The Big History Thread

[Shannon]

9 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said:

Did you graduate in 2008? 
Agree re the Armada class, just feel like it didnt merit an entire semester long class. The japanese class was brilliant, understanding what happened to them when the west initially traded with them and why they went isolationist helps you understand their process and rationale in terms of ww2 etc too. 

Yeah I did so graduate back in 2008! My current job has nothing to do with history but more into it than I was when at University and school...

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

2 minutes ago, Shannon said:

Yeah I did so graduate back in 2008! My current job has nothing to do with history but more into it than I was when at University and school...

Haha same! 

[Braesoyetts]

5 hours ago, scottsdad said:

I disagree to an extent. I think it has aged very well, mainly because it was so detailed. Burns was trying to portray balance in his doc, and afterwards the Lost Cause folk latched onto it a little. 

The big thing really was Shelby Foote's open admiration for Nathan Bedford Forrest. He called him one of two geniuses the war produced (the other being Lincoln). And of course, Forrest went on to be the first Grand Wizard of the KKK. So folk are taking Foote's admiration of Forrest the soldier and mixing it with the KKK stuff he did later on and have tried to use this to demonstrate some pro-slavery ideas which really were not in the documentary.

I'm not saying the whole thing was pro-slavery by any stretch, or even that Foote himself was.  The documentary did have some content that brought the slavery issue to the fore in a way that kind of hadn't been done before (for a mass audience).  But it did have a lot of Shelby Foote, someone who was very folksy, very interesting, but who also made a lot of questionable assertions.  All while major figures in understanding the African-American experience (like Barbara Fields) had a fraction of the screen time.  

The problem with balance is that it can be deceptive.  Saying you want something to be "balanced" and presenting opposing views of something doesn't necessarily mean that you are being objective or factual.  If you had someone saying that the sky is blue, then turned around and said "now we'll hear from the other side of the argument, here is a presentation from the Sky-is-actually-green Association", that wouldn't be an example of balance.  You don't get WW2 documentaries presenting a narrative of Nazis=bad, then turning around and giving the pro-Nazi view.  The idea that equal time or attention equals true balance of fairness is a potentially problematic one.  

Not that I'm equating the rebel side in the ACW with the Nazis, exactly.  But KB's documentary, while not surprising for the time it was made, does present things in a way that I don't think he would do if he was producing it today.  Reducing Shelby Foote time to a far smaller proportion would be a good start.  I find him entertaining too, but that's not the same as him being accurate, or even really an appropriate expert on the subject.

[Braesoyetts]

4 hours ago, scottsdad said:

How many history graduates go on to be historians?

I was planning to, but due to not making my mind up quickly enough what I wanted to do, ended up running out of time and money for the post-graduate trek.  Had to take a side-step into another occupation.  But the saving grace is that my interest in history is entirely my own choice and is not jaded by having to repeat the same information year after year to yawning freshmen.  (Of course they'd have been fascinated by my lectures, right?)  I suspect I might have ended up not enjoying academia Ince it became a job.

[git-intae-thum]

I love visiting places of historic significance. We are pretty fortunate in Scotland. Lots of great, terrible, good, evil, brilliant, despicable events have happened in the streets and countryside all around us in our 2100 years of recorded history.

There is so much to learn and see.

One of my favourite youtube channels is this guys.

I recommend.... Particularly if you live in or have an interest in the Scottish Borders. Great info about forgotten people and events from long ago that happened in places only a short drive away. You can visit a lot of these places and literally be the only soul who has visited that day.

[Bully Wee Villa]

Question that I was wondering about, re: The Cuban Missile Crisis. 

As I understand it, it was generally perceived at the time that Kennedy "won" this game of brinkmanship, with the Soviets having to withdraw from Cuba with their tail between their legs.

This perception seems to have permeated Soviet opinion, too, and was a large factor in Khrushchev's downfall, I think?

There has been some historical revisionism since, and people now think of it more as a "draw" than an outright American victory, as the US agreed to withdraw their bases in Turkey, too. 

So, my question is, why didn't the Soviets make more of the Turkey deal at the time? Given that Khrushchev, presumably, had complete control of Soviet media, why wasn't he shouting from the rooftops about that part of the agreement?

Edited March 14, 2023 by Bully Wee Villa

[btb]

30 minutes ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Question that I was wondering about, re: The Cuban Missile Crisis. 

As I understand it, it was generally perceived at the time that Kennedy "won" this game of brinkmanship, with the Soviets having to withdraw from Cuba with their tail between their legs.

