/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 7555
1,1 MB, 1920 × 1152
95 kB, 719 × 536
1,5 MB, 2560 × 1060
211 kB, 640 × 473
In previous was.. not very much interest in science exept history, so from now it just history thread.
Previous thread systemcontra but before it died, you may read interesting things here (I think it will not be archived, so hurry!):
>>9
>>
No. 7561
24 kB, 352 × 205
69 kB, 800 × 591
83 kB, 800 × 556
Did Ernst know that it was not Hitler but the Weimar authorities who started rebuilding the army in secret even though they were not allowed to do so by the treaty of Versailles? They built both light and heavy tank prototypes and tested them in the USSR. To be honest, the relationship between Weimar and the Soviet Union as a whole is very interesting to study. Hell, the Weimar army in general is such a fascinating topic I think I've found a new outlet for my assburger syndrome.
>>
No. 7562
81 kB, 535 × 670
>>7561
Yes, the harshness of the Versailles Treaty is fairly exagerated due to how lenient its enforcement was de facto. The Weimar government set up all sorts of paramilitary group that should have been forbidden by the Versailles Treaty.

My favourite part of the story if the dummy companies that the nazis made to rebuild their military:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEFO

In the terms of 30s Soviet military projects, you might wanna check this out if you haven't already:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletank
>>
No. 7564
>>7561
that is true, in fact the west could easily crush germany before 1935 but they just didn't want to at time.

Also since there was restrictions about plane productions the germans opened up plane factories in Turkey, later we learned how to make planes from them. That was during weimar germany and Atatürk was still alive.

>>7562
it's not exaggarated, there was massive soviet hysteria for valid reasons in the west and they want germany attack SU and crush both when weakened. Until Germany messed with France there were lots of Nazi parties actively working in the west.
>>
No. 7569
>>7562
Teletanks were a novel idea but were the equivalent of free kills even if the tank didn't die because it took another tank out of the offensive by needing it to be a command tank. Add in that they didn't have the ability to see from the forward tank and you've got a highly observable but unwieldy weapon. Just putting more regular tanks out there was, as they discovered, a better use of resources both human and mechanical.
>>
No. 7606
>>7561
Yeah, they had proxy companies developing weaponry in many countries like submarines in Finland and Soviet Union. Ever since the WW1 ended another war was inevitable and people knew it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetehinen-class_submarine
Germans using a Dutch proxy company to develop submarines for us. I think they did the same with the soviets even before nazis but at least during the 30s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_S-class_submarine
>The history of the S-class represents quite an interesting turn in warship development. It was a result of international collaboration between Soviet and German engineers that resulted in two different (but nevertheless related) classes of submarines often pitted against each other in the war.

Even between Nazis and Soviets the relationships weren't as cold as people like to think. Smug "edutaiment" youtubers etc like to mock the molotov-ribbentrop pact but I think even an alliance between nazis and soviets wasn't completely out of question in the 30s.
>>
No. 7793
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iU66wzMy3Y

Damn this channel is nice. Some BR recommended it on KC I think some time ago. Strategy stuff for the high ranking armchair generals.
>>
No. 7816
413 kB, 1510 × 1198
32 kB, 359 × 515
>Diary of a Soviet Officer on the Eastern Front

>The regimental commander has maps and orders from above, while I have nothing but a rifle, a pistol, and an entrenching tool. As such, they have the burden of giving orders, while I must see those orders enforced. Somewhere up above a general looks at a map and it seems reasonable to him to change the front line. He sends down an order.

>"At such and such a point, move 5 kilometers forward."

>Well, as luck would have it there turns out to be a river just at that point, the White Sturgeon. It's deep and swift, in open terrain. It would be convenient and relatively safe to dig some trenches and sit behind this natural obstacle. But an order is an order, and I can't say that it's technically impossible to cross here, even though from a sane man's point of view it is indeed impossible to cross; we have no boats, nor planks, nor are there nearby trees to cut into rafts. Another predicament lies in the fact that all the soldiers in my regiment come from the steppes. Not only can they not swim, but I'd wager that they've never even seen a river in their entire lives.

>I let out a sigh and shake my head. I know what I must do. Orders are orders. We've all seen the price paid for the slightest insubordination. Those men who are executed on the battlefield are the lucky ones. Knowing my luck, if I disobeyed my orders it wouldn't be as simple as a pistol behind the ear. No, they might make an example of me and my relatives. I shudder as I recall the stories told in the officer's tent at mess time. Dark places with damp concrete floors. A room with a single metal chair soaked in old blood, and a pile of human tongues, noses, and ears, torn from the bodies of men unlucky enough to disobey orders or to be born to the wrong family.

>Shaking my head to dispel that unpleasant imagery from my mind, I relay the orders to advance the front to the men under my command. Looking confusedly at the rushing river and each other, one of the slanteyes that speaks Russian hesitantly approaches me.

>"Comrade Lt. Sir, I can't go in the water. I don't know how to swim." He looks back at the others, and they nod their agreement.

