father was an Olympic rower who won a Gold in 48 in the coxless pairs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ran_Laurie

[Biffer]

This is an interesting one. How the Chinese set down on a path toward Communism as a consequence of WWI.

Wanted to participate in the Great War but was essentially given a supporting role by the Entente whereby they did not provide soldiers but workers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Labour_Corps

Then upon the conclusion of the war their requests at Versailles were not met. Essentially the Treaty gave Japan the right to Shandong which had previously been under German control. The Chinese were pissed off and refused to sign the Treaty: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180964532/

This led to an upsurge in Chinese nationalism, a rejection of traditional Chinese (Confucian) values and anger at the European/western powers, the emergence of the May Fourth Movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Fourth_Movement

Fascinating. Knew about the laborers (they featured in an episode of Who Do You Think You Are) but not the political ructions it kicked off

Yes, it is fascinating to me that China's refusal to sign the treaty of Versailles is so consequential but it doesn't seem to be common knowledge.



Just a random tidbit I picked up, Hugh Laurie's father was an Olympic rower who won a Gold in 48 in the coxless pairs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ran_Laurie

Laurie himself was a damn good rower too. Was in the Cambridge eight for the boat race and on route to being an Olympic standard rower before he threw his lot in with comedy and acting.

[Calculon]

This is an interesting one. How the Chinese set down on a path toward Communism as a consequence of WWI.

Wanted to participate in the Great War but was essentially given a supporting role by the Entente whereby they did not provide soldiers but workers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Labour_Corps

Then upon the conclusion of the war their requests at Versailles were not met. Essentially the Treaty gave Japan the right to Shandong which had previously been under German control. The Chinese were pissed off and refused to sign the Treaty: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180964532/

This led to an upsurge in Chinese nationalism, a rejection of traditional Chinese (Confucian) values and anger at the European/western powers, the emergence of the May Fourth Movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Fourth_Movement

Fascinating. Knew about the laborers (they featured in an episode of Who Do You Think You Are) but not the political ructions it kicked off

Yes, it is fascinating to me that China's refusal to sign the treaty of Versailles is so consequential but it doesn't seem to be common knowledge.



Just a random tidbit I picked up, Hugh Laurie's father was an Olympic rower who won a Gold in 48 in the coxless pairs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ran_Laurie

Born the son of a tenant farmer and a housekeeper. Rowed for Cambridge, then became a District Commissioner and a medical doctor. Was social mobility greater in 1930’s Britain than it is today?

[Hugo]

Born the son of a tenant farmer and a housekeeper. Rowed for Cambridge, then became a District Commissioner and a medical doctor. Was social mobility greater in 1930’s Britain than it is today?

Laurie himself was a damn good rower too. Was in the Cambridge eight for the boat race and on route to being an Olympic standard rower before he threw his lot in with comedy and acting.

Thanks. I had no idea.

Born the son of a tenant farmer and a housekeeper. Rowed for Cambridge, then became a District Commissioner and a medical doctor. Was social mobility greater in 1930’s Britain than it is today?

Bloody good question. Class is such a fascinating thing because as rigid as class lines are they are also semipermeable.

I'm just making this up really but imo in Britain accent and education are so critically important as defining traits of social class. That and being respectable. Money alone does not really make you upper class as I interpret it.

Not to get too autobiographical but my Dads family are working class Scots from Edinburgh, mums family are more of your middle class English types so I've never had a really solid grasp of what class I firmly belong to.

[epwc]

From what I understand of it social mobility in the 20th century was deeply affected by the two world wars, a lot of posh kids died in WW1, by the time WW2 was over a lot of working class people had been welcomed into industries and professions that would not previously have been open to them.

[Hugo]

From what I understand of it social mobility in the 20th century was deeply affected by the two world wars, a lot of posh kids died in WW1, by the time WW2 was over a lot of working class people had been welcomed into industries and professions that would not previously have been open to them.

Interesting to consider how capitalism (and urbanisation) allowed for social mobility whereas when social class was defined more by land ownership it was much harder to move up.

Social class in Britain is insanely complex imo. What has always been interesting to me is the inverted snobbery of people who consider well spoken* and well mannered people arrogant by default. I remember our next door neighbours used to refer to myself and my sister as "the snobs" but in actual fact we were anything but snobs, they were the judgmental ones.

* My Dad in particular hates this. He is a carpenter by trade and so has spent his entire working life on building sites, never did A levels, or went to uni. He detests when fellow tradesmen come out with the "did you swallow a dictionary line?" as if speaking articulately is a sign of pretension.

[Biffer]

Social mobility has decreased in the UK over the last few decades. University tuition fees, increasing house prices and a whole other array of factors have had that effect.

[Hugo]

Social mobility has decreased in the UK over the last few decades. University tuition fees, increasing house prices and a whole other array of factors have had that effect.

Boomers probably had the greatest scope for social mobility of all time, correct?

[Biffer]

Social mobility has decreased in the UK over the last few decades. University tuition fees, increasing house prices and a whole other array of factors have had that effect.

Boomers probably had the greatest scope for social mobility of all time, correct?

Them and actually the generation before - on the return from war the lack of available labour presented big opportunities for people. Gen X also did pretty well (older gen x anyway)

[Uncle fester]

In case you ever wondered what the descendants of emperor Karl I were up to.
https://thebaffler.com/latest/feeling-blessed-hooks

[fishfoodie]

Another grim anniversary coming up next week.

https://archive.ph/e7Dew

My Mother walked by the Talbot Street bomb about 5 minutes before it exploded.