This perception seems to have permeated Soviet opinion, too, and was a large factor in Khrushchev's downfall, I think?

There has been some historical revisionism since, and people now think of it more as a "draw" than an outright American victory, as the US agreed to withdraw their bases in Turkey, too. 

So, my question is, why didn't the Soviets make more of the Turkey deal at the time? Given that Khrushchev, presumably, had complete control of Soviet media, why wasn't he shouting from the rooftops about that part of the agreement?

Part of the deal was that this reciprocal agreement was kept secret at the time.

[Bully Wee Villa]

Ah, thanks. He was an idiot to agree to that, then.

[TxRover]

4 hours ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Ah, thanks. He was an idiot to agree to that, then.

Kennedy had to play to the press…Khrushchev felt the publicity wasn’t necessary, as the control distribution of news within the USSR meant he could spin other aspects. He was perhaps focused on other things, like pouring support into Vietnam, that would hurt the Americans.

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, TxRover said:

Kennedy had to play to the press…Khrushchev felt the publicity wasn’t necessary, as the control distribution of news within the USSR meant he could spin other aspects.

Spin with whom? The adults in the room huckled Khrushchev out the door within two years - more for his 'adventurism' (and failed economic schemes). They didn't need a negative headline in Pravda to do so. 

Quote

He was perhaps focused on other things, like pouring support into Vietnam, that would hurt the Americans.

The only superpower pouring support into Vietnam while Khrushchev was in office was the USA, building up its truly worthless puppet state. Open conflict between the DRV and the US didn't break out until after Brezhnev took office. 

Other than that, a solid 0/10 analysis. 

[TxRover]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

Spin with whom? The adults in the room huckled Khrushchev out the door within two years - more for his 'adventurism' (and failed economic schemes). They didn't need a negative headline in Pravda to do so. 

The only superpower pouring support into Vietnam while Khrushchev was in office was the USA, building up its truly worthless puppet state. Open conflict between the DRV and the US didn't break out until after Brezhnev took office. 

Other than that, a solid 0/10 analysis. 

Really. The USSR was actively encouraging and assisting China in providing arms, food and economic assistance throughout the 50’s. After Stalin’s death in 1953, the Soviets began a more hands on participation in encouraging and stabilizing the regime in Vietnam, at least partially to offset the Maoist influence on the governing clique. Khrushchev was generally keeping Vietnam/North Vietnam on the slow boil, using mainly technical advisors and information, while the Chinese poured military supplies and advisors in, the same supplies the Soviet advisors were helping train the North Vietnamese on. After Khrushchev, Kosygin needed to placate his hawkish military advisors (they are who you spin stuff for in the USSR) by stepping up support. With 3,000+ Soviet personnel involved in North Vietnam in ‘64-‘65, and actively shooting down U.S. aircraft. It’s bit of a stretch to suggest there was no open conflict until Brezhnev “took office”, because Brezhnev didn’t fully consolidate his role until the early ‘71, with Kosygin effectively holding more power than Brezhnev in the troika until at least ‘68. By ‘68, the Sino-Soviet split forced North Vietnam to take sides, and they chose the Russians, at which point the Chinese support was withdrawn. Brezhnev’s desire to hinder the U.S. then supercharged the Soviet support, to the extent practical, given the need for supplies to pass through China…which, contrary to Soviet interests, effectively allowed the Chinese to gain militarily sensitive information from inspections and checks on goods bound for North Vietnam.

[Wee-Bey]

8 hours ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Ah, thanks. He was an idiot to agree to that, then.

I think Krushchev knew he had over played his hand and lost control of the situation and just wanted it over with. There were nuclear warheads already in Cuba that Castro would have no hesitation using, Soviet subs in the Caribbean, US planes getting shot down against orders from Moscow and a potential US invasion of Cuba imminent. 

He got missiles removed in Turkey and Italy while the crisis arguably increased US foreign policy aggression resulting in the folly of Vietnam. Not a terrible result by any means but painted as one because of the loss of face regarding the Turkey missile hush hush.

All imo of course but I think Krushchev felt Kennedy was someone he could communicate with. JFK and RFK were both hawks but the US Generals, CIA and the anti Castro/Cuba lobby were even more so. Kennedy losing face weakens him and strengthens them.

 

[Sugar_Army]

I studied history at uni but like many others did not wish to pursue into teaching. One of my mates teaches it at secondary school and another is a lecturer at uni.

