I've always sort of thought of the Third Reich as an attempt to rebuild the Holy Roman Empire plus the Prussian territories. The First and Second Reichs kind of combined I guess. The conquests like Poland and Ukraine I always figured were planned to be administered more along the lines of colonies or with military governments for an undetermined amount of time. It's interesting they considered the Dutch as Germans since they had not even been formally part of the HRE since Westphalia and really split off much earlier than that. Makes me wonder what they planned for the Scandinavians.
History questions not worth their own thread II
- Thread starter Plotinus
- Start date
- Status
That only makes sense if you consider a very specific period for the HRE - post-Westphalia - and only take into account direct territorial jurisdiction, ignoring cultural, governmental, and other considerations. I don't really think that's a very useful comparison, personally. 
sydhe
King of Kongs
Maybe Hitler wanted to show off to the Kaiser, who was living in the Netherlands at the time. (I'm not serious.)
It doesn't make much sense, but some of the nationalists who supported the Nazis doubtless had sentiments along those lines.That only makes sense if you consider a very specific period for the HRE - post-Westphalia - and only take into account direct territorial jurisdiction, ignoring cultural, governmental, and other considerations. I don't really think that's a very useful comparison, personally.
Possibly. The Nazis never annexed Belgium or Franche-Comté, though. 
Actual question: I have begun to read a very large (but well recommended) book on the Ming-Qing transition, The Great Enterprise, by one Frederic Wakeman. It's pretty good so far, but I would like to know about other, more recent works (book was originally published in the eighties) to augment my knowledge. I already know about von Glahn and Maloughney and Xia and their works that more or less refute the old silver thesis. Any others, for instance on the military side of things?
Actual question: I have begun to read a very large (but well recommended) book on the Ming-Qing transition, The Great Enterprise, by one Frederic Wakeman. It's pretty good so far, but I would like to know about other, more recent works (book was originally published in the eighties) to augment my knowledge. I already know about von Glahn and Maloughney and Xia and their works that more or less refute the old silver thesis. Any others, for instance on the military side of things?
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Joe Jacobs wasn't even managing him during the second fight, and Schmelling didn't pay him his fair share for the first fight. He was basically a shield for him to hold up and say "I'm not a nazi!" His trainer, Machon was basically in charge of everything, including press relations and stuff Jacobs was great at. A real shame too, since Schmelling would have never been champ if Jacobs wasn't there. Theres a good reason Jacobs didn't seem too broken up about Louis beating the stuffing out of his fighter.Interesting tid-bit; Schmelling's long-time manager was Jewish.
All of that was, in the long term, planned for Annexations.
Schmelling treated Jacobs quite well until the Nazis came to power. I've always seen it more as a sign of Schmelling's backers screwing Jacobs than Schmelling himself. He may have been a bit of a bastard and extremely self-centred, but he was no Nazi. He had too many gay and Jewish friends for that.
Can anyone prove/disprove the following tidbit of info?
Mamluke Sultan al-Mansur Husam ad-din Lajin (ruled 1296-1298) was supposedly a Livonian guy, known under the name Laginus. He was also apparently the one who freed duke of Mecklenburg, Heinrich the Pilgrim after 26 years of captivity, since he had once served his father Johann as master-of-arms, during his campaign into Baltics.
Mamluke Sultan al-Mansur Husam ad-din Lajin (ruled 1296-1298) was supposedly a Livonian guy, known under the name Laginus. He was also apparently the one who freed duke of Mecklenburg, Heinrich the Pilgrim after 26 years of captivity, since he had once served his father Johann as master-of-arms, during his campaign into Baltics.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Oh he certainly wasn't a Nazi, he was, if anything, something worse: He was a bastard who used the Nazis for self-promotion. He used the Nazis to get around beiing called out on tax fraud, and used their anti-semitism as a convenient excuse to cheat the man who made sure his career didn't end with the Braddock fight. Being in the category of Goring or Eichmann instead of Himmler is only a little step up, if any at all.
I'm no fan of Schmelling's behaviour - though I am a fan of his boxing - so I'm sorry if I gave that impression. Merely pointing out the irony of him having a Jewish manager.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
It's generally perceived that antebellum American slavery was crueler than late-18th century American slavery, under the Founding Fathers. Is there any reality to this perception, or is it just Union historiography?
This might be your source if you want to read up on it. It wouldn't surprise me. After the War, there was no value to preserving the lives of freed blacks as their was with slaves.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
That has nothing to do with my question.
I would assume that, if anything, it was through the growth of the plantation economy of the South affecting the scale as much as anything (and agricultural slaves, whose sole purpose was manual labour, were almost certainly treated mroe harshly than household slaves).
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Except that it probably contains your answer.
The periods I'm talking about are 1760 - 1800 versus 1800 - 1865. The book you referred me to deals with 1865 to 1945.
Cynovolans
Not in my dimension.
From what I know, during the early 1800's slave revolts were becoming much more common, and several attempts to make a master killing his slave illegal increased the number of slave owners who believed "they're not humans, they're property and I could do whatever I want to them".
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Obviously, where we're talking about matters a lot on this subject. Life of a slave in the deep south was always worse than in Virginia. Antebellum Virginia would have been very moderate working conditions because tobacco was fading out. Then again, working conditions might not be the only "cruelty", since many Virginia slave owners were involved in "Slave breeding." They would specifically sell individuals to the deep south, breaking up families in the process.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure I can answer the question about the deep south, since I don't know enough about the details. It seemed that laws designed to oppress slaves increased in intensity as time went on due to fears of slave revolts and I know that slavery was increasing in scale from the cotton gin onward. But I'm afraid I don't know how that translated into working conditions and treatment by owners overall.
- Status
Similar threads
