History discussion - no, hitler has never seeked the spear of destiny - General

[QUOTE=Daniel Smith;39629213][URL="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlternateHistoryWank"]tv tropes.[/URL][/QUOTE] Fuck, I was about to start doing homework! Look what you've done!

Cool a history thread, I fucking love history.

Well, theoretically the Bolsheviks wanted to expand and have socialism in the East as well (and in the end end up with the world completely communist). However, prior to the Brest-Litovsk treaty the Central Powers signed a treaty with the Ukrainian People’s Republic, which secured a food supply support for the Central Powers in return for military protection in Ukraine. This allowed the German and Austro-Hungarian armies to force the Bolsheviks out of Ukraine, where Ukraine gained its independence from Russia the 22 January 1918. The episode ended the 3 March 1918 with the Bolsheviks signing the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which ended the hostilities on the Eastern Front of WW1. Furthermore, this meant that Ukraine, who at the time was a big supplier of grain to the Russians, was lost from Russia as it was on the Brest Litovsk treaty which effectively ended World War I for Russia. Given the state of the physical health of the people of Russia at that time, losing Ukraine wouldn’t improve the conditions of the people. Lenin believed that Russia was starting (prior to this), as he called it, a ‘worldwide Socialist revolution’ so the loss of the Ukraine territory would not be significant because the fight for a ‘worldwide Socialist revolution’ would bring in the Ukraine again as Lenin argued that “after a suitable interlude of ‘bourgeois’ national rule, the non-Russians would rejoin Russia as a socialist federation.” (Figes p. 704) and therefore the move of letting Ukraine gain its independence from Russia (and thus setting ‘bourgeois’ national rule) would help Russia to get Ukraine to rejoin Russia later for its worldwide Socialist federation. [B]Edit[/B] This was Lenin's approach and as people have said this changed when Stalin took over after Lenin's death, even though Lenin said in his will he shouldn't...

Now that I have the time allow me to explain further, on a maybe more related answer. A separate peace with Germany would give the Bolsheviks room to breath in order to consolidate their power base, restore the economy and build up their own revolutionary army. Thus strengthening the revolution at home over that of the stirring revolution abroad. 538-539 “Our tactics ought to be rest on the principle of how to ensure that the socialist revolution is best able to consolidate itself and survive in one country until such time as other countries join in.” A peace in the East [Russia / Germany] would enable the Central Powers [German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the Kingdom of Bulgaria] to strengthen their campaign in the West and thereby prolong the war (which Lenin was opposed to, but couldn't convince most of the rank-and-file of the Bolshevik party) and by prolonging war, they thought, they could increase the chances of a European revolution. The logic of most of the Bolshevik party was that a continuation of war, rather than a prospect of peace, that would intensify the revolutionary crisis. However Lenin never explicitly said so, it was in the Bolshevik party's interest to prolong the slaughter on the battlefields of France and Belgium - even at the risk of helping to bring a German victory over Western democrats. Lenin's view, however was more an appraisal of the situation rather than the very naïve internationalism of the Bolshevik left. The Russian Army was falling apart, as the peasant soliders (encouraged by the Bolsheviks) demobilised themselves and went home to their villages. The Minister of War: Verkhovsky, had come to the conclusion that it was impossible to continue the war and Russia had no choice but to sue for peace. As it was in their original Marxist ideas it was hard for them to give up the ideal of a world revolution, esp. as many of them had been drawn to Bolshevism in the order to create a sort of international messianic crusade to liberate the world. The Bolsheviks thought the revolution in Russia only was a part - and a minor part at that - of the worldwide struggle between imperialism and socialism. To limit the victory of socialism to one country, let alone a backward one such as Russia, seemd to them [Trotsky, Bukharin - and the ones who have been in exile at that time] an admission of defeat. The prospect of general defeat receded and this among other things led to the Bolshevik's increased division between the two opposing policies: that of a revolutionary war or a peace with Germany. Indeed it was one of the most critical moments in history of the party. The public image also wanted peace at all costs, which was one the slogans the Bolsheviks campaigned for: "Peace! Land! Bread!" - however Brusilov knew that the cause of the Whites was doomed as they supported the resumption of the war. Russia itself had ceased to be a major power in the world. It was forced to retreat from the continent of Europe, to turn in on itself and to look towards the East. After the Treaty of Brest-Litovks there was no real prospect of the revolution spreading to the West. Lenin was adamant about this,a nd all his talk of the 'inevitable revolution in Germany' cancelling out the losses of the Treaty was no more than bluff for the sake of the party morale and propaganda. True during, 1919 and 1920 Lenin would "flirt" with the idea of exploring Communism through the Comintern; but this did not amount to much. - Greatly influenced by Orlando Figes and Richard Pipes here.

