History questions not worth their own thread II

[Lord Baal]

Just as an aside on the Jesse Owens issue; it's a myth that Hitler snubbed Owens because of his race. During the Berlin Olympics Hitler at first congratulated all German medallists, but was informed by the IOC that this was unsportsmanly. He should either congratulate every medallist or no medallists. Unsurprisingly, Hitler chose to congratulate no-one.

Jesse Owens' victory happened to take place shortly after this; since Hitler had also congratulated one Australian wrestler of German extraction, this led to the belief - played up by anti-Nazi activists in other nations - that Hitler had snubbed Owens because of his race.

 

[LightSpectra]

Just as an aside on the Jesse Owens issue; it's a myth that Hitler snubbed Owens because of his race. During the Berlin Olympics Hitler at first congratulated all German medallists, but was informed by the IOC that this was unsportsmanly. He should either congratulate every medallist or no medallists. Unsurprisingly, Hitler chose to congratulate no-one.

Jesse Owens' victory happened to take place shortly after this; since Hitler had also congratulated one Australian wrestler of German extraction, this led to the belief - played up by anti-Nazi activists in other nations - that Hitler had snubbed Owens because of his race.

Owens said, "Hitler didn't snub me—it was FDR who snubbed me. The president didn't even send me a telegram."[13] Jesse Owens was never invited to the White House nor bestowed honors by presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) or his successor Harry S. Truman during their terms. In 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower honored Owens by naming him an "Ambassador of Sports."

Source

 

[bombshoo]

I remember our elementary school library had this set of short illustrated picture books about African American heroes. I distinctly remember the Jesse Owens one having a picture with him running through the goal line with his arms up and a big smile smile on his face, with a red faced Hitler standing on the side lines literally eating his own hat.

 

[Cynovolans]

Was there a Persian dynasty that practiced sibling-marriages (similar to egyptian dynasties)?

Loosely related, was there a recorded father-daughter marriage in the Ptolemaic dynasty? I know the Amarna and Ramsesside dynasties experimented with that but I'm not sure about the Ptolemies.

 

[Karalysia]

It happened in both Pontus and Armenia and possible in Parthia.

 

[Lord Baal]

I remember our elementary school library had this set of short illustrated picture books about African American heroes. I distinctly remember the Jesse Owens one having a picture with him running through the goal lime with his arms up and a big smile smile on his face, with a red faced Hitler standing on the side lines literally eating his own hat.

Oh, Hitler was quite pissed off, particular as Owens passed an undefeated German runner to win that year (not sure if that was the final or not though). But he didn't snub Owens. Hitler was behaving himself extremely well at the 1936 Olympics. He even congratulated one of the several half-Jewish athletes competing for Germany, and at least one Austrian Jew before he changed his stance on congratulations.

If you watch the footage of that Olympics, you'll see that both Hitler and Goering routinely did outlandish things when Germans lost. I recall seeing Goering throw his hat to the ground after a gymnastics event, pick it up, then throw it down again.

 

[ParkCungHee]

the Nazi's from Jessie Owen to the death match

Let's not forget Louis-Schmeling!

Sports are a part of social history. I'd argue the more you connect it to broader social consequences or broad periods of time, the better. If you're simply chronicling the events of a specific team in a specific period, that's still real history, but I'd argue it has less social value to most people.

Of course. The same applies to all history. If you're doing military history, biography, art history, intellectual history etc. Without tying trends together, you're not really adding much.

Im told there is a whole debate amoung the post-colonial theory types about the point of it being to allow contest and occasional victory over the Brits in a controled manner.

Not to mention attempts by post-colonial peoples to claim ownership, like the occasional claims that Ireland invented Soccer.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I recall seeing Goering throw his hat to the ground after a gymnastics event, pick it up, then throw it down again.

OK, that's one of the funniest images I've ever seen described

Of course. The same applies to all history. If you're doing military history, biography, art history, intellectual history etc. Without tying trends together, you're not really adding much.

That's a good point. Plenty of military historians don't care about any big picture at all. They do have a use, though (specialists can get details that others won't get).

 

[Dachs]

Arguably, ever since Sir Michael Howard and his ilk kicked off the era of the "new military history", military historians, especially military historians of Europe, have been too focused on the big picture. Why target military history in particular?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Why did I? Since it's the one field I have good experience with that exemplifies this. Too many military historians care about how many troops were under some Lt. under Napoleon at Waterloo.