>I can't allow myself to be moved to pity. I know that it's better to drown a soldier than to show irresoluteness or insubordination to orders given from a commanding officer. Even if they all have to drown, it's better than what could happen to us all if we disobey an order. Besides, I already reported to the Major upon receiving the order that there are no boats. He told me to do it anyway. Steeling myself for what I must do, I pull out my service revolver, cock it, and point it at the face of the cucumber in front of me.

>"Get in the water you son of a bitch! I'll give you to the count of 3 to get in there, or you'll never go anywhere else."

>The soldier starts sweating. With a worried look on his face he glances from me to the other men. I shove the gun into his face and yell for him to hurry up. He quickly turns and hustles to the river bank. Holding his pack up above his head in one hand and his rifle in the other, he steps into the water, evidently trying to wade across. Of course the strong current immediately seizes him and carries him down the river as he ineffectually thrashes about. He disappears under the water and is swept downstream, apparently drowning.

>Some of the others don't speak Russian, but they understand when I point my pistol at them that they must also wade into the river.

>All the rest of the cucumbers that I force into the river drown.

>Having done my duty, I adjust my hat and dust my uniform off as best I can. Taking a deep breath, I walk into the Major's tent, where he sits examining lists of supplies, equipment, and other such logistical paperwork. He looks up at me as I enter. He has a resigned look to his eyes. It's a look that some men get when they get their first taste of combat and discover it's not as glorious as they believed. The stupid ones can fool themselves longer.

>"What do you have to report Comrade?"

>I straighten my back, raise my head and salute. Holding my salute, I keep my eyes locked on a point on the far canvas wall of the tent.

"Comrade Major, there are only 5 men left in my company." The Major, of course, is furious. His weariness seems to be wiped away as he comes roaring to his feet.

>"WHAT!? What did you do to them!? I didn't hear a single shot!" Without lowering my salute, I force myself to respectfully lock eyes with him.

>"They all drowned crossing the river, Comrade Major.'' He looks surprised and disgusted, as if I hadn't told him this would happen just a few hours ago.

>"What do you mean 'drowned'!? I'll shoot you right here like a dog!" I keep my face impassive.

>"As you will Comrade Major, but I did report to you that there were no planks or logs to be found in the area, that the river is deep and swift, that it can't be forded. You told me to stop arguing and to just obey orders."

>"You blockhead! What a stupid way to destroy a whole company!" Having said this, his anger clearly deflates. I lower my arm to my side and relax a bit. I know that he and I both have done our duty and followed our orders. Now the Major must report this debacle to his superior officer. The Major clearly feels that he bears some fault for losing most of our men (imagine that) as he visibly steels himself for the call he has to make. Calling over a communications man, he places a call to the Colonel, his regimental commander.

>The Colonel arrives shortly in a groundcar.

>"I gave you five hours to cross the river!" he shouts as he enters. "Have you carried out the order!?" Looking like a mirror image of myself not half an hour before, the Major stands, salutes, and straightens his back.

>"No, Comrade Colonel, we've sustained heavy losses."

>"Losses?" The Colonel immediately calms down. He puts a hand to the stubble on his chin, looking thoughtful. "Well. That's fine. If there weren't any losses our heads would roll. What happened? Everything's quiet, I didn't hear a single shot from over here. Did they all get knifed or what?"

>"No. Drowned. The company that was to cross over were all slanteyes. Never saw a river before. Naturally they drowned, since there was nothing to float on." The Colonel is incensed at this.

>"You son of a bitch! Why didn't you take some pontoons? We've been dragging a whole transport of pontoons around! I could give you as many as you want!"

>"I no longer need them Comrade Colonel. There are five cucumbers left in the first company, ten in the second, maybe twenty in the third. There's no one left to cross." The Colonel ponders for a moment.

>"Well, you'll just have to cross anyway. What counts is the fact that the order has been carried out, even if only one man makes it."
>>
No. 7827
>>7816
This is actually why autists should absolutely never be in charge of men
>>
No. 7828
>>7606
All of Mein Kampf was Hitler basically ranting about the Bolsheviks. He hated them more than Jews it seemed, in fact the main reason he even seemed to truly despise Jews to begin with was their association with the Bolsheviks. I don't actually understand the hate strategically though in that the Soviets actually helped not hindered the Germans from what I can gather.

The thing is they were both moral pragmatists, Stalin and Hitler, although Stalin never seemed like he gave a shit about ideology whereas Hitler certainly did. For numerous reasons I think the Russian-German war was inevitable.
>>
No. 7833
>>
No. 7834
46 kB, 590 × 525
>>7816
Thanks, had a good laugh at the anecdote.
>>
No. 7841
>>7828
stalin&hitler waging war agains the west would be pretty dystopic, regardless of consequences I'm glad that didn't happen.
>>
No. 7845
38 kB, 640 × 475
>>7827
I don't think it is a question of anyone being involved being an assburger, but as much as everyone in the chain of command being afraid of getting executed and their families punished for not following orders.
>>
No. 7941
3,8 MB, 4543 × 7052
Here is a book with a very unique perspective on the Civil War. For those who haven't heard of Herman Haupt, the bottom line is that he won the war by revolutionising Union logistics, particularly in railroad usage. It's actually pretty exciting to read despite being the memoirs of the continent's premier railroad autist because of just how damn good the guy was at his job. For example:

GENERAL ORDERS,
No. 23.