oh hey are there history majors in here because I'm a history major Any Americans take AP classes in high school? I did World, US, and Gov/Politics. Only reason I'm a History Major is because of the fantastic teacher I had in 10th/12th grade for World/Gov. So much interesting shit to talk about.

i would totally be a history major if there was money in the field. history is one of my passions, but i'm not spending tens of thousands to go to a university to get a degree that isn't actually that financially promising.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39652048]i would totally be a history major if there was money in the field. history is one of my passions, but i'm not spending tens of thousands to go to a university to get a degree that isn't actually that financially promising.[/QUOTE]I hear it's valuable to have if you plan on getting a job in government. I've been toying with the idea of being a history major too. My love for history can only take me so far when I have more realistic things to worry about like supporting myself financially. [editline]19th February 2013[/editline] I was offered the chance of getting a AP world history class. I decided not to though, don't want to die of stress or something.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39652048]i would totally be a history major if there was money in the field. history is one of my passions, but i'm not spending tens of thousands to go to a university to get a degree that isn't actually that financially promising.[/QUOTE] Do you like teaching people? Are you good at writing? If the answer to both of those questions is no, then History probably isn't for you. :v: I'm actually double majoring in English/History and plan to teach high school, so "jobs in the field" doesn't bother me. History is so wildly interesting, and I love how the circumstances influences people like artists and writers.

[QUOTE=Unisath;39652417]Do you like teaching people? Are you good at writing? If the answer to both of those questions is no, then History probably isn't for you. :v: I'm actually double majoring in English/History and plan to teach high school, so "jobs in the field" doesn't bother me. History is so wildly interesting, and I love how the circumstances influences people like artists and writers.[/QUOTE] yea if i went down the history road i would probably just want to sit in some archive room somewhere or out finding primary sources for various events. i'm a fair writer(when i wanna be), and not so much a teacher.

[QUOTE=Unisath;39652417]oh hey are there history majors in here because I'm a history major I'm actually double majoring in English/History and plan to teach high school, so "jobs in the field" doesn't bother me. History is so wildly interesting, and I love how the circumstances influences people like artists and writers.[/QUOTE] I'm actually going to be trying my luck at finding a post-secondary teaching/research career with mine, been doing my MA applications all last month so fingers crossed

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39652448]yea if i went down the history road i would probably just want to sit in some archive room somewhere or out finding primary sources for various events. i'm a fair writer(when i wanna be), and not so much a teacher.[/QUOTE] The skills used in a history major can be transferred to many different careers. You have to do well in -Critical thinking -Critical analysis -Well read -Patience with research -Well articulate/well with writing That's the basic skills of a history major, regardless of "history". Those skills are very valuable if you find the right place to apply them and they're almost never to deal with history itself. [editline]20th February 2013[/editline] That's what I'm going for. I love history very much, but I dislike the idea of teaching it (and I don't like kids). But the major still offers a great deal of skills and resources to draw from for other careers.

I've toyed with the idea of a degree in history, but it felt as though it would be best kept as a hobby rather than something to get a career (much like my grandfather who decided on physical chemistry instead).

I've always found social sciences more interesting than the physical sciences. Mostly due to the lack of math :v:

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39652718]I've always found social sciences more interesting than the physical sciences. Mostly due to the lack of math :v:[/QUOTE] I was ambivalent about the sciences and maths for quite some time, (whilst reading thick tomes on history) before suddenly late in high school, I suddenly acquired a deep interest in them and how it seems to explain the world really well. It's the least wrong view of things I have to date.

