The Low Content thread for History Buffs

[tiltowhirl]

Originally Posted by Not_In_My_Name

Nope. It's still a hotly debated topic as to whether the communists or the nazis committed the arson attack, or whether Van der Lubbe acted alone. As far as I'm aware, there is no consensus among serious historians on who committed the attack.

You can get a flavour of the debate on the wiki page. It's an interesting topic to study.

Interesting read, I guess its too easy or naive to jump to the conclusion that the Nazis were behind the fire for sure. It was convenient but I suppose as one opinion read, the Nazis were just fortunate in the timing.

How about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, this one seems pretty clear cut with declassified documents and tapes.

[Not_In_My_Name]

I'm not an expert, but wasn't the Gulf of Tonkin incident a minor or non-incident which was lied about to the public in order to use it as a pretext for war, rather than strictly being a false flag incident (there is a distinction here)?

[plubmath]

Third Reich: The Rise on The History Channel aorn

Third Reich: The Fall starts at 4pm EST

[ErikTheDread]

I'm reading a novel (The Adversary by Michael Walters) which mentions in passing that some Mongolian troops served in Afghanistan alongside Soviet troops during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Although subservient to Soviet foreign and domestic policy, Mongolia was not a Warsaw Pact country. Does anybody here know the scale of Mongolian involvement during the occupation? Did any of the Warsaw Pact countries send troops?

[plaaynde]

So you know...

twoplustwo.com/55/about-forums/why-has-history-become-history-1144119/

[Mason Malmuth]

Originally Posted by plaaynde

What is the most important instance of drunkedness in history? I don´t know. How about Rasputin´s last drinks? I need help from you guys.

I suspect this is pretty easy, and the answer is most likely Ulysses S. Grant. It occurred years before the Civil War when he was stationed in California as his army assignment. The word is that he was lonely and essentially drank himself out of the army. But I suspect if he had stayed in the army, the strategy and tactics he used in the war might have been somewhat different, and/or perhaps he wouldn't have even made it to the 1860s.

Best wishes,
Mason

[mpethybridge]

Attila probably drank himself to death, and Alexander may have, too.

[Honey Badger]

I think drinking may have had far more impact on history then we lead on about in traditional history study. Opium use was also something there is great evidence impacted many events as well.

[Honey Badger]

I wonder if much of the "Berserkers" (or berserks) that were Norse warriors who are reported in the Old Norse literature to have fought in a nearly uncontrollable, trance-like fury, a characteristic which later gave rise to the English word berserk were actually drunk or on some type of drug.

[Francis M.H.]

Originally Posted by Honey Badger

I wonder if much of the "Berserkers" (or berserks) that were Norse warriors who are reported in the Old Norse literature to have fought in a nearly uncontrollable, trance-like fury, a characteristic which later gave rise to the English word berserk were actually drunk or on some type of drug.

Modern scholars believe certain examples of berserker rage to have been induced voluntarily by the consumption of drugs such as the hallucinogenic mushroom Amanita muscaria, commonly known as the fly agaric or fly Amanita,[9] or massive amounts of alcohol.[10] While such practices would fit in with ritual usages, other explanations for the berserker's madness have been put forward, including self-induced hysteria, epilepsy, mental illness or genetic flaws.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berserker

[Honey Badger]

Thanks for the post Francis. I used them as an example. I think this type of ingested courage was very common. I think many battles were fought "under the influence" and many leaders understood the effects of some substances more then at times give them credit for.

It explains a lot of behavior that does not make sense to us looking back without substance use.

[Adaptation]

Originally Posted by Honey Badger

I think drinking may have had far more impact on history then we lead on about in traditional history study. Opium use was also something there is great evidence impacted many events as well.

You are sooo right. I hate to link all my posts back to Dan Carlin hardcore history, but he has an episode called ''under the influence'' and he wonders if a lot of the question we ask ourselves are just answered by introducing alcoholism and drugs.

He noted in particular the slowness of Napoleon in his last years, probably from drinking and sleeping pills. Same goes for Hitler and his pills, as well as Churchill and his drinking.

Alexander the great's constant behavior change and genocidal tendencies, as well as his paranoia are all indicators of alcoholism and binge drinking, which the greeks were known for.

But the historical figure that i want to drug test the most BY FAR, is JFK. With all the pills, LSD-derivatives and opiate-based drugs his ''doctors'' gave him, i wonder how much it affected his judgement, especially the bay of pigs, the missile crisis and the Vietnam war.

[Honey Badger]

Even Marcus Aurelius the great Roman leader may have been addicted to opium.

I recently read Marcus Aurelius: A Life By Frank McLynn an excellent book even though it had detractors.

Opium was known and frequently used in Roman society. Medical practice recognized its usefulness as an analgesic, anti-diarrheic agent, as well as other uses including as a pain killer. It was additionally used as an ingredient in antidotes, to poisons.

Galen, Aurelius's primary health provider was reported by a number of sources to widely use the drug. I think it would be down play the impact of alcohol and drugs on history. The people recording history may not have even understood the impact in the past.

[Honey Badger]

Originally Posted by Adaptation

You are sooo right. I hate to link all my posts back to Dan Carlin hardcore history, but he has an episode called ''under the influence'' and he wonders if a lot of the question we ask ourselves are just answered by introducing alcoholism and drugs.

That was an excellent podcast.

I wonder even how much impact it had just even on the common man? Not just the leaders? Even recorded history of reports of battles being waged after allowing the opponents to get drunk and be completely unprepared for battle.

[Adaptation]

Originally Posted by Honey Badger

Even Marcus Aurelius the great Roman leader may have been addicted to opium.

I recently read Marcus Aurelius: A Life By Frank McLynn an excellent book even though it had detractors.

Opium was known and frequently used in Roman society. Medical practice recognized its usefulness as an analgesic, anti-diarrheic agent, as well as other uses including as a pain killer. It was additionally used as an ingredient in antidotes, to poisons.

Galen, Aurelius's primary health provider was reported by a number of sources to widely use the drug. I think it would be down play the impact of alcohol and drugs on history. The people recording history may not have even understood the impact in the past.

Interesting, was unaware of any drug usage by romans except for Alcohol. I assume opium was just chewed(im unaware of any romans ''smoking''). Where would they get opium? How wide was its spread? I have yet to see any solid history on drug usage.