The History Thread

#41

Christopher Columbus discovered the Americas in 1942

#42

:clap:

#43

*sorry I mean Christopher columber

#44

They were actually, the siege of Baghdad one of the largest massacres in history and it was a single city. Compare that to other armies of the time. In Europe when a town was sacked they did not exterminate the population for the large majority of the time. War was about wealth and politics. the mongols were really just conquerors with no reason or real goal besides to control and torture

We are talking about Genghis khan in the video. The most notable diplomatic relations they had were with the Assyrians which of course they eventually slaughtered but even this large investment of merchants with a political nature it was after the time of Genghis. Also one of the nations they had somewhat close relations with was Korea and nations in the modern day vietnam because they had failed many invasions of these areas they decided to just settle for a form of diplomacy

#45

What about when King Aethelred killed all the Danes in England? What about countless other atrocities by other people? Baghdad had refused to submit and they probably knew what the Mongols were capable of.

#46

he was before the mongols also the massacres he commited is highly debated with very minimal proof

We are talking about the time he lived in and not everyone through time. Though even if you compare it so something like the holocaust, the genocide with the highest kill count the amount of people the mongols killed is far larger then that

6 million is one of the most accepted numbers for the holocaust. For how many the mongols killed is around 40 million. 15 million of those were during his reign.

So you can say hey look at what that guy did. When he is actually the biggest butcher to ever exist, it does not compare to anyone of his time. As far as murder goes hitler would be the closest when talking about how many were killed under his command

Im sure the children and women of the town refused to submit to the mongols

most likely it was minimal resistance after the army had been defeated but they though might as well take the chance to kill everyone

#47

he was still during the middle ages

That doesnā€™t really relate to people during the siege of Baghdad. In addition to that, what about the hundredes of thousands of people that died during Roman conquests? Some empires were brutal and they did kill a lot of people, which was what you did if you were building an empire. The Mongols may have killed a lot of people, but it also did a lot of good. It blended cultures together through a massive trade network, it (generally) was more egalitarian towards women, and even the staggeringly high numbers you reference were probably not the majority of the population. (If you want to rebut with the Persians, I will just say that they were much more passive and tolerant than most empires)

#48

How does it not, it relates to people he killed. Those were people he killed.

Again there is literally no comparison in the slightest. The roman empire was an actual empire but blood thirsty apes riding around pillaging.

Now that you brought up the roman empire, 2 massacres in particular some of the largest, were actually done to the romans.

The romans when compared to the mongols were on a entirely different level.

The romans wanted to maintain an empire and knew how to do it. You can not maintain an empire very long by butchering everyone you come across. This is why the roman empire along with the byzantine lasted longer then any empire in the world.

Roman soliders were taught not to pillage and slaughter a city mainly because they knew they would have to rule that land once they own it. It wont be easy to rule when the people think you are genocidal maniacs. Also the romans would enslave people way before they killed someone.

You wont find any thing talking about the Romans committing genocide

And those empire collapse very quickly like the mongol empire which was really more of a horde of conquest then a empire because how land it compassed and how loosely tied together it was

They did no good, thats a misconception. Genghis khan hated jews and muslims and refused to allow them to practice many of their traditions.

The religious ā€œfreedomsā€ he gave people were very minor and often only a figure head administration that was meant to glorify him to people he conquered. He called jews and muslims slaves as long as he lived as well as their religion being banned for a long time

his compassion towards religion is a massive over exaggeration

The trade network they establised was made for war and was eventually used for other things. Their had already been very large trade networks available.

If anyone the mongols ruined any chance of Europeans treating foreigners any respect for a long time. By invading and destroying eastern europe

Following the fall of the mongols many nations entered a period of isolation because fear of what else could exist out in the world.

Refusing to allow asian trade caravans into their nations because what they had experienced

The only good it did was for the mongol empire after their collapse the effects were not there. Besides the bad ones of course. The mongols worried about themselves they never tried to implant administrations that would benefit the natives of a country for years to come

like the countless amounts of rape and torture they did to women?

estimated 1million to 1.5 million living in Baghdad. around 800,000 killed. That is the majority there.

This is not an one time event any country they attacked would face a similar fate. Just in the middle east alone the population wouldnā€™t reach its pre mongol level for hundreds of years.

People have got it into theirs heads now a day to defend what needs no defense. Iā€™m not sure why. I guess its fun to play devils advocate but I just donā€™t see any defense worth the time.

#49

Tautuaned have you read A Tale Of Two Cities

#50

image

They put Australia on the west side to call them ā€œwestern spies.ā€

#51

Iā€™ve not

#52

Would Germany have prevailed in WWII if they captured Moscow during operation Barbarossa instead of heading into the oil rich caucus region?
If they took Moscow would the rest of the USSR soon fall? And with the German army so spread out would they be able to fend off the U.S. and crush Britain?

#53

2 things made the campaign into the caucus and the siege of Stalingrad disastrous

The weather and urban conflict

Moscow and the surrounding has for one a colder winter, so the effects of the freezing cold on the german army would only be worse at moscow leading to higher causalities

Next is the urbran warfare. At the time city of stalingrad caused intense and brutal fighting for months on end. One of the reasons the russians held their position so long was because they were the defenders and they were under threat of being killed by the germans and the russians so fighting was all they could do

now Moscow a city that at the time was 4-5 larger then Stalingrad would be a butchery to siege and take the city from soviet control

Stalingrad lasted close to 6 months. Moscow would most likely take close to a year and a half maybe 2 years to subdue.

the death toll would be staggering :skull_and_crossbones:

The germans would the forced to chase the Russians further into country side in the ural mountains and siberia where tank and mechanized infantry would be impossible to navigate those kind of conditions

along with the constant guerrilla warfare that would be taking place against the germans

Many people would agree the united states had the best army had the time once it was mobilized there was no stopping it. They could of beat the germans with or without england or the help of the french. Really starting war with the united states was a worse mistake then operation barborsa.

invading Russia was a plausible idea, trying to defeat the united states was just tactical suicide

Opening front after front

in conclusions, no the germans would still lose the war

#54

Arguable. Anyways, my opinion is that both the Soviets and the US could have beaten the Germans alone.