People sorta put you down whenever you say you are a history major, me i dont care, i am getting my education completely free, so I'm gonna use it how I want it. End goal being a professorship and being engaged in research, writing, and that sort. So I'll be happy, and if somehow i dont even get into a job related to my degrees, I've got enough other things going on in my life that I'll be able to find success otherwise.

[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;39652854]People sorta put you down whenever you say you are a history major, me i dont care, i am getting my education completely free, so I'm gonna use it how I want it. End goal being a professorship and being engaged in research, writing, and that sort. So I'll be happy, and if somehow i dont even get into a job related to my degrees, I've got enough other things going on in my life that I'll be able to find success otherwise.[/QUOTE] People never have put me down for being a history major. But then again, majority of the people I know are music majors so they haven't much reason to speak about bad degrees.

not really intentionally, but I mean people just tend to mention or joke about how you cant get anywhere with it. but hey, fuck you im following my dreams so i couldnt care less! im doing it because i want to expand my knowledge, not because of the fancy paper i get for doing it.

People putting you down for doing a history subject are more than likely utterly depressed at how overburdened and bored they are with what they're doing themselves while we get to flit around, write one essay a week and then party the rest. [editline]20th February 2013[/editline] plus we all know history majors are all Adonises worthy of a living on Mount Olympus

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39653935] plus we all know history majors[B] are all Adonises worthy of a living on Mount Olympus[/B][/QUOTE] Oh you are as well? thought i was alone!

I need a starting point for learning more about early Japanese and early Chinese history. Some residual research for another project I was doing got me interested, and now I want to learn more. Any sites, or books spring to mind?

I am doing my historical investigation on the weaknesses of Nicholas II as a leader. This will be interesting.

[QUOTE=mikkeljuhl;39655536]I am doing my historical investigation on the weaknesses of Nicholas II as a leader. This will be interesting.[/QUOTE] Pardon my lack of knowledge in Russian history but isn't that the guy who got tricked into not modernizing the country by believing in some sort of weird fake jewish conspiracy

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;39655985]Pardon my lack of knowledge in Russian history but isn't that the guy who got tricked into not modernizing the country by believing in some sort of weird fake jewish conspiracy[/QUOTE] If you by "fake weird jewish conspiracy" mean the fact that he believed that "people do not influence events, that God directs everything, and that the Tsar, as God's anointed should not take advice from anyone but follow only his divine inspiration." He believed in the old autocratic rule - highly influenced by Tsarina Alexandria who was, after she converted, a religious Christian Russian Orthodox - thus the fact that the Tsar knew best. As he was deeply inspired by Tsar Alexei (from 1645) and anti-reformist, yes he did end up not modernising Russia. He however passed reforms after the 1905 revolution passing the October Manifesto which later turned the Tsarist regime into a 'semi-constitutional Monarch' following the Russian Constitution of 1906 (incl. Fundamental Laws). His father had started the modernisation of Russia, however and by the end of the nineteenth-century one could argue that they were becoming increasingly modernised (railroads was getting build from Moscow to Siberia and such), however it should be said that it wasn't really a complete industrialisation. Considering Russia's size it would take a significant amount of time, by the outbreak of WWI just 1.88% of the population (2.5 million) was factory workers, according to Oxley. And another factor could be the fact that the industry hugely depended on State intervention and orders.

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39653935]People putting you down for doing a history subject are more than likely utterly depressed at how overburdened and bored they are with what they're doing themselves while we get to flit around, write one essay a week and then party the rest. [editline]20th February 2013[/editline] plus we all know history majors are all Adonises worthy of a living on Mount Olympus[/QUOTE] I don't know what you're doing but I sure don't have that life. [editline]20th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Archimedes;39654055]I need a starting point for learning more about early Japanese and early Chinese history. Some residual research for another project I was doing got me interested, and now I want to learn more. Any sites, or books spring to mind?[/QUOTE] An easy thing to do would be to find the most acclaimed popular history and see what that is like, since they should cover everything from Shang/Zhou Dynasty in early BCE to modern day China. I know a few good books for some more scattered topics. I would totally recommend without question reading The Seven Military Classics after you've had some introduction, specifically the Ralph Sawyer translations.

