Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Donnie, can I ask you where you got those figures? You could be right about the conventional weapons, but I thought I read somewhere that this was not the case. I did some searching and was unable to come up with specific figures on this. As far as Soviet nuclear weapons went, I found something which stated "According to estimates by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the peak of approximately 45,000 warheads was reached in 1986."
I can't exactly remember where all those figures came from since I read them years ago. The aircraft tallies came from a book on military aircraft I have. I'm pretty sure my Cold War class I had at Kentucky my professor cited similar numbers. But mind you any numbers on Soviet military capability would only be estimates anyway so take it with a grain of salt.
I would use the overarching “Age of Reason” and designate the years I want to encompass. The French Revolution can be embedded in this quite nicely.
Actually the Soviets surpassed the United States in Missile, Tank, and Jet Fighter aircraft production during the course of the Cold War. The Soviets maintained nearly 5,000 jet aircraft for service compared to the U.S.'s 2,000. The U.S. maintained a tank force of roughly 22,000 at the height of the Cold War, whereas the Soviets had around 70,000. Also, the Soviets cheated on the ICBM treaties shamelessly to the point where they had several hundred more ICBM's than we possessed because we adhered to the SALT I and SALT II treaties which banned them. So in a way, the Soviets outspent themselves.
My professor Dr. Randolph Daniels, made an excellent case that the Dark Ages were never Dark. Phid already mentioned the rise of the Gothic Cathedrals during the age highlighted by the Flying Buttress, but also those great figures he listed. The only thing that can keep the term relevant is the fact that Europe was restructuring in the aftermath of Rome's fall. Though technology progressed, the height of culture as seen in Rome, was no where near matched. So in comparison to the shining glory that was Rome, early Medieval Europe was indeed a dim flicker.
Well Aristophanes sure lampooned this in Lysistrata. Then of course there was Sappho who ran a school for women only. So there were some isolated instances in ancient Greece where women were either considered or held some form of autonomy. But for the most part, they were the property of their husbands.
I suppose the Low Middle Ages would be from 476 A.D. (the fall of the Western Roman Empire) to say 1066 A.D. with the Battle of Hastings. The High Middle Ages would be from 1066 A.D. to 1492 A.D. ending with the Battle of Granada and the beginning of the Age of Exploration. Of course if you want to make Charlemagne's coronation the cutoff of the Low Middle Ages you can, but then if you are going to do that, I would revert back to the “Dark Ages” stemming from 476-800 A.D., then have the Low Middle Ages range from 800 to 1066 A.D. and the High Middle Ages from 1066-1492 A.D. These are traditional cutoffs, but you can choose your own of course because you are the emperor! (lol)
Pretty close, but we got even closer in 1973 when Israel almost nuked the Syrians which would have triggered a Soviet retaliation and then an American counterstrike. We were at our highest defcon level short of launch.
It would have lasted at least another decade, but the Depression would have ended once bust cycle and the agricultural situation in the Midwest subsided. But America's industrial might would have been far less if it never mobilized for war where factories were built for war production. Also women would not have entered the work force to double American output.
Reagan was loved by the people for the most part. His policies expedited the end of the Cold War because he outspent the Soviet Union into bankruptcy. As for Kennedy, the Cuban Missile Crisis would have been the highlight and the event that showed his gross incompetence. Those missiles should never even had been allowed into Cuba. He dropped the ball on that one all the way around.
Well they overlap because some of the boards are more event specific….kinda like a seminar devoted to that one event because of its magnitude.? World War II is such a huge event, it has to be discussed from different perspectives.? America's involvement was a completely different experience than Russia's for example.? Of course I was just offering a guidline.? There is no perfect way to divide history.? You have to settle on a theme for the board and stick to it.
To be completely accurate here (lol), in the very beginning, the colonists appealed to King George III to check the tyranny of Parliament.? They proclaimed their charters were made between them and the sovereign, but Parliament cited the Glorious Revolution of 1688 as the takeover point where it assumed the sovereign and thus ownership of the charters.? So when the colonists saw that legal argument was going no where, they shifted gears and said they were not represented in Parliament, to which Parliament retorted that it “Virtually Represented” the colonists, and it cited the various examples where British burroughs were virtually represented by neighboring burrough representatives for many years.? So when the colonists saw that legal argument was going no where, they dropped the pretenses of what they really wanted and that was autonomy and independence. 🙂
The most important thing about this war is the fact that England came to the defense of the American colonies which heightened their pride in being a part of the British Empire, but it also made Prime Minister Grenville and George III broke. When they decided to begin minding the empire's books again to recoup the expenditures the war for empire cost, the colonists came to resent it because they had gotten a free ride via Salutory Neglect for decades. So the Seven Years War contributed heavily toward the sower mood the colonists came to feel toward London. American Historians usually view the war through these filters and use it as a springboard to the Revolution.
What do you think was the strangest decision made by an officer during the civil war?
John Pemberton's decision to defend Vicksburg rather than uniting with Joe Johnston's forces in the interior. I doubt the outcome would have been altered in the Western Theater, but Grant would have been tied down to defending the area rather than besieging 22,000 Confederates. Meanwhile the rebels could have held out quite a bit longer in Mississippi with the Army of Tennessee at its full strength.
Why not reorganize your board along the lines of a university curriculum catalogue?? For example:European HistoryEuropean History to 1492European History from 1492-presentColonialismWorld War IWorld War IICold WarMedieval StudiesLow Middle AgesHigh Middle AgesU.S. HistoryU.S. History to 1865U.S. History from 1865-presentWorld War IGreat Depression and World War IICold War/ KoreaVietnam EraAncient WorldMesopotamian WorldGreco-Roman WorldJudaic StudiesLatin American StudiesAncient American CivilizationsThe ConquistaLatin America in the Modern World
