History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VIII

Over on the OT forum, there's a thread on theocracy, in which Owen makes the following observation about Thomas Aquinas:

In Christian academia there were a handful of figures so influential as to be granted a 1-name epitaph. Paul was The Apostle, Averroes was The Commentator, Augustine was The Doctor. Thomas Aquinas is The Theologian.

Coming forward in time from the middle ages, I can think of only Shakespeare (The Bard) as someone who gets one of these The [one noun] epithets (until The Donald). Are there others?
 
Coming forward in time from the middle ages, I can think of only Shakespeare (The Bard) as someone who gets one of these The [one noun] epithets (until The Donald). Are there others?
There's a couple-three guys from the 1930s and 40s who went by some version of "The Leader".
 
Hmmmmm. I'm trying to think if that fits.
 
Coming forward in time from the middle ages, I can think of only Shakespeare (The Bard) as someone who gets one of these The [one noun] epithets (until The Donald). Are there others?
"The King" is widely understood as referring to Elvis Presley, although how readily that's understood would probably depend on the rest of the sentence.

I think that Shakespeare has an advantage here because there aren't a lot of context in which there are more than one potential "bard".

edit: Wait, I've just discovered the conversation that this span off from, and Elvis was already addressed. My bad.
 
Last edited:
Reposting from original thread for fun and profit:

Yep, those are good ones. [viz: Elvis Presley as The King and Bruce Springsteen as The Boss]

They aren't really the same thing though. Those are just nicknames. The ones I listed are appellations that are making a statement about their importance within Christian scholasticism.

Augustine is The Doctor because his position as a Church Father (Doctor = "teacher" in Latin) is so pre-eminent that the implicit assumption when talking about a Church Father is that you must surely be talking about Augustine. Likewise for Paul as The Apostle Here is an example of it happening in Peter Abelard:

Cum igitur totus in superbia atque luxuria laborarem, utriusque morbi remedium divina mihi gratia licet nolenti contulit. Ac primo luxurie, deinde superbie; luxurie quidem his me privando quibus hanc exercebam; superbie vero que mihi ex litterarum maxime scientia nascebatur, iuxta illud Apostoli "Scientia inflat", illius libri quo maxime gloriabar combustione me humiliando.

Spoiler :
Thus when I was laboring wholly in arrogance and extravagance, divine grace brought to me, however unwilling, a remedy to both ailments. First for extravagance, then for vanity; [the cure for] extravagance indeed by depriving me of those things by which I used to practice it, in the case of arrogance, however, since it was largely begotten in me from the knowledge of the writings [i.e. theology and philosophical study], as The Apostle says, "Knowledge puffs [one] up," I was therefore cured of the ailment of arrogance by humiliating me by burning that very book of which I was most proud


It's not an honorific, and it's not a nickname. It's simply a statement based on the assumption that no other Apostles matter, if you are talking about an apostle in the context of theological exegesis, you must surely be talking about Paul, and if you weren't talking about Paul, then you would specify who instead you were talking about, as, e.g. in the case of Einhard:

Colebat prae ceteris sacris et venerabilibus locis apud Romam ecclesiam beati Petri apostoli; in cuius donaria magna vis pecuniae tam in auro quam in argento necnon et gemmis ab illo congesta est

Spoiler :
He venerated before all other sacred and worshipful places, the church of St. Peter the Apostle located in Rome. In whose treasure-chamber, a large quantity of riches – as much in gold as in silver, to say nothing of gems, was accumulated by him.


The point is that neither "The Boss" nor "The King" are comparable here. If you are talking about Apostles, then surely you mean Paul; no others matter, and if you weren't talking about Paul then you would have specified. If you were talking about Doctors then you must be talking about Augustine, because no other Doctors matter. You can't analogize this to Springsteen or Elvis. Calling Springsteen The Boss is not making a statement about his preeminence among bosses, and that no other bosses matter, likewise for Elvis and The King. These epithets only make sense in the context of talking about those people. If you, apropos of nothing, were to say "I'm a fan of The King" you would probably get a quizzical look and be asked to specify "which king"?

The Bard
is a good example, though, and you can see it making the same essential point when the epithet was first attributed in David Garrick's Shakespeare Jubilee in 1769:

Be proud of the charms of your County;
Where Nature has lavished her bounty.
Where much she has given, and some to be spared
For the Bard of all bards, was a Warwickshire Bard;
Warwickkshire Bard:
Never paired;
For the Bard of all Bards, was a Warwickshire Bard

He is ascribed the epithet of The Bard because no other bard is implied to matter. If you are talking of Bards, you must surely mean Shakespeare, and if you weren't talking about Shakespeare, you would have specified.