All railroads, and especially the Orange & Alexandria Railroad, within the limits of the Army of Virginia, are placed under the exclusive charge of Colonel Herman Haupt. No other officer, whatever be his rank, shall give any orders to any employee of the road, whether conductor, engineer, or other agent. No
orders respecting the running of the trains, construction or repair of the roads, transportation of supplies or troops, shall be given, except by authority of these Headquarters through Colonel Haupt. All persons now employed in any way on these railroads will immediately report to him, and will hereafter receive instructions from him only. All requisitions for transportation, and all applications for construction or repair of roads, will be. made directly to him at Alexandria, Va. All passes given by him to employes will be respected as if issued from these Headquarters.

By command of Major-General Pope.
GEO. D. RUGGLES,
Colonel and Chief of Staff.

That's from the chapter on Second Bull Run and it's an absolute gem to read. If you read nothing else, that chapter alone should get you hooked enough to go back and try again.

https://archive.org/details/reminiscencesofg00hauprich

t. logistics appreciator
>>
No. 7949
>>7555

We found one statue and some frescoes and now they think all Minoan nobility went around with their tits out like that?
>>
No. 8120
263 kB, 1200 × 976
946 kB, 820 × 712
493 kB, 1059 × 496
I was browsing internationl press and just stumbled over this report from the early European neolithic period:

Evidence found for earliest European cheese production by 5200 BC - 7200 years ago in two neolithic villages close to the Croatian coast

The main thesis based on the new evidence:

Milk and cheese production among Europe’s early farmers reduced infant mortality (adults were still lactose intolerant), and supposedely helped stimulate demographic growth that propelled farming communities to expand to northern latitudes.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0202807
>>
No. 8124
>>8120
>>8120
why the second map only points out asia minor+europe?
>>
No. 8125
86 kB, 400 × 233
>>7949
I bet it's like the great 'egg-eater' prejudice episode. The one where palaeontologists found one skeleton amongst some eggs and suddenly they're all "mean old Mr. Oviraptor was eating those eggs. Glad he's dead!" They then used that lie to a raise a whole generation of children to hate the entire species.

Of course they later admitted that he dindu nuffin. He was just bringing some groceries back to his children, being a good dad while working as an assistant tree pusher. Certainly didn't advertise it though, did they?
>>
No. 8128
167 kB, 935 × 466
>>8124
I don't know. Most likely because they focus on the development on Europe or maybe because there was no cheese invented outside this region.

After all in the fertile crescent region they had similar benefits from grains consumption and were not forced to switch to milk and cheese that much? Most people are still lactose intolerant there today.
>>
No. 8129
>>8128
>>8128
well hattis or göbekli tepe civilazation are not euro. göbekli tepe is actually close/inside of fertile crescent. it's that dot in south east of the map. what you say might be true considering the fact europeans are less lactose intolerant than, let's say amerindians. I wonder why every livestock dependent culture have such thing? Or maybe they have?
>>
No. 8131
>>7949
We do't know about Minoan much. There was a lot flasifications and not enough proper evidences for a lot of stuff, there more myseries than known about minonian, but this art give me boner
>>
No. 8151
>>8129
They include CatalHuyuk and another location in eastern direction in that map and their thesis says that dairy product consumption spread (a process that took millenia) from there (Asia minor) towards the Mediterranean and then towards northern European latitudes.
>>
No. 8159
>>8131
>>8151
hmm I never heard that before, sounds interesting.
>>
No. 8397 Kontra
>>8382
>>8383
Begone, /pol/lack, leave our history threads pure.
>>
No. 8441 Kontra
44 kB, 634 × 418
>>8397
I just discovered it myself no thanks to KC
>>
No. 8522
294 kB, 1199 × 709
71 kB, 700 × 454
403 kB, 767 × 952
There's something very fantasy book like on the story of the cossacks, I can see why both Russia and The Ukraine would romanticize it.
The idea of serfs escaping their bondage and joining these roaming free militia communities is pretty cool, even more so with them then becoming a military force that would shape the events of Russian and Polish history.
I also found it interesting that the cossacks weren't able to settle the most fertile regions of the Ukraine due to Tatar slave raids.
>>
No. 8530 Kontra
>>8529
What is it with you and one liner posts with irrelevant youtube links?
>>
No. 8532
52 kB, 474 × 474
>>8530
It wasn't irrelevant, it was an example of what you mentioned
>>
No. 8535
>>8522
>I also found it interesting that the cossacks weren't able to settle the most fertile regions of the Ukraine due to Tatar slave raids.
If you're interested in that, you should find something on Bukhara. That's where most of them ended up. There was nowhere near as much domestic use of slaves up there as there was down towards Iran. It's one of the key points in what triggers me about so many maps of the regions involved through the nineteenth century. They paint it all as the Russian Empire but there was close to zero control over those territories. The slave trafficking was going on well into the second half of said century. I wish more maps did it like maps of British India where local kingdoms still functioned to some degree even though broadly speaking they were under the British Crown. At least in regional maps. It'd satisfy my burgers a lot more tbh.
>>
No. 8536
38 kB, 800 × 532
136 kB, 1024 × 768
>>8535
Yes, I know something about Bukhara In its relation to the Great Game, none of its golden period and it really comes down to enslaved Russians. There was even one particular British mission to Bukhara that was involved in the freeing of Russian slaves so that the Russian Empire wouldn't have a reason to bring Bukhara into its sphere of influence proper.