 

[say1988]

In my experience this is quite common in all fields up until fairly recently and among amature historians (who tend to prominently feature in military history at the moment).
A person writing the history of, say, Egypt, being more concerned with nailing down the exact dates of a Pharoes reign and the exact territory ruled rather than the impact of rule.
The focus on establishing objective facts rather than the interpretation of what you have results in this.

 

[sophie]

In my experience this is quite common in all fields up until fairly recently and among amature historians (who tend to prominently feature in military history at the moment).
A person writing the history of, say, Egypt, being more concerned with nailing down the exact dates of a Pharoes reign and the exact territory ruled rather than the impact of rule.
The focus on establishing objective facts rather than the interpretation of what you have results in this.

Everyone likes pretty maps

 

[LightSpectra]

In my experience this is quite common in all fields up until fairly recently and among amature historians (who tend to prominently feature in military history at the moment).
A person writing the history of, say, Egypt, being more concerned with nailing down the exact dates of a Pharoes reign and the exact territory ruled rather than the impact of rule.
The focus on establishing objective facts rather than the interpretation of what you have results in this.

I agree with this. Establish the facts first, and then once the data is relatively secure and accurate, then is the time to make interpretations and analysis.

 

[bombshoo]

Why specifically did Germany invade the Netherlands during WWII?

 

[LightSpectra]

Why specifically did Germany invade the Netherlands during WWII?

A variety of reasons. To deny Dutch ports to the British; because doing a large turning movement (similar to the original Schlieffen Plan) is easier when there's more space to march through; the industry in the Netherlands was particular valuable.

 

[Karalysia]

Because if you're going to knock over Europe you might as well knock over all of Europe.

 

[Dachs]

Why did I? Since it's the one field I have good experience with that exemplifies this. Too many military historians care about how many troops were under some Lt. under Napoleon at Waterloo.

In my experience this is quite common in all fields up until fairly recently and among amature historians (who tend to prominently feature in military history at the moment).
A person writing the history of, say, Egypt, being more concerned with nailing down the exact dates of a Pharoes reign and the exact territory ruled rather than the impact of rule.
The focus on establishing objective facts rather than the interpretation of what you have results in this.

Bing.

 

[Lord Baal]

Let's not forget Louis-Schmeling!

Interesting tid-bit; Schmelling's long-time manager was Jewish.

Regarding their first fight, it's absolutely fantastic. As good a display of experience and treachery winning out over youth and ability as you'll ever see. Schmelling was completely outclassed, but he STILL destroyed Louis.

A variety of reasons. To deny Dutch ports to the British; because doing a large turning movement (similar to the original Schlieffen Plan) is easier when there's more space to march through; the industry in the Netherlands was particular valuable.

Don't forget the idelogical motive. The Dutch were considered German by the Nazis and the Netherlands were always intended - like Austria - to be incorporated into the Reich some day. WWII simply added pragmatic reasons.

 

[LightSpectra]

Don't forget the idelogical motive. The Dutch were considered German by the Nazis and the Netherlands were always intended - like Austria - to be incorporated into the Reich some day. WWII simply added pragmatic reasons.

Are you sure about that?

Spoiler :

The Netherlands weren't incorporated into direct administration of the Reich. Was that to be put off until later?

 

[Lord Baal]

Are you sure about that?

Spoiler :

The Netherlands weren't incorporated into direct administration of the Reich. Was that to be put off until later?

Yep. I don't know of any links, but I do know that the Netherlands and parts of the Commisariat of the Eastern Land (Ostland) were intended for eventual incorporation into the Reich. Probably parts of Belgium and France with German minorities as well, though I've never read anything about that. I've also read a few transcripts of conversations among high-ranking Nazis involving incorporating parts of Switzerland into the Reich, but that was a pipe-dream.

I'm honestly not sure why the Netherlands wasn't directly annexed, as Luxembourg was. Even the General Government (Poland), which was NOT intended for incorporation into the Reich, was annexed. Weird set of priorities. I suspect they held off on annexing the Netherlands so as to avoid hardening resistance there, considering how much they valued its industry and location.