[Hugo]

Random historical thought - I wonder why Europeans were so slow to colonise sub-Saharan Africa?

The Berlin conference took place in 1884 and 1885 - very late in the day when you consider how it was centuries earlier that European powers established colonies in the Americas. I mean the Aztecs were conquered in 1521, over three hundred years before Europe started carving up Africa. I know the slave trade occurred during all this time but it is a little interesting to consider why Europeans didn't become serious about colonising Africa until the 19th century.

[Hugo]

On that note (regarding the Aztecs) I went to Mexico City a month or so ago and did some historical sight seeing. I got a few good pictures which I will try and put up in the next week or so once I figure out a hosting site and such.

[Biffer]

Random historical thought - I wonder why Europeans were so slow to colonise sub-Saharan Africa?

The Berlin conference took place in 1884 and 1885 - very late in the day when you consider how it was centuries earlier that European powers established colonies in the Americas. I mean the Aztecs were conquered in 1521, over three hundred years before Europe started carving up Africa. I know the slave trade occurred during all this time but it is a little interesting to consider why Europeans didn't become serious about colonising Africa until the 19th century.

Colonisation was originally about trade, so was mostly about sea routes, trading posts etc. There was nothing worth trading in the desert. It was really more the age of exploration that opened up Africa for Europeans, so a different driver. South America had gold, that was what drove colonisation there. Asia had spices and drugs. North America lumber and furs, and later cotton and sugar. The main traded commodity from Africa was people. Europeans didn’t need to control the land to get them.

[Woddy]

Random historical thought - I wonder why Europeans were so slow to colonise sub-Saharan Africa?

The Berlin conference took place in 1884 and 1885 - very late in the day when you consider how it was centuries earlier that European powers established colonies in the Americas. I mean the Aztecs were conquered in 1521, over three hundred years before Europe started carving up Africa. I know the slave trade occurred during all this time but it is a little interesting to consider why Europeans didn't become serious about colonising Africa until the 19th century.

Mosquitos

[Uncle fester]

Random historical thought - I wonder why Europeans were so slow to colonise sub-Saharan Africa?

The Berlin conference took place in 1884 and 1885 - very late in the day when you consider how it was centuries earlier that European powers established colonies in the Americas. I mean the Aztecs were conquered in 1521, over three hundred years before Europe started carving up Africa. I know the slave trade occurred during all this time but it is a little interesting to consider why Europeans didn't become serious about colonising Africa until the 19th century.

Mosquitos

And disease. Early Portuguese settlements were decimated with diseases.

[Hugo]

Random historical thought - I wonder why Europeans were so slow to colonise sub-Saharan Africa?

The Berlin conference took place in 1884 and 1885 - very late in the day when you consider how it was centuries earlier that European powers established colonies in the Americas. I mean the Aztecs were conquered in 1521, over three hundred years before Europe started carving up Africa. I know the slave trade occurred during all this time but it is a little interesting to consider why Europeans didn't become serious about colonising Africa until the 19th century.

Mosquitos

And disease. Early Portuguese settlements were decimated with diseases.

[Hugo]

Random historical thought - I wonder why Europeans were so slow to colonise sub-Saharan Africa?

The Berlin conference took place in 1884 and 1885 - very late in the day when you consider how it was centuries earlier that European powers established colonies in the Americas. I mean the Aztecs were conquered in 1521, over three hundred years before Europe started carving up Africa. I know the slave trade occurred during all this time but it is a little interesting to consider why Europeans didn't become serious about colonising Africa until the 19th century.

Colonisation was originally about trade, so was mostly about sea routes, trading posts etc. There was nothing worth trading in the desert. It was really more the age of exploration that opened up Africa for Europeans, so a different driver. South America had gold, that was what drove colonisation there. Asia had spices and drugs. North America lumber and furs, and later cotton and sugar. The main traded commodity from Africa was people. Europeans didn’t need to control the land to get them.

I suppose the Sahara itself was an impenetrable barrier too.

[sockwithaticket]

Random historical thought - I wonder why Europeans were so slow to colonise sub-Saharan Africa?

The Berlin conference took place in 1884 and 1885 - very late in the day when you consider how it was centuries earlier that European powers established colonies in the Americas. I mean the Aztecs were conquered in 1521, over three hundred years before Europe started carving up Africa. I know the slave trade occurred during all this time but it is a little interesting to consider why Europeans didn't become serious about colonising Africa until the 19th century.

Mosquitos

And disease. Early Portuguese settlements were decimated with diseases.

Yeah, to expand on that, cinchona bark had been used somewhat informally for a couple of centuries as a malarial prophylactic, but it wasn't until the 1820s that the key element of quinine was isolated from it and it was about the mid 19th century that it was becoming more widely available and used for that purpose. There were supply complications between the 1860s and 1880s too, the trees form which the quinine was extracted originated in Peru and attempts were made to limit supply and maintain a monopoly on it, but the Dutch managed to start growing it in their Indonesian plantations which helped make it more readily available.

[Woddy]

Not if you had boats. The Ancient Egyptians circumnavigated the whole of Africa, and the Phoenicians went quite a way down the west coast, so it was doable from early on. It's just that sub-Saharan Africa, which was very largely not desert on the western side, was impenetrable and rather life-limiting to anyone who had not built up the necessary antibodies to local endemic diseases, notably malaria. So other than for a few small coastal posts, it was not an inviting area to build up a trading network. There were easier places for Europeans to go. Trade down eastern Africa was dominated by south asians and arabs.

[Flockwitt]

There's still that strange reference to electrum in ancient Greek. When the only known source of electrum is in South America. I think there's still an awful lot of early history we don't get.