>"A young Russian (up to 25 years of age) fetches from fifty to eighty tillas. The Persian slaves are much cheaper. Of the latter there may be 30 thousand in Khiva, but there are not more than 300 Russian slaves there. The Persians...come into the market in batches of five, ten, and even thirty at a time. Their captors do not trouble themselves about them on the road and if they get exhausted, leave them without compunction to die on the steppe. On arrival at Khiva the owner sets himself down with them in the market, and purchasers surround him, inspecting and examining the poor wretches and haggling about their price as if they were horses... masters have the power of putting their slaves to death, but seldom avail themselves of this right from economical considerations

On Russian control, it's hard to set a defining year in which these territories became fully under the control of Russia. As the link below puts it, it wouldn't be until the 1920s that slavery ended in Khiva. Ultimate such depictions work in the favor of laziness of the author, as well as in a geopolitical purpose. "Here be Russia", is more complicated than drawing all the varying degrees of control that Russia had over different territories in Central Asia. After all, there was a similar situation in Caucasus, and it's usually portrayed as a neat division between the Ottomans, Russians and Persians.

>However, this was by no means the end of the slave trade in Khiva. Although around four hundred Russians had been released, over three thousand Persian and Kurdish slaves remained, and the practice of slave trading was to continue up until the beginning of the twentieth century. In the 1860's, twenty years after Shakespear had freed the Russian slaves, the Turkomans were still capturing Russians. Arminius Vambery, whilst in disguise and hosted by Turkoman tribesmen the encountered an unfortunate Russian sailor who had been captured by his host. "It was here in Etrek, in the tent of a distinguished Turkoman named Kotchak Khan, that I encountered a Russian, formerly a sailor in the naval station at Ashourada." The slave was hauled in front of Vambery and ordered to kiss his feet. Vambery made an excuse about not wanting to be rendered unclean by contact with an unbeliever. It transpired that two Russian sailors had been abducted by the Etrek Turkomans who had asked the Russian government for an exorbitant ransom which the Russians refused, not wishing them to become accustomed to such large lucrative trade in Russians. As a result both Russian sailors were to die in captivity as slaves.
>}t was not until as late as the 1920's that the remaining slaves were freed as part of the People's Revolution.
http://www.khiva.info/gb/history/freeings.htm
>>
No. 8537
>>8536
It's golden age can be read in a good amount of Islamic mathematicians and astronomers. It's not a coincidence that the greatest Muslim minds of the time tended to congregate at the furthest ends of the Islamic world. The Caliph's tolerance for people who could undermine his authority by being too smart for their own good was very finite it seems :-DD

There is also Ibn Battuta who I shill a lot for because it's a very different perspective to the East than what you get with people like Marco Polo because a lot of where he traveled was within the Arab cultural sphere. It'd be like if both Marco Polo and he did books about travelling Christian Europe. They'd have very different ways of looking at the same thing based on whether it was relatively understandable or just plain foreign.

Also, I mean even in regional maps about that specific topic, it always just shows it as blobbing (tbh, it even triggers me with maps of Colonial Australia when I was researching it for another subject, it shows perfect control from East to West but lots of inland homesteads had firing slits built into them and shit because there was no law to protect you out there).
>>
No. 8566
79 kB, 420 × 640
156 kB, 802 × 1024
76 kB, 732 × 447
87 kB, 800 × 487
>>8522
Well what know about coasscas have history even before tataric invasions. However, there different groups that you wil find information much less, like so called "ryazan' cossacs" who not related to classic cosscas at all. And roles, style and meaning of coasscas changed from times. Nowdays they are total loosers X---DDD
>>
No. 8599 Kontra
>>8598
Oh how interesting

Can other people may agree that we should ban him forever or something? Belorussian poster suspected that he is some kind of autist. Potugal poster aslo pointed out that he probable not native english speaker. I say that he already was there.. (or on other ernstchan?) and after months he learned nothing. All he do is making 4cancer/pol-tier one-liners with random links, sometimes creating shitpost thredas same way. I may suspect that he will continue do so.
>>
No. 8602
33 kB, 486 × 350
>>8566
>Well what know about coasscas have history even before tataric invasions. However, there different groups that you wil find information much less, like so called "ryazan' cossacs" who not related to classic cosscas at all.
I really have no idea about earlier cossack history, I just have some idea about the cossack rebellions, the Don cossacks and their hetmanate in general. I guess this is mostly because of their famous time being this era, what with it being a crucial moment for Polish and Russian history.

>Nowdays they are total loosers X---DDD
Hey! Watch it, Liberast, or you'll get whippenings. They really do seem like a cosplay militia.