#55

1v1 the germans could of beat the russians by not imploying brutal tactics and rallying the people against stalin which would of been an easy task, thus winning a political victory installing a new government or using the situation for an easier invasion of the new weakened states

or divide the soviet union into many countries and keep them as satellites annexing one by one

the soviets were lucky the germans were so brutal because a lot of the country was ready to revolt against stalin when given the chance

but its a toss up the soviets still had a lot in their favor being the defender of the war

#56

All true, but, assuming that Stalin could keep his people united, the Russians had enough resources and people to crush the Germans.

Anyways, based on Hitlerā€™s strategic decisions during the war, thereā€™s no way he wouldā€™ve been smart enough to

#57

in this scenario being a 1v1, it would be a war where the preparations were made with the mentality of only attacking Russia.

bringing in all the fire power used in Africa and western europe, by 1940

but also a 1v1 with germany has some flaws, for one ww2 started when hitler invaded poland. So in this scenario he invaded poland and england did not get involved.

By 1940 or 1941 the germans would have had a year to 2 years to just build their forces plot and wait

the soviets had been doing no such planning before the invasion, they were taken completely off guard, stalin not did believe it when he was told that the germans had invaded

with the ever growing civil unrest in the country they couldnā€™t focus on expanding their army and tactical warfare

so when the germans did invade. Lets say 1941 beginning of aprill

they will have until September when the weather starts to get bad

this german invasion would be immensely more powerful then the actual once since it is the countrys only focus.

I believe like this they could of easily reached Moscow with 3 months.

add in their superior everything. Properly trained soldiers, better mechanized infantry, better air force and navy

see frances military when defending the german advance which france had a military of very comparable skill and quality yet quickly buckled under the pressure

russias numbers can only do so much for them

-edited to stay on track-

#58

Is this a good response for the question, ā€œUsing the excerpts from the Treaty of Versailles in the DBQ, explain how the Treaty of Versailles could have led to World War IIā€?
From these excerpts, it is apparent that Germany had to reduce its military and navy, pay war reparations, and Germany had to take war guilt. Hypothetically, this could have caused some problems as Germany may have possibly turned its former soldiers into spies that spied on other political parties. This could have hypothetically caused a former, extremely nationalistic soldier into a follower, and later, leader, of one of those parties, the Nationalist Socialist German Workers Party. In addition to this, the harsh financial effects on Germany could have led to America giving Germany loans. And because of this hypothetical situation, when the Wall Street Crash happened, Germany, hypothetically, would struggle to pay back its loans and would experience hyperinflation. This would, in this only hypothetical situation, would leave the political climate ripe for a man, who is now the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, to try and become dictator and run for president. Of course, in this purely hypothetical situation, he wouldnā€™t win, but he would get the chancellorship and gather large amounts of power when the president died. This man, whose name is Adolf Hitler, may hypothetically work on building Germany up to its former power by rebuilding its military and annexing large swaths of land. He may also team up with the U.S.S.R. in order to take Poland and intimidate the allies, who said they would declare war on Germany if Hitler annexed Poland. This might lead to Germany going through Belgium in what would seem like a repeat of World War II, but Germany might hypothetically encircle large swaths of the French and British armies, wiping out the French and nearly wiping out the British in a strategy that hypothetically would be called Blitzkrieg.

#59

I donā€™t know what length is acceptable for this, since I donā€™t know your class, but this seems a bit short. What class is this for?

Iā€™ve never heard of this, and even if it did, it would not be related to the Treaty of Versailles, as Germany couldā€™ve easily done this with or without reductions in the size of their army.

They were not completely wiped out. A decent amount of them escaped to Britain and formed the Free French Army under the leadership of Charles de Gaulle.

Other than that, Iā€™d say itā€™s factually accurate. I would recommend removing the word ā€œhypothetically,ā€ as nothing you are saying is hypothetical, and I would also recommend quoting the excerpts to support your argument

#60

I donā€™t like really like the question to begin with since I see the effects of the treaty of Versailles as having done very little. Since Germany did not follow even half of the what was proposed.

Really the hardships they faced after ww1. Only make sense, it was the largest and deadliest war to date and their losses were sokenof the highest and their regions saw the most fighting. So a poor economy would be expected after that

Now about your response

I would not use hypothetically so much

I think you see the question is a different way.

I would talk about the treaty was in all ways a major blow to German power, honor and stability

They were forced to sign a treaty that was to declare France as the winner and them as having started the entire war. France having lost to Germany in the franco prussian war made sure to dishonor the Germans at the treaty signing and set out a rather strict set of terms to go with it

Also this kind of major defeat rocked the country and made those question the idea of German unity and if Germany could ever be a major player in Europe again

So with all this. It was very easy for a character like Hitler to rise to power and seize the peopleā€™s yearning for a strong leader with big promises and ambitious for Germany. He told them exactly what they wanted and ran with it

So think about the question more