[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;39652854]People sorta put you down whenever you say you are a history major, me i dont care, i am getting my education completely free, so I'm gonna use it how I want it. End goal being a professorship and being engaged in research, writing, and that sort. So I'll be happy, and if somehow i dont even get into a job related to my degrees, I've got enough other things going on in my life that I'll be able to find success otherwise.[/QUOTE] As a Computer Science major, it blows my mind when people tell me they'd rather been in History or Art or whatever but they picked Engineering or Computer Science because they just want a decent paying job. If you are passionate about what you do, (I like to believe that) you will have no problems finding a job, and that is why I never look down on someone based on their degree. I have 100000x more respect for a history major who loves what he does then an Engineer who wishes he was in political science. -More on topicish- I took a history course on the history of science and technology and it was awesome. One of the things that interested me the most was the impacts of new technology on society. For example, the Cotton Gin had a huge effect on the world, it allowed cotton to be cleaned so much faster cotton would soon become the cheapest material for making clothing and all that stuff. But it also had other effects, because in 1790 the slave population in the southern united sates was roughly 700,000. But by 1850 the population of slaves was at 3.2 million. The cotton gin (and other machines that made picking and cleaning cotton easier) made the southern united states the place to be for producing cotton, and unfortunately for slaves this meant they were in high demand. The slave trade ended in America in 1808, so slaves were forced to have children to meet the demand of the cotton industry. Pretty crazy stuff if you ask me. Anyone know must read books on the history of technology or science?

[QUOTE=Frayyyy;39656770] An easy thing to do would be to find the most acclaimed popular history and see what that is like, since they should cover everything from Shang/Zhou Dynasty in early BCE to modern day China. I know a few good books for some more scattered topics. I would totally recommend without question reading The Seven Military Classics after you've had some introduction, specifically the Ralph Sawyer translations.[/QUOTE] Thanks you, I'll look into it.

This semester, I'm taking a course called 'The Arab-Israeli Conflict', studying the rise of Zionism in the 1890s to the modern day. My term paper is on the 1948 War, specifically on the whys of the Palestinians failing to gain their own state then. Any suggestions on good monographs regarding the war and the Palestinians during it specifically?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39656954]This semester, I'm taking a course called 'The Arab-Israeli Conflict', studying the rise of Zionism in the 1890s to the modern day. My term paper is on the 1948 War, specifically on the whys of the Palestinians failing to gain their own state then. Any suggestions on good monographs regarding the war and the Palestinians during it specifically?[/QUOTE] I am doing this next semester. I think, or by the end of this semester. Completely unrelated joke about Nicholas II: "There used to be a nice Soviet joke that the Supreme Soviet had decided to award the Order of the Red Banner to Nicholas II posthumously "for his services to the revoltuion." The last Tsar's achievement, it was said, was to have brought about a revolutionary situation.

[QUOTE=Frayyyy;39656770]I don't know what you're doing but I sure don't have that life.[/QUOTE] I don't understand how this can be, how many contact hours a week do you have?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39656954]This semester, I'm taking a course called 'The Arab-Israeli Conflict', studying the rise of Zionism in the 1890s to the modern day. My term paper is on the 1948 War, specifically on the whys of the Palestinians failing to gain their own state then. Any suggestions on good monographs regarding the war and the Palestinians during it specifically?[/QUOTE] I would suggest you should look a lot further back throughout the British Mandate before the war because there is quite a bit of continuity in the actions/errors/thoughts on all sides which affected the war, especially with leadership. I'd recommend to look into: Britain, Palestine and Empire: The Mandate Years (2010) - Rory Miller ed. A History of Palestine: From the Ottoman Conquest to the Founding of the State of Israel (2008) - Gudrun Kramer (Trans. Graham Harman) Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents (2004) - Charles D. Smith All of these (for the most part) cover the war and significant issues which led into it. [editline]20th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lonestriper;39665133]I don't understand how this can be, how many contact hours a week do you have?[/QUOTE] I have 16 hours per week of classes plus an online course, with all associated tests/assignments/reading for school alone. And I lost a great deal of time in January preparing and writing applications so I had less time to spread things out.