>>8599
Yes, it would be for the best.
>>
No. 8604
>>8599
Yes it is interesting, what is your problem elitist scum, too good for it? Rate the theory like I asked or if you don't know then shut up. This is a history thread, stop injecting your insults into every topic.
>>
No. 8614
I am a bit too late, i see some bragging itt. But can you post this lecture about arabic invasion again. I am actually like to discuss it. Tired of russia.
>>8604
Sorry for assuming you're autistic, thought that the answers are from another american
>>
No. 8622 Kontra
>>8604
Fuck off poltard
Your scum killed krautchan and then you killed EC. You should be shot on site and dumped in a chemical barrel.
>>
No. 8641
246 kB, 825 × 566
>The Taron were first discovered by outsiders in the 1960s. At the time, there were four dozen or so Taron, and researchers believed that the population was large enough to sustain itself for at least a few more generations. But genetic disorders were very common, likely in large part due to the amount of inbreeding within the community. The population dwindled as the number of viable births plummeted. As one surviving Taron, a man named Dawi, told a wildlife scientist by the name of Alan Rabinowitz (through interpreters), “for many years the Taron only marry each other. But when we have babies, the babies have small brains and small bodies. It was no good.” That was in 2003 or 2004.

>With birth defects the norm, the Taron leaders decided to simply stop continuing the ethnic bloodlines. Dawi continued: “We don’t want Taron babies anymore. Long ago, the Taron decided not to have babies with each other. Only with [a neighboring ethnic group called the] Htalu. [ . . .] There are few Taron left. Many die alone.” Dawi, the youngest pure-blood Taron in his village, 39 at the time of the interview, was likely to die alone — and likely to be the last of his people.
>>
No. 8644
>>8641
>“We don’t want Taron babies anymore. Long ago, the Taron decided not to have babies with each other. Only with [a neighboring ethnic group called the] Htalu.
Dang, it's interesting how when ethnic identity is doomed, species identity takes precedence.

Nature finds a way.
>>
No. 8651
>>8644
Well when it is genetic defects actively destroying your own babies, yeah of course. Because by that time the bloodlines are dead anyway.
>>
No. 8669
>>8651
It just confirms my point that tribalism, in all forms, is largely utilitarian. And when the utility of tribalism is not relevant, tribalism itself is not relevant.

If tribalism was an Ideological position, then such trifle as mutant babies wouldn't budge its position. The phenomenal has no authority over the ideological. Principles and stuff.

But when a tribalist is faced with options of either extinction, or mingling with another tribe (no matter how distant), he will choose the latter.

Ain't implying anything, but that's my dry analysis. Ideologies aren't concerned with pragmatic issues such as survival. Pragmatic impulses will sacrifice ideals for the sake of survival.

Such cases.
>>
No. 8670
58 kB, 640 × 640
"During the Iron Age, and later during Roman and Germanic rule, Southern Gallaecia—today north Portugal and south Galicia—was the more dynamic, urbanized, and richest area of Gallaecia. This role was assumed by the rural north during the Early and High Middle Ages, as a consequence not only of the Islamic invasion, but as the final result of a continental wide urban crisis.

The old bishoprics of Braga, Ourense, Tui, Lamego, and others, were either discontinued, or re-established in the north, under the protection of Lugo—which was now a stronghold due to its Roman walls—and Iria. Dumio was re-established by the Bay of Biscay in Mondoñedo, Lugo assumed the role of Braga, and the bishops of Lamego and Tui sought refugee in Iria, where they received generous territorial grants. During the 9th, 10th, and 11th centuries most of these bishoprics were re-established in their historical sees, but at this time the bishops of Lugo, Mondoñedo, and Iria became major political players; not just as religious figures, but also as wealthy, and sometimes mighty secular powers. In particular, the bishops of Iria and Compostela were notorious warlords, due to the many fortresses and military resources they controlled as heads of a military Norman mark, as well as due to the wealth that the pilgrimages and royal grants brought to their lands."

I've been dwelling into the medieval history of galicia as of late. For a long time studied the pre-roman history of the said region wich proved a difficult task due to the scarcity of documents.
The medieval history of galicia is amazing and incredibly rich, i'm enjoying greatly learning more about it. It's a shame that portuguese history curriculum overlooks galiza so much even tough it's 100% interlinked to the formation of portugal and its culture (specially in the northern regions)

Was also reading about the "revoltas irmandinhas" wich were, quite fierce, popular revolts against the noblemen in galiza in the same way of the "jacqueries" in France. From what i've been reading till now, the medieval history of galiza seems way more tumultous than the portuguese one (mostly due to the fact that Portugal centralized the power in the king quite soon and as such there wasn't a typical fuedal regime as the one that could be observed in France or even Spain)
>>
No. 8690
>Importation of diseases to the Americas was not just one-way deal: the Europeans got syphilis as an exchange. Whilst there had been similar diseases earlier in Europe, the American strand was extremely virulent, and it killed a lot of people, and rendered even more sterile. The majority of old European Medieval noble families died out and several royal houses (Valois, Tudor, Trastamara, Rurik) became extinct. The syphilis meant also a drastic change on sexual behavior - and, unfortunately, hygiene. Since Treponema pallidium thrived in public baths and saunas, they all but disappeared in Europe. The following centuries were the real Dung Ages, not Middle Ages.
Wait wut

