Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You have to make a distinction between Jews and inferior races such as Slavs. Hitler wanted the Jews out of Germany by whatever means were possible. The other inferior races, once Lebensraum had been acquired, were to be helots for the German master race. I do not think Hitler particularly cared how the Jews were to be ousted from Germany and I have good reason to believe that as the policy and the warprogressed he became less and less concerned with methodology.My point is that Hitler wanted a Aryan hegemony in a state with no Jews, but with lots of inferior races tohew wood and draw water. Think of the ante bellum south in the USA in 1859.Aryan master race--blue eyed blond beasts--check out photos of Hitler and friends--hardly fit the phenotype. I wonder how the scholars who got doctorates in racial studies handled that?
Jews were at the bottom of Hitler's racial totem pole with the Slavs just above them. He didn't want Jews hewing wood anywhere in the world, he wanted them eliminated from the face of the earth. Adolph Eichmann developed the means to accomplish this, and Hitler could have refused it at any time if it was too horrendous to him, but he didn't. I think Hitler's intentions were clear. The big problem I have is, how can you get an entire nation to go along with this kind of madness?
So all that rubbish about creating a “Master Race” is just that rubbish? If Hitler wanted to establish the Aryan Race (whatever the heck he thought that to be….blond haired blue eyed folks etc…), what did he intend to do with the non Aryan races? Just a question.
If it was published before 1922, like that journal article was, it's normally in the public domain - and a good chance that Google has scanned it in. I've been finding some primary sources that date back to the 19th century or so as I am working on my Masters thesis...Google is a real gem in that regard.
I read their policy of respecting copyrights so I guess this isn't a big deal. So really JSTOR should do the same thing for stuff that old instead of charging $14.00 to purchase something in the public domain anyway. Bad JSTOR, bad....LOL
they are not trained archaeologists (though they know what they are doing).
I'll say the same thing. 😀 What do you mean by this? ??? If they know what they're doing, then obviously they are trained in archaeology.What I meant is that the archaeologist finds the stuff, and his job is to properly document it. The historian will take it from there. If the historian found it himself then he is either lucky or a trained archaeologist himself. My comment was actually more in response to Donnie's comment "This is why I don't follow Archaeology". I guess I just can't understand why one would have an attitude like that because I think archaeology is important to history, especially ancient history. If I went to URI, I would double major. But I don't go there, so oh well.
Archaeology is okay, but it is a field hijacked by agendas and crackpots. Anthropology is just "We are here to prove evolution and nanny nanny boo boo to anything else."
I no longer have access to JSTOR so I can't read the whole article, but I think I know someone who can. If that person has the time, please download it and email me a copy. (Note: I did not just say what you think I did JSTOR cops). 🙂
I was going to say - that's a no-no for JSTOR, and the cops WILL find you, and they WILL beat you and...Oh well you can save yourself the trouble anyway and read it directly through Google Books which has the complete article that you can download for free, or read online:http://books.google.com/books?id=lJoNAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA347&dq=The+Hyksos+in+Egypt&hl=en&ei=rXiuS8DhOoviNaLl1JkF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=The%20Hyksos%20in%20Egypt&f=false
If I was JSTOR, I would be more than a little upset with Google. Thanks for the link, I downloaded the entire journal.
I'm still working on this. Joseph allegedly rose to power during the Hyksos period (that is if he existed at all) which is the point of contention. I am looking for a scholarly article dealing with this such as this one: http://www.jstor.org/pss/3140543I no longer have access to JSTOR so I can't read the whole article, but I think I know someone who can. If that person has the time, please download it and email me a copy. (Note: I did not just say what you think I did JSTOR cops). 🙂
I was wondering the same thing. Why can't historians find the "evidence" themselves? I know several who conduct their own digs, and they are not trained archaeologists (though they know what they are doing).
That's interesting, though I can't imagine they're doing the digs without any supervision of archaeologists, or without having had some training. I would think they would want to know protocol for conducting a dig simply because it makes it easier to preserve finds and to know what to do.
My professor, Dr. Wayne Lee, goes to Greece annually to dig. He probably goes with archaeologists, but he is trained. He now teaches at the University of North Carolina, so I don't know if he still goes or not. Even though he is a U.S. historian, Greek history is his hobby.
Just show the evidence and we'll take it from there.
What do you mean by this? ???
I was wondering the same thing. Why can't historians find the "evidence" themselves? I know several who conduct their own digs, and they are not trained archaeologists (though they know what they are doing).