You can see a similar epithet in Samuel Johnson's 1765 Preface to The Plays of W. Shakespeare, in which Shakespeare is called The Poet.

A comparable example in California might be referring to San Francisco as The City, again, carrying the implicit assumption that if you are talking about a city you must surely be talking about SF, as no other cities matter, and if you had meant another city you would have specified as such. But this is an extremely regional thing which exists in the hinterland of basically every major city, and Californians get pretty heavy pushback whenever they talk to non-Californians about The City referring to SF.

pc+1
 
Last edited:
that one became the Eternal Chief only when his replacement tried to to follow the standart cult of the leader and became the National Chief, but saw it might not be exactly be profitable even in WW II when there was still a Führer in Germany to keep balances .
 
that one became the Eternal Chief only when his replacement tried to to follow the standart cult of the leader and became the National Chief, but saw it might not be exactly be profitable even in WW II when there was still a Führer in Germany to keep balances .
quality İsmet joke, I give it an 8/10
 
and of course the saddest thing is , none of his replacements either intented or were allowed to be half an Ismet ...
 
I have a question that sounds like Holocaust denial even though I promise I don't mean it that way.

If the only purpose of the Holocaust was "exterminate Jews and other undesirables" why didn't they just kill them all at once? Like you have a group of people rounded up in camps. Why not just use machine guns and kill them all at once, if all you want to do is eliminate them. Rather than making the process take much longer through starvation and other forms. I mean don't get me wrong, I'm glad they didn't but I'm trying to understand their motivation for doing it the way they did.
 
I'm not qualified to answer that question, as a historian or psychologist or whatever one would need to be to answer that.

But this recent article about Trump and his followers maybe sheds some light: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/

It's a grim answer to your question, but the Holocaust may have been a social-bonding experience for the people who were perpetrating it.
 
Last edited:
The simple answer is that the Nazi plan wasn't always to exterminate the Jews, Romani, et al en masse. The plan, originally, was to get them out of German land and the Lebensraum. This is why a) Jews were allowed, and indeed encouraged to emigrate in the early stages of Nazi rule. Boycotts, prohibitions against Jews owning land or operating businesses, restriction of citizenship eligibility, pogroms, and ghettos were intended as measures to make life so intolerable for the Jews that they would view leaving Germany as preferable. This plan was reasonably effective: by 1939, over half of the Jewish population in Germany had left Germany.

An initial plan was to forcibly relocate the remaining Jews to Madagascar, the idea being to create an ethnostate for Jews in a land so unaccommodating that the Jewish population would never be able to succeed and would languish forever in Africa, out of sight and out of mind. The plan was to defeat Great Britain via Operation Sea Lion, and use the captured British merchant fleet to effect the relocation, however, upon the failure of Sea Lion, the plan was abandoned.

With the capture of Poland, and the addition of 2 million Jews to Nazi-controlled lands, the plan shifted towards relocating the Jewish population to select ghettos in urban areas. Again, the plan was not necessarily extermination, but rather to restrict the Jewish population to certain "reservations," where the Jewish population could be contained and, potentially, relocated (either to Madagascar or Siberia) at a later date via rail. In this, the Nazis obviously drew inspiration from the 19th century US Indian policy: keep the population confined select, reservations, thereby freeing up the good land for your own population to and keeping the undesirable population confined to specific areas where they won't be able to build political or economic power, won't be able to intermix with your own population, and if they die in the process, all the better. You also gain the benefit of having a documented, easily accessible, exploitable slave population should you need it. Described in such a way, it's possible for this treatment to sound rather quaint, but make no mistake, this is not my intention. Although the ostensible goal wasn't to murder ghettoized populations per se, death was nevertheless an inevitable consequence of this policy: conditions and treatment were appalling, and at least half a million Jews starved to death in the ghettos and forced labor camps. Extermination in this case wasn't the de iure objective, but it was certainly the de facto consequence of the policy.

German policy towards "The Jewish Question" shifted between 1939 and 1942. The first event that triggered this shift was Kristallnacht . On November 7th, 1938, a German diplomat, Ernst vom Rath was assassinated in Paris by Herschel Grynszpan, a Polish Jew. The Nazi government used this assassination as a pretext to carry out an appalling series of pogroms. Prior to Kristallnacht, the Nazis began a more marked effort to relocate their Jewish population to concentration camps, which initially had largely been used as holding and forced-labor camps for political dissidents. Again, the intention here wasn't initially to exterminate Jewish populations en masse, but rather to keep them contained in select areas. Again, this wasn't quaint, pleasant, or peaceful, even within the context of how prisoners are ordinarily treated anywhere. Conditions were appalling - intentionally so. The objective wasn't to kill them immediately, but to keep them confined in one place, and if they should die in the process, all the better.