First of all, is this true, and second of all, who the hell are these people? I only ever heard of the Tudors.
>The majority of old European Medieval noble families died out and several royal houses (Valois, Tudor, Trastamara, Rurik) became extinct
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurik_dynasty
Valois
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Trast%C3%A1mara
I never heard of these people. What other huge European dynasties were wiped out by plagues? I know nothing on this claim.
>>
No. 8696
>>8690
>plagues
>>
No. 8700
>>8696
Sorry for that
>>8690
This families didn't just died out from plagues, but from several reasons. Political rise to power led to a wars between family members. Ryuriki suffered from the stupid inheritance laws. At a moment when family lose it's power to other families they start to decline by being included in more powerful families.
And the final strike is a "blue" aristocratic blood. They didn't had such diversity and were inbreed with each other. So these families suffered from genetic diseases. Romanovs would be probably extinct by this moment anyway.
And syphilis came from China or Indonesia as i recall.
>>
No. 8701
>>8700
>And syphilis came from China or Indonesia as i recall.
The Americas. That's where the face melting strains came from.
>>
No. 8707
>>8690
>First of all, is this true, and second of all, who the hell are these people? I only ever heard of the Tudors.
>>The majority of old European Medieval noble families died out and several royal houses (Valois, Tudor, Trastamara, Rurik) became extinct

These four are pretty important royal families, but they didn't die out due to plague.
>>
No. 9128
202 kB, 787 × 646
Here is the history thread OP

>I would like to hear stories from people who had relatives live in the USSR. I want to know what they think now when they look back too, if possible.

>Also literature recommendations as to the workings of the Soviet economy would be very welcome
>>
No. 9141
>>9128
Sorry again gentlemen.
I'd also be interested in literature about the Nazi economy
>>
No. 9311
14,6 MB, 2605 × 2178
876 kB, 2560 × 1440
1,5 MB, 1600 × 995
426 kB, 1280 × 960
Because this is the best thread in Ernstchan, I'll translate some things on the Siege of Diu.

Since 1509, that the Ottomans and regional allies had attempted to dislodge the Portuguese from India. The Portuguese managed to gain the support of some local rulers who wanted greater autonomy/independency and were okay with the Portuguese setting up trading stations.

The Sultan of Gujarat granted the Portuguese the city of Diu in exchange for protection should the Mughals attack him. After there was no threat of no the Mughals attacking him, he decided to negotiate a withdrawal of the Portuguese from Diu, who had already built a fort. One that still stands today, see pic 2.

The Sultan of Gujarat entered a Portuguese ship to conduct diplomatic negotiations, and after they went sour, a couple of drunk Portuguese sailors smashed his head in with a row, causing the Sultan to fall to the water and drown.

This was in 1537, but in 1536, this same Sultan had sent an envoy with a large sum of gold to the Ottomans in order to secure Ottoman assistance in removing these catholics. The Ottomans arrive in 1538 with 80 vessels and 6.000 men. This force was led by Hadim Suleiman Pasha, a eunuch Pasha of Egypt.

By this point, all the local muslim rulers were understandably pretty upset at the Portuguese, so the Ottomans had no problem recruiting more local help. The combined Ottoman-Gujarati armies numbered from 18.000 to 22.000 men.

The small Portuguese force defending this fort numbered 600 men, commanded by one António Silveira.

Suleiman Pasha wrote a letter to António Silveira, offering him and his compatriots free passage for themselves and their belongings should they choose to vacate the fort. He also wrote that he would skin the local garrison alive, should they not take such a generous offer. He bragged about his ranks being full of men who were veterans of conquests of Europe, men who took Belgrade and the island of Rhodes. He asked António Silveira how he planned to "defend such a corral with such little cattle".

António Silveira requested a ink and paper from his men to reply to the "castrated dog" and wrote back the following letter:

>Great and Honourable Captain Pasha, I have read the words of your letter. If in Rhodes there had been the knights that are present in this corral, you would not have taken it. I'll have you know that there are Portuguese here, well used to slaying many moors and whose captain is António Silveira, a man who has a pair of balls that are stronger than the balls of your cannons. I'll also have you know that every man here has a pair of balls and they are not afraid of those don't.

In the following four month long siege, the Portuguese forces had lost 560 men, whilst the Ottoman-Gujarati forces had lost 6.000 men before retreating. Only 40 Portuguese survived.

Diu would remain in possession of Portugal until 1961.
>>
No. 9312
>>9128
Probably answered this on kohl before. Anyway ask your questions, i am still in SU and remember some things from there.
Here is another story, more unusual than average. My Grandad was middle level government official in transport department. He had possibility to become deputy minister of transport but refused since he was religious and well people knew that he dislikes communists. That was quite obvious since my grandma was from kulak family. Basically after stalin people didn't care about how communist you are, but still used that as excuse for their personal gains, also they started to care about their day to day life, not only about "grater good". System became more about how others like you, not about your opinion. Anyway he had good relationships with kgb agents in his town and was described as good communist in one book made by known writer, so my family was quite safe.
So SU had huge dark economy for officials and it was legal. Example: truck goes from one town to another, it receives certain amount of fuel to do it, then if some fuel left it's out of system. Food, cloth, furniture is made not according to standards it goes out of the system. Officials had this "little notebook" with list of available "bad" goods. And this worked not only among officials, officials just were more organised. And everyone was aware of this. Real economy was built around the bugs and glitches of official planned system. Self organisation was impossible in legal SU, you couldn't just see that something ain't working and fix it. You should rework dozens of plans and pass through huge bureaucracy. There was no troubles with achieving the plan, but it was impossible to grow over it.
Now imagine how ineffective this system was.
>>
No. 9313
>>9312
If someone is interested i can later proceed and describe how government and political camps in ussr worked according to my granddad.
>>
No. 9315
>>9313
I am interested. Personal accounts are always very interesting.
>>
No. 9316
>>9311
moral of the story geography+good vessels>an eunuch with veterans