The one at uni and I had quite a few trips around the American South researching Reconstruction and The Lost Cause.  Even got paid by our uni and later the one he teaches at to meet with Study Abroad programmes and establish contacts at any we were conducting research at.  Our American Studies course director was University of Georgia alumni and was able to use his contacts for us.

Visited University of Florida, Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana, Tennessee, Georgia, Emery, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, UNC Chapel Hill, Duke, Wake Forest, Tulane, Virginia and William & Mary. The difference between facilities on offer to students there an here is startling.  But then it ain't cheap.

Also met the afore-mentioned  Shelby Foote, Ed Ayers, Bruce Caton. Jim Cobb, Bertram Wyatt Brown, John Shelton Reid, Eugene and Elizabeth Genovese and George Tindall.  Southern hospitality at its best too, either in opening doors to rare archives like at University of South Carolina of getting a private tour round the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond.  We even got a wee shot at reenactment in Virginia where I carried the state flag into battle...feck me they take it seriously.

Now I just read history for "pleasure" (currently reading The Dirlewanger Brigade-History of the Black Hunters and just finished Hitler's Hangman, the story of Reinhardt Heydrich).

Not sure if it was touring round civil war battlegrounds, cemeteries and slave plantations but I have kinda developed and intrest in the dark side of history.  Or maybe it was because when I visited New York they screwed up the booking and they stuck me on the 20th floor of the Millenium Hilton which looked into the bowels of what had been Ground Zero and was now a construction site.

Either way, I do a bit of backpacking/travelling and enjoy self or guided walking tours so amongst others I have since visted a few places wich had dark periods of time such as- Wannsee, Museum of Topography in Berlin, Belsen, Dresden, Auschwitz, Westerplatte, Pawiak in Warsaw, ST Cyril and Methodius crypt in Prague, Museum of Terror in Budapest, Gallipoli, Tianamen Square, Killing Fields and Tuol Sleng prison in Cambodia, Chi chi tunnels. Museum of American Aggression and Hanoi Hilton in Vietnam, as well as various genocide sites in Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, where the driver and guide started crying like babies as it was the first time they had visited it and were overcome with emotion. Talk about an awkward situation.  They were both very apologetics  when the git back to the car. I felt so sorry for them.

My last dark stuff was in Bosnia where I visited the Sarajevo Tunnel museum, the spot which "Archie Duke shot an ostrich", then took a trip to Srebrinica/Potocari with a guide who fought at aged 15 and who had to identify the body of his older brother shot by sniper and met a Muslim woman who lost 75 members of her family.  She told how they had found the body of her father 5 years ago but could only establish it was him via DNA as there was no hands, feet or head.  She lived in fear (more so for her children) as many of her neighbours who were involved in the murder of over 8,000 muslim men and boys by pro Serbian forces over a 10 day period (while supposedly under the protection of a UN task force ) still live in the town and were never convicted. 

Out of all of them I think a wee genocide Museum in Mostar caught me unaware, realising that not only was this done in my lifetime but that any who carried out the atrocities I was witnessing on screen (on all sides) could be standing next to me at any given time.

Next trip? A more relaxing one...off to Japan where I will search out the fireboming of Tokyo and visit Hiroshima.

Ps.  Apologies for the length, but once starting I could not stop. Something I was always pulled up for when handing in a paper.

 

 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Sugar_Army

[welshbairn]

5 hours ago, Bodie said:

I think Krushchev knew he had over played his hand and lost control of the situation and just wanted it over with. There were nuclear warheads already in Cuba that Castro would have no hesitation using, Soviet subs in the Caribbean, US planes getting shot down against orders from Moscow and a potential US invasion of Cuba imminent. 

He got missiles removed in Turkey and Italy while the crisis arguably increased US foreign policy aggression resulting in the folly of Vietnam. Not a terrible result by any means but painted as one because of the loss of face regarding the Turkey missile hush hush.

All imo of course but I think Krushchev felt Kennedy was someone he could communicate with. JFK and RFK were both hawks but the US Generals, CIA and the anti Castro/Cuba lobby were even more so. Kennedy losing face weakens him and strengthens them.

 

Might be bollocks but I heard years ago that the odds of Soviet ICBMs landing in the right hemisphere at the time of the Cuban missile crisis was about 50/50, so though there was an obvious threat to the likes of Miami from short range missiles from Cuba, they knew the Soviets would never risk a full on nuclear exchange.

[TxRover]

48 minutes ago, Sugar_Army said:

I studied history at uni but like many others did not wish to pursue into teaching. One of my mates teaches it at secondary school and another is a lecturer at uni.

