231–240 of 262 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or “woke.”
What in a 'woke' ideology has denied basic, consequential science?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, anti-Judaism is not the same thing. This is just "normal" religious persecution that has been around since forever and that many (if not all) religious groups have experienced at some point or another. Does this matter? Well, in the context of discussing Nazi world-views it does. None of this is especially controversial among mainstream Jewish historians, as far as I know.
This is splitting hairs in an attempt to minimize both anti-Semitism and the acts of the Nazis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't agree with the assertion that it wasn't a major factor. The repeated violence against Jews and their expulsion from various areas is not a singular event, but forms a significant common thread across European history. It has happened so many times that the idea of persecuting Jews became a part of European culture , and thus gave the Nazis their inspiration for the Holocaust. The massacre at York in 1190 t…
I did include the caveat "starting with the 1200-1300s", and I did have the expulsion of the Jewish population from England in mind when writing that down. After that I wouldn't say that there were"repeated" violences against Jews (when it comes to Western Europe) for the simple reason that there were almost no Jews around against whom to have that violence anymore. All that changed starting with the 19th century.
> https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10442-martinez-f...: The great massacre occurred at Seville June 6, 1391, when several thousand Jews were killed and many forced to accept baptism.
If an estimate of Seville's population at that time at around 90,000 is to be believed, that would make the relative brutality equivalent again to the York incident.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1021985/thirty-largest-c...
This is rapidly exceeding my own background knowledge on the topic, but it looks to me as if re-settlement by Jews (and then subsequent violence against them) was a pattern all through the middle ages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the cash/property grab aspect was there from the beginning, and even in the 20´s you see it manifesting itself on a local level with intimidation etc. Klemperer's, I will bear witness, diaries from Dresden in that period are a fascinating read on the day to day impacts. Then as you say, it escalates culminating in Kristallnacht. But I think they would never have succeeded if it hadn´t been for the 1929 US cra…
It's possible that had the Germans forced a surrender or armistice upon Britain, that the US never gets involved. Domestic sentiment against US involvement was pretty strong and took all of FDR's political skills to overcome for Lend Lease etc. I'm not sure that Britain could fall though, especially with Lend Lease. The Luftwaffe, while able to initiate the BoB, had surprising losses in the invasion of France, Poland…
Another fun read are Churchill's war diaries (all 6 volumes), where he reveals one of the first things he did was write a begging letter to Roosevelt to send 100,000 rifles to arm the home guard amongst others. Then as now, the UK was woefully ill prepared for war. They did manage to get copies of the "Keep Calm and Carry On" poster out though - it was printed to be displayed after a successful invasion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The vaccines didn't protect people from getting covid What do you mean by this? The vaccines absolutely decreased the likelihood of getting and the severity of Covid.
I meant exactly what I wrote, almost everybody who took the vaccines contracted covid.
In other words the fact that vaccinated people contracted covid does _not_ mean the vaccines didn’t protect them from the disease.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting idea.. but ABleton comes out of germany!
I think Germany has been quite good in practical research (see world leading companies, especially smaller ones in niche markets you never heard of), not so in science (think Nobel Prize winners).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Protecting people from COVID involves more than preventing them from contracting the illness. It reduced mortality and hospitalizations. Compare the mortality rate in a country like Brazil to the US and tell me again how the vaccines didn't protect people from COVID. I seriously don't get this antivax nonsense. People get the flu after a flu vaccine sometimes too. The point is to not have a naive immune system if all…
> I seriously don't get this antivax nonsense. Maybe you have been conditioned to react with extreme suspicion when somebody even dares to mention the word "vaccine", so you don't even read what people write and start imagining what they "must be meaning"? We live in an age of paranoia and hostility, even after the pandemic. I'm incredibly happy that the people saying that the vaccines were dangerous were wrong. It's…
And it’s great its protection wasn’t worse!