geography is literally the most important aspect of both strategy and tactics. the portugese travelled all africa and attacked an ottoman owned sea and the so called 'magnificent' suleiman didn't even had any idea wtf was going on. suleiman was extraordinarlily ignorant about it meanwhile the portugese were extraordinarily good about it.

if you dig about turco-mongol conquests and great expansions you'll see how they were mastered about geography and map making. the sultan suleiman sent some envoys to indonesia as well but none of them resarched the geography and geology. they didnt even returned with different kind of stones and whatnot.
but then we had piri reis he had good aspects about those but his talents are wasted thanks to the 'magnificent'.
>>
No. 9333
>>9315
So... There was one party and one leader in ussr, but that's doesn't mean government wasn't divided. It's very similar to modern China or Russia. People often compare it to Byzantium, but money meant nothing in ussr.
First of all there was a division on loyal camps. One guy puts another guy on higher position, new guy owns it to his new boss. Not only about loyalty it's always good to have people who actually do something. So there was kinda fight for smartass workaholics(not the story of my Granddad, he received his position for being a close friend of one minister).
Off course this creates several classes of officials:
-Guy with connections. Just a guy who know everyone and drunk with them. Quite useful and will eventually rise up to a higher position, might be even the highest position.
-guys who actually do all the work. Will stay on their position unless a guy with connections will not take him
-in Belarus it was called "samasui" or "samahui"(самахуй). From the words "himself" and "to put", simply translate it as "Put in", fits quite well. Literally the stupidest guy who does nothing and always licks butts so hard his boss moves him higher just to take him away. Always ends up in ideology department.
So what's really mattered in ussr was connections. And connections were formed through a higher education. So this led to creation of several branches of connections or parties if you want. Borders between this branches were liquid and uncertain and they are more of classification, than the actual wings. Obviously all these branches were formed around certain persons. My granddad said that the only reason ussr divided was because Shushkevic and Kravchuk were more respected among functioners than Eltsin, but Eltsin had power in Russia, so they agreed on divide.
So branches according to some article that I forgot:
-let's call it the retail branch(торгаши). Literally the cancer of ussr. Ring of people that had work in retail and bosses of food production factories, cloth, import, export, infrastructure. They formed in economy, non-stem and agrarian universities. As i said earlier they had special "notebooks" where they list all the good stuff. Depending from their level of trust people received access to special notebooks. First book listed where you can get the good stuff for money, second listed free stuff, third listed connections. Since there was lack of everything in ussr it was quite hard to get meat at any day, so the first book was the most valuable. One of the reasons there was always a lack of everything was exactly that fucking notebook. I heard that in Moscow they just had special store for it. They also had special judges, special policeguys, special kgb guys inside of this ring. So if someone is busted it goes smooth for him. They all were undercover billionaires. Funny that in this scheme only that notebooks were illegal. They never had real power, but many of them became oligarchs after the fall of ussr.
-agrarian wing. Formed in agrarian universities. Directors of kolhozes. Bribes in self made products are priceless. Atleast these guys did what they were asked for.
-kgb, police, army, foreign ministry wings- speaks for itself.
-propaganda wing-literally whole culture. Students that succeeded in ideology and "samosuis". They never had any actually big influence.
Technocrats-directors of factories and people from polytechnics. People obsessed with S-P-A-C-E, T-A-N-K-S, T-R-A-C-T-O-R-S, S-C-I-E-N-C-E. Pride of ussr, but definitely they are the cause of many troubles.
I will proceed a little bit later
>>
No. 9336
>>9333
This branches influenced society in quite hilarious way.
I'll give an example of my faculty. It was machine building in polytechnic university. Faculty had machine building specialties, economic, ideology and somehow design and math. Guess what economic and ideology departments were doing. Obviously it was intended to support factories with managers, but actually the idea was to bring economy specialists in technocratic ruling branch. And now in Belarus machine builders control economy and economists control machine building. And my faculty has the best economy faculty, while economy university has the best manager faculty.
You can see leftovers of this in whole post-USSR.
Now i also remember the part that might be surreal to you. Obviously my granddad was quite rich compared to others. This caused inferiority complex in my dad and his obsessive hate to USSR. He went out of family when he was 17 and never talked to them up until i was born, even after it we had contacts with our 100yo grand grand mother, but not with granddad for some period of time. My grandma told me the story that my father was bullied in school quite hard for his nice jacket. Kids were throwing rocks at him and called him "Bourgeoisie". Several girls refused him because he was rich. On the good side, at least my father made himself in life on his own and our conscience is pure. actually i took my granddad library of history and sci-fi books, so mine is not so pure
>>
No. 9390
>>9316
Yes, the Ottomans really did blunder it. They had the theoretical advantage and should have stopped the Portuguese takeover of the spice trade and prevent the establishment of the trade route around Africa.