Okay I split this topic off from the Middle Kingdom thread and gave it the title Western Environmental Policies & China's Economy because China was the subject of the other thread and I couldn't think of anything else. We sort of got away from China, but we can still focus on the repercussions of environmental activism and how it hurts Western economies while China is not bound to such policies and their economy thrives…..or however you guys want to hijack this thread. LOL
I would be fine with people locking their own topics. I went ahead and changed it to allow this. I had to allow all regular members to have this permission since I can't figure out how to award it to membergroups based on post count (I may have set up the membergroups incorrectly when I first started using SMF). I think if this turns out to be a problem we will know soon enough...so we'll monitor the situation.
Okay then. I do agree with Wally though, that the thread needed to be split at the 14th or 15th post to preserve the original topic content.
Donnie, would you mind splitting it where you think appropriate? I hadn't been following the thread closely enough, so you would have a better idea where to break it up.
Okay, I'll go back and see where to split it.
Okay there is a permission for granting locking privileges to topic starters (their own topics only). It can be ascribed to a member group or on a per member basis. Now I would not advise granting this kind of privilege to new users until they have proven themselves to be 1) a contributing member (say 100 posts or more), and 2) a responsible civil member (i.e. not a flaming troll). So a group say Optio or higher could be assigned this privilege. They then could prevent the hijacking of their threads by locking it. Administrators and Global Moderators can then review the reason for locking and either uphold it or unlock it whatever the case may be. Of course this can lead to other problems, but if the member gives a logical reason for locking his or her topic, there should not be any hurt feelings or what not. I believe Aetheling has complained before about topics going astray If I recall, and this is another reason why I bring it up.
Interesting discussion.A couple of thoughts...Given the titanic disaster that was the Soviet Army for most of 1941 under Barbarossa's advance, Stalin really didn't make a (positive) difference until Moscow was under direct threat. Having confirmed through his spy network that Japan was eyeing war with the Western Powers in late 1941 he was able to shift Siberian and far Eastern troops to the Moscow front - we all know how that story went. I contend that this is the point where Stalin started to make a positive difference in the war effort. Yes, he - or his office - had arranged for the evacuation of the essential factories to the east, away from the Germans, but it was, in my opinion, the battle of Moscow where Staling not only gained confidence as a wartime leader, it is also where he started the process of not trying to run the war as a general, and instead started giving more autonomy to his generals. It wasn't an "all at once" thing, but progressed throughout the course of the war (just the opposite of Hitler who tried took a more active role as a strategist as the war progressed).Having read a fair amount about the war on the Eastern Front, and a fair number of memoirs, many Red Army soldiers fought as much out of fear of Stalin and his regime as they did out of hatred of the Nazis.I recently studied Kruschev's "Secret Speech" to the 20th Soviet Congress - the one where he denounced Stalin and laid the groundwork for "de-Stalinization" of the Soviet Union. I was fascinated to learn how Kruschev had moved from being one of Stalin's henchmen during the war to demonizing him later. One of the things that struck me in my studies was the varying feelings about Stalin in Russia in "current" times (since the end of the Cold War). Some who were intereviewed saw him as a monster, while others viewed him with nostalgia.No doubt he was a monster, and every bit as evil as Hitler - but maybe he was precisely the type of leader that was necessary to ultimately and completely defeat Nazism at the time.
I wholeheartedly agree here. Stalin also was smart enough to relax his censorship of religious expression during the dark days of the war giving the Russian people something more to rally around. The Church, in gratitude, chipped in an enormous amount of patriotic propaganda to spur the people on in the what they considered The Great Patriotic War. Stalin was shrewd enough to know he wasn't a military leader, but he did understand how to manipulate the masses through propaganda....which might have been his greatest strategy overall. Zhukov did the rest.
Okay then. I do agree with Wally though, that the thread needed to be split at the 14th or 15th post to preserve the original topic content. On a side note, doesn't SMF have the capability of allowing topic starters to lock their own topics? Given the crowd we have here, I don't think it would be a problem for that permission to be granted (if it does exist that is). I mean the underlying issue is do topic starters have "copyrights" to the intellectual content of their topics, or does it belong to WCF "the house?" Given the nature of this board, being more academic, it is something we might need to consider. If this were just a goof off board centered around a fan site or Hollywood gossip, then I would say no. But since we're discussing serious subjects with intellectual opinions based on interpretative facts, I can see giving more control to topic starters.....limited control, but some. Mind you, I might toy with this idea at Writers of History but I want input first.
Welcome domain.specialist.john.Are ye a spammer? Looks like it. But if you are, you are the first spammer I have seen who posts an actual photo of a guy (yourself?) for your avatar.
And your experimentation with spammer outreach failed. Nice try though. LOL