The Wannsee Conference, held in early 1942, was the point at which Nazi objectives shifted significantly. Hitler had made repeated references in the past to a destruction of Jewish populations should a world war break out, and, upon the Nazi declaration of war against the United States, Hitler intended to make good on his declaration. Following Wannsee, the plan shifted from confining Jewish populations to ghettos and concentration camps, and restricting rights such that Jews would feel compelled to emigrate. The new plan was:

a) extract as much economic labor from the population as possible
b) once the individual was no longer able to provide economic labor, they were to be killed.

Reinhard Heydrich, the SS-Obergruppenführer laid this plan out very explicitly:

Under proper guidance, in the course of the final solution the Jews are to be allocated for appropriate labor in the East. Able-bodied Jews, separated according to sex, will be taken in large work columns to these areas for work on roads, in the course of which action doubtless a large portion will be eliminated by natural causes.


The possible final remnant will, since it will undoubtedly consist of the most resistant portion, have to be treated accordingly because it is the product of natural selection and would, if released, act as the seed of a new Jewish revival (see the experience of history.) In the course of the practical execution of the final solution, Europe will be combed through from west to east. Germany proper, including the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, will have to be handled first due to the housing problem and additional social and political necessities. The evacuated Jews will first be sent, group by group, to so-called transit ghettos, from which they will be transported to the East.

The death camps of the Holocaust were constructed beginning at the end of 1941. It was from this point that the objective became the immediate and total eradication of undesirable populations, principally Jews. Even here, the plan didn't call for the immediate murder of everyone. Upon entry to the concentration camps, 75% percent of the interned population were deemed unfit for labor and killed immediately, the other quarter were designated for slave labor: i.e. to be forced to work until they died, whether from starvation, exhaustion, disease (typhoid and dysentery were especially rampant, again often intentionally so), or the absolutely brutal treatment they received at the hands of camp guards.

As it became increasingly apparent that the Nazis were not going to win the war, efforts to exterminate the remaining population intensified. In 1944 up to 6,000 Jews were being murdered a day in Auschwitz alone. As the Soviets advanced towards the camps, commanders forcibly relocated inmates of the camps, forcing them to ride on open train cars for days with no food or water, or forcing them to walk the entire distance to camps closer to German borders, shooting anybody who lagged or fell behind.

In other words, to answer your question:

a) The Nazi plan wasn't always to exterminate the entire Jewish, Romani, et al. populations wholesale. Initially the plan was to force them to emigrate elsewhere. When this plan didn't work, the plan shifted towards forcibly relocating them elsewhere (initial plans were first to Madagascar, then to Siberia). When this plan didn't work, the plan shifted towards forcibly confining these populations in ghettos and concentration camps.
b) Upon the Nazi declaration of war against the Americans, Hitler began to implement the "Final Solution", that is, the utter eradication of all Jews, Romani, etc. from Europe. This is the point in which the plan became, as you said, "to just kill them all at once". Even still, the plan was to murder most of them and work the rest to death. As the Nazis began losing territory, the plan shifted again from "murder most of them" to "murder all of them"
c) Make no mistake though, even given these caveats, the holocaust, i.e. the period following the implementation of the "Final Solution" was brutally effective: 90% of Poland's Jewish population was murdered, 70% of the Jewish populations in Greece, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Lithuania, Bohemia, the Netherlands, Slovakia, and Latvia were murdered. 50% of the Jewish populations in Belgium, Romania, Luxembourg, Norway, and Estonia were murdered. ~33% of Jews living in Soviet land were murdered. 25% of the Jewish population in France was murdered. We don't really have accurate figures of just how many Romani were murdered, since their place in the history of the holocaust was ignored until the 1980s, and solid records for their populations have not and still are not particularly well documented, but an estimated 220,000-1.5M Romani were murdered.

So to really answer your question: "why didn't they just kill them all at once:" they did.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, you are knowledgeable.
 
Thanks, you are knowledgeable.

Not really - at least not in this topic. Just some vague general knowledge and a quick wikipedia skim. There are others here who I'm sure can provide much more detailed information.
 
Couple of things to add to Owen's excellent post, though sadly I don't have the time to go into nearly his level of detail.

In the occupied Soviet territories, particularly in the year or so after Barbarossa, there was a lot more "just shooting them". All the Jews in a village would be taken into the countryside, gunned down and buried in mass graves. This was phased out in favour of the gas chambers for being too inefficient - it was thought of as a waste of bullets - as well as psychologically damaging to the soldiers taking part.