The one at uni and I had quite a few trips around the American South researching Reconstruction and The Lost Cause.  Even got paid by our uni and later the one he teaches at to meet with Study Abroad programmes and establish contacts at any we were conducting research at.  Our American Studies course director was University of Georgia alumni and was able to use his contacts for us.

Visited University of Florida, Alabama, Auburn, Louisiana, Tennessee, Georgia, Emery, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, UNC Capel Hill, Duke, Wake Forest, Tulane, Virginia and William & Mary. The difference between facilities on offer to students there an here us startling.  But then it ain't cheap.

Also met the afore-mentioned  Shelby Foote, Ed Ayers, Bruce Caton. Jim Cobb, Bertram Wyatt Brown, John Shelton Reid, Eugene and Elizabeth Genovese and George Tindall.  Southern hospitality at its best too, either in opening doors to rare archives like at University of South Carolina of getting a private tour round the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond.  We even got a wee shot at reenactment in Virginia where I carried the state flag into battle...feck me they take it seriously.

Now I just read history for "pleasure" (currently reading The Dirlewanger Brigade-History of the Black Hunters and just finished Hitler's Hangman, the story of Reinhardt Heydrich).

Not sure if it was touring round civil war battlegrounds, cemeteries and slave plantations but I have kinda developed and intrest in the dark side of history.  Or maybe it was because when I visited New York they screwed up the booking and they stuck me on the 20th floor of the Millenium Hilton which looked into the bowels of what had been Ground Zero and was now a construction site.

Either way, I do a bit of backpacking/travelling and enjoy self or guided walking tours so amongst others I have since visted a few places wich had dark periods of time such as- Wannsee, Museum of Topography in Berlin, Belsen, Dresden, Auschwitz, Westerplatte, Pawiak in Warsaw, ST Cyril and Methodius crypt in Prague, Museum of Terror in Budapest, Gallopoli, Tianamen Square, Killing Fields and Tuol Sleng prison in Cambodia, Chi chi tunnels and Museum of American Aggression and Hanoi Nilton in Vietnam, as well as various genocide sites in Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. 

My last dark stuff was in Bosnia where I visited the Sarajevo Tunnel museum, the spot which "Archie Duke shot an ostrich", then took a trip to Sebrinica with a guide who fought at aged 15 and who had to identify the body of his older brother shot by sniper and met a Muslim woman who lost 75 members of her family.  She told how they had found the body of her father 5 years ago but could only establish it was him via DNA as there was no hands, feet or head.  She lived in fear (morecso for her children) as many of her neighbours who were involved in it still live in the town yet never convicted and how Muslims still suffered on many levels. 

Out of all of them I think a wee genocide Museum in Mostar caught me unaware, realising that not only was this done in my lifetime but that most who carried out the atrocities i was witnesding on screen (on all sides) could be standing next to me at any given time.

Next trip? A more relaxing one...off to Japan where I will search out the fireboming of Tokyo and visit Hiroshima.

Ps.  Apologies for the length, but once starting I could not stop. Something I was always pulled up for when handing in a paper.

 

 

I’d suggest the National Memorial for Peace and Justice the next time you can visit Alabama.

[vikingTON]

15 hours ago, TxRover said:

Really. The USSR was actively encouraging and assisting China in providing arms, food and economic assistance throughout the 50’s. After Stalin’s death in 1953, the Soviets began a more hands on participation in encouraging and stabilizing the regime in Vietnam, at least partially to offset the Maoist influence on the governing clique. Khrushchev was generally keeping Vietnam/North Vietnam on the slow boil, using mainly technical advisors and information, while the Chinese poured military supplies and advisors in, the same supplies the Soviet advisors were helping train the North Vietnamese on. After Khrushchev, Kosygin needed to placate his hawkish military advisors (they are who you spin stuff for in the USSR) by stepping up support. With 3,000+ Soviet personnel involved in North Vietnam in ‘64-‘65, and actively shooting down U.S. aircraft. It’s bit of a stretch to suggest there was no open conflict until Brezhnev “took office”, because Brezhnev didn’t fully consolidate his role until the early ‘71, with Kosygin effectively holding more power than Brezhnev in the troika until at least ‘68. By ‘68, the Sino-Soviet split forced North Vietnam to take sides, and they chose the Russians, at which point the Chinese support was withdrawn. Brezhnev’s desire to hinder the U.S. then supercharged the Soviet support, to the extent practical, given the need for supplies to pass through China…which, contrary to Soviet interests, effectively allowed the Chinese to gain militarily sensitive information from inspections and checks on goods bound for North Vietnam.