> …but in the end the pandemic ended just as expected, ie a super-contagious and much less lethal strain infected everybody. This is how the black plague probably ended, reading accounts from the time. Even if they didn't know anything about viruses then.
There was never any question that in the long term general immunity wouldn’t cause the strains to become less virulent, it was always a question of how many people would die or get very sick before we got there. The Black Death killed a third of Europes population so im happy we know more about viruses now than they did then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are no well-established genetic predictors of IQ Common misconception, sadly untrue. There are known genetic predictors of intelligence, they're just not simple genes that the layman can wrap his head around. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2017.104
I think you'd have to be a bit of an expert to understand these results, just because of words like 'intelligence', that could mean anything, really, and I think accounting for 20% of the 50% heritability of intelligence is not exactly blowing the question out of the water. All the same, I guess I am out of date (in 2017, they were getting 1% - perhaps in 2030, they will be up to 50%? Or back down to 2%?) In general,…
The difference between a society with an average IQ of 100 and a society with an average IQ of 70 is one of intelligence. That's why, for example, any policy that allows emigrations from IQ 70 societies to to Western countries, which usually average around 100 IQ, is a bad policy for those Western countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's possible that had the Germans forced a surrender or armistice upon Britain, that the US never gets involved. Domestic sentiment against US involvement was pretty strong and took all of FDR's political skills to overcome for Lend Lease etc. I'm not sure that Britain could fall though, especially with Lend Lease. The Luftwaffe, while able to initiate the BoB, had surprising losses in the invasion of France, Poland…
Lend lease was signed in March 1941 - Battle of Britain was Autumn 1940. It's hard to say how much the RN could have done, it's not that far across the channel, and it would have been potentially a very broad front. Another fun read are Churchill's war diaries (all 6 volumes), where he reveals one of the first things he did was write a begging letter to Roosevelt to send 100,000 rifles to arm the home guard amongst o…
There were several necessary prerequisites for invading Britain. First was destroying the RAF. Without absolute air supremacy, no invasion could be contemplated.
Second was destruction of the Royal Navy. Despite some success in attacking Scapa Flow with U-boats, the Kriegsmarine was simply incapable of challenging the Home Fleet, much less the combined might of the overseas fleets. The only hope would be from Luftwaffe bombers, primarily JU-87 Stukas. Unfortunately for the Germans, these suffered great losses in the Battle of France, as well as during the initial stages of the Battle of Britain. The Home Fleet was a considerable force in 1940: 4 battleships, 3 battlecruisers, 2 aircraft carriers, 20 cruisers, 25 destroyers, 23 submarines, and numerous smaller craft.
Finally, once ashore, the invasion force would have to overcome the British Army and the Home Guard. While these forces were seriously depleted, the Empire could have brought enormous numbers of troops from India, Egypt, and other regions. That this was never seriously considered might indicate that the British Army wasn't as weak as Churchill would have liked to portray.
I loved reading Churchill's diaries as a kid, but later on realized how much of them were self-aggrandizing and not as accurate as one would hope. Still a fascinating insight into one of the most important leaders of the 20th Century.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a lot of weird things in this comment, but the weirdest is the claim that antisemitism is a 19th century innovation; Google "expulsion of the Jews from" and see where it autocompletes for you. Similarly: pogroms in the Pale of Settlement were not motivated by (and predate) 19th century race science.
While the impact on Jewish individuals was the same, it's true that Nazi style antisemitism focused on them as a racial group (Their ancestry), whereas previously they were targeted as a faith group (What they believed). Your example of the Pale actually makes the point; Converting to Russian Orthodox actually released you from the rules imposed on Jews within the Pale. Conversion wouldn't save you from Nazis.
Russian folk wisdom says "Жид крещёный - что вор прощеный. Веры нет" - "A converted Jew (slur) is like a forgiven thief - no faith/trust".
And in later times, "бить будут не по паспорту, а по морде" - you'll get beaten up on your face, not on (according to) your identification papers, a play on words meaning if you look Jewish, it doesn't matter that your papers say otherwise.