Secondly, while Auschwitz is the image most people have of the Holocaust, it's worth considering the "death camps" like Treblinka II and Belzec - at these locations, there was no mass incarceration, no slave labour, no keeping Jews "rounded up". Instead, they were little more than a small railway station, a barracks for the Nazi soldiers and the gas chambers. In less than a year and a half, at least 700,000 people were killed at Treblinka - second only to Auschwitz in absolute numbers, but occurring over a much shorter time.
 
Why did Germany declare war on the United States (they did first) when it was so obvious that that was a horrible decision?
 
Why did Germany declare war on the United States (they did first) when it was so obvious that that was a horrible decision?
Hitler's ultimate goal was always a showdown against the "Jewish-Bolshevik financiers" of New York that he believed dominated America. That was why he believed Germany needed to be a strong colossus ruling over all Europe: he saw it as preparation for the ultimate showdown. And he was willing to accept that ultimate showdown even though it came a little earlier than he'd anticipated.

Furthermore, in both World Wars, the German government tended to think that American protestations of neutrality were totally worthless.

From 1914 to 1917 the Americans sold billions of dollars of war materiel to the Entente powers despite professing neutrality. The Germans viewed the Wilson administration as fundamentally sympathetic to the Entente in general and the British especially, and saw the resignation of Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan as being a purge of the neutralist camp in the American government. They were not entirely wrong, but underestimated the extent to which American civilian casualties would push the country into open war, while simultaneously failing to see that the Entente's cooperation with America was in large part based on limited financial resources that were almost exhausted by the beginning of 1917.

Hitler had even more reason to view the Americans as basically being on Britain's side. After Lend-Lease and the Destroyers for Bases agreements, the US was more or less officially committed to manufacturing whatever it could to fuel the British war machine, while obviously not offering the same service to Germany. The signature of the Atlantic Charter solidified the Anglo-American relationship, such that Roosevelt was more or less sure that America and Germany would be at war within a year. American convoys supported the British extensively, guarded by US Navy vessels. German U-boats and American destroyers fired on each other in the USS Greer incident in September 1941. A U-boat torpedoed USS Kearny the following month, and finally the USS Reuben James was actually sunk by a U-boat off Iceland on 31 October with 100 crew killed. America and Germany were effectively in a low-grade shooting war before Pearl Harbor. Realistically, Hitler was acknowledging what he thought was a state of affairs that already existed.

Both times, the Germans overreacted to what America was doing, but they didn't overreact that much. Wilson was in the tank for the Entente, although there was only so much he could do to support them without Americans being physically attacked. And Roosevelt was absolutely an Allied wannabe long before Pearl Harbor. If Hitler had not declared war on America, the Americans probably would have declared on Germany due to the Battle of the Atlantic before the year was out, while shipping arms and equipment to the UK all the while. Hitler's declaration of war changed American priorities and allowed the Allies to decide definitively on "Germany first", but even that decision was subject to a great deal of change and waffling over the course of the war. I'm not sure how much it actually meant at the time. And, of course, it's very difficult to imagine Hitler doing anything other than declaring war on the United States.
 
Thanks. From the way I looked at it, it was my understanding that the Germans were losing on the Russian front even before American involvement. And yes we were helping the Brits but that's not nearly as much as sending our own troops to the extent we did after formal war was declared. And we probably would have gone all out inevitably but it's not rational to declare war on another major power when you are already losing the war you're fighting as it is.


But Hitler wasn't exactly a rational person.
 
ı think ı have to add the Madagascar plan also doubled as enlisting the Vichy France , if not the whole of French peoples . In that it was "obviously" the fault of Jews that the most powerful army of Europe had crumbled in days , a narrative which certainly omits the early June 1940 fighting . It didn't have anything with the British and if they interfered it might have brought Vichy France as an "ally" . RN's perfidy in attacking French ports did quite a bit to sink that notion . And not to sound insulting , but merely explaining that the Jews were seen as "cattle" , you would have to pay Adolf dearly to save them . Special units trailed Wehrmacht immediately into Russia , that's true , but the Easterners were deemed to be even less worthy by Berlin and they could be shot . Now that they also included Karaim , a Turkic variety . In this way , one would see the grave danger of wholesale extermination and be compelled to save the European ones that could be assimilated in a godless society that wouldn't mind and still be willing to pay , now that without the Easterners there would be enough fund to do it . Morgenthau , Finance Minister to FDR , was very much incensed and was very vocal about castrating every German male for this barbaric effort , now that his father or something was the US ambrassador to the Porte , with the typical baggage of Orientalism . Wannsee then becomes a response to an idea in Berlin that supporting the god damned Red Army would come far cheaper , them being pals or something from the early 1920s .
 
Back
Top Bottom