1. China is not (and was not in the 1950s/60s) the same country as Vietnam. 

2. American aircraft were being shot down after bombing the fucking country, a campaign that did not happen until after Khrushchev was removed from office. 

3. All the bluster that you post after that cut-off point is completely irrelevant to your original claim that Khrushchev was busy souping up Vietnam to care about the negative coverage of his Cuba policy. 

Another 0/10 response from yourself, you really are a dreadful poster. 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

15 minutes ago, virginton said:

1. China is not (and was not in the 1950s/60s) the same country as Vietnam. 

2. American aircraft were being shot down after bombing the fucking country, a campaign that did not happen until after Khrushchev was removed from office. 

3. All the bluster that you post after that cut-off point is completely irrelevant to your original claim that Khrushchev was busy souping up Vietnam to care about the negative coverage of his Cuba policy. 

Another 0/10 response from yourself, you really are a dreadful poster. 

Great work but I think you probably mean "suping up"

happy to help

ETA although "Pho" (Vietnamese soup) is very nice and I can heartily recommend "Vietnam House" at the corner of Grove Street and Morrison Street near Haymarket 

Edited March 15, 2023 by topcat(The most tip top)

[TxRover]

4 hours ago, virginton said:

1. China is not (and was not in the 1950s/60s) the same country as Vietnam. 

2. American aircraft were being shot down after bombing the fucking country, a campaign that did not happen until after Khrushchev was removed from office. 

3. All the bluster that you post after that cut-off point is completely irrelevant to your original claim that Khrushchev was busy souping up Vietnam to care about the negative coverage of his Cuba policy. 

Another 0/10 response from yourself, you really are a dreadful poster. 

1) Never said it was…poor effort there.

2) That would be news to a number of families whose loved one was shot down while bombing North Vietnam before and on August 14, 1964.

3) Sorry to confuse you by addressing your point in depth, and refuting it.

As for your opinions about me and my posting, given your habit of dismissive and abusive commentary, it worries me not. However, if your inability to separate your opinions from accurately reading and assessing postings, one hopes you are far from any teaching role.

[vikingTON]

3 hours ago, TxRover said:

1) Never said it was…poor effort there.

So why did you post a gigantic screed gurning about the Sino-Soviet pact? Vietnam is not China, so all of that was utterly irrelevant to your argument. 

Next. 

Quote

2) That would be news to a number of families whose loved one was shot down while bombing North Vietnam before and on August 14, 1964

The world's smallest violin playing here, for American pilots shot down while illegally bombing a neutral state. 

In any case, you are in fact talking utter pish. US 'military advisors' were conducting aerial assaults against Communists before 1965 - but these were carried out against the Viet Cong in South Vietnam.  For example, 3 Americans were killed when their helicopter gunships were shot down in battle in January 1963 at the village of Ap Bac. Ap Bac is 40 miles southwest of Saigon - the capital of South Vietnam. 

The whole point of the laughable 'Gulf of Tonkin incident' was to establish a premise to begin US bombing of North Vietnam because their counterinsurgency in the South had completely failed. Which was the Rolling Thunder bombing campaign, that started after Khrushchev left office. 

There is meanwhile no evidence that the Soviet Union under Khrushchev was investing its resources into North Vietnam to fight the US in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis. You have simply taken two coincidental world events and invented a causal link between the two. 

Quote

3) Sorry to confuse you by addressing your point in depth, and refuting it.

You've refuted nothing and have in fact just confirmed that you're so thick that you don't even understand your own country's very recent history. 

Pick up a fucking book for a change first, instead of just thumping out whatever ill-informed nonsense sprouts up in your head. 

Quote

However, if your inability to separate your opinions from accurately reading and assessing postings, one hopes you are far from any teaching role.

As someone who is qualified and experienced in doing just that, I can confirm that a factually incorrect blowhard like yourself would not pass a single course. You are a living and breathing demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Aim Here]

On 14/03/2023 at 10:13, Bully Wee Villa said:

Ah, thanks. He was an idiot to agree to that, then.

Was he? Remember that, due to the different political systems, the Soviets weren't as dependent on public opinion as the American government was. Krushchev wasn't going to get hounded out of office by public opinion the way Kennedy would have been. Giving the yanks something they can sell to their voters as a victory may well have seemed like a fairly cheap price.