The Portuguese had actually sent a lot of spies to India and Arabia in order to study the political systems, figure out local weaknesses and trade routes. All of this before the caravels sailed over.

The Portuguese were also experts in minimizing the numerical advantage of their oponents, forcing fights into chokepoints and an expert use of artillery to devastate the enemy at close quarters. The use of small forces being ferried over the sea into forts was the modus operandi for the past century.

The Ottomans didn't seem to take the threat seriously until it was too late to simply dislodge the Portuguese from India.

>>9333
Interesting posts. Rise and Fall of Communism does go into a lot of what you wrote, a crypto market in which commodities and favours are exchanged. Things like ballet tickets could ensure that a production plant got its supplies on time. It even explains how this underhanded form of doing business proved crucial to go around the shortsightedness of central planning. How often these favors or commodities that were exchanged were to gain products that would be necessary to keep a factory running, but that simply weren't in that year's budget. Given that the managers didn't want to go through the apparatchiki circles and file a bunch of pages, they'd go over their head and directly contact the supplier.

Very macabre how the system was so broken that corruption was necessary to keep it alive.
>>
No. 9393
>>9390
It's also kind of ebin that it is ironically an extremely pure form of capitalism where capital in all its forms can be bartered with from social to material, social to social etc. and that having a high net social worth allowed access to more exclusive trading circles with higher potential for profit. It's capitalism without the limitations of granular currency.
>>
No. 9409
>>9393
>>9390
Oh guys,i am probably described it too colorfully. In fact they were trading with panties, salo, caviar sometimes, deer or horse meat, or products that were in excess anyway.
A place in a query was viable for soviet union and date of delivery was viable too. If you had money you couldn't buy anything that you want. People had to stand in query on flats, cars, dachas, anything in demand particularly. Or had to wait to delivery date. Common products had delivery dates 3 times a week(bread, meat, cereals, milk), products that can be stored had delivery dates 2 times per month(sugar, cereals, alcohol), exotic products had delivery dates near a holidays. Particularly everyone had mandarins on new year, sometimes caviar or exotic fish on 1 and 9 may. The fact that i can still tell you this dates, even though i was a kid back then and 27 years passed shows how it was important back then.
So this notebooks contained mostly delivery dates or free query places. Officials still had to stand in official lines to buy something, they just had access to inside. So when there is a free place, they had to take it faster than others.
This all created this special soviet consumer culture. When someone hears a rumor that there will be no sugar next week and people buy tons of sugar. At some moment they buy 2 years norm of sugar for their whole family, go to shop and to see empty stores and "see told ya". Here is the proofs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRcI4QF1r9s
> Things like ballet tickets could ensure that a production plant got its supplies on time.
I understand why this is bad and that technically it's a corruption, but this is just a business etiquette. It's more about non-western cultures, than SU. It's just brilliantly worked in SU because of uncontrolled bureaucracy. Probably i will write about it later and about production too.
>>
No. 9414
324 kB, 1152 × 789
546 kB, 1250 × 760
36 kB, 500 × 277
>>9409
So the post about industry and production in ussr. Troubles with production are highly overrated in SU. In fact they always produced exact the same amount they thought they need. And here is the thing i noticed many people don't get
> Things like ballet tickets could ensure that a production plant got its supplies on time
SU didn't had subcontractors system you used to. They were creating a full production lines inside of huge walled areas inside of their cities. So for example factory which i have been produced guiding systems for missiles. They had full production line inside. Even CPU with it's own architecture. These areas had everything from their own food and energy production to underground transport systems.
This system obviously had many flaws and benefits. From one point infrastructure and supplies were not that important for them. They receive huge bars of metal, store it and could made anything from it, since they have proper equipment. So small serial production was thriving in quality and numbers, but it was only military equipment or other non-civil product lines. From another point they could produce civil products in big numbers, but quality suffered a lot.
Workers come at the gates in a morning, then they go to their workplace, receive daily plan, make it and go smoke and drink tea after it. Or just unadjust their equipment and do nothing for the whole day, because adjuster is always drunk and someone else will do everything instead. Development bureaus were in the same building with production or near it. Since it was hard to fire people not everyone worked there too. Also many people used production equipment for their own purposes.
So to prove it better, welcome to one of many detroits of eastern Europe. See pic one. Grey areas are production "cities inside of a city"
Legend:
1) Full production line for tractors. From bolts to engines. It had around of 80-100k workers inside during it's best era.
2) Bus production. 40k workers during it's best era
3) Electronics area. It had enough power to copy apple computers from scratch
4) Same, but IBM
5) Optics and lasers
6) Heating equipment
7) Trucks and world of tanks
8) Gopniks and household appliances
9) Machine tools
I missed a lot, but i don't know what they're doing actually. You can see on pic 2 that's these areas are packed quite tight.
Another things that people always miss is how everything was fixed, reused or saved in SU. Soviets had huge factories and organizations that were doing only repairs.
>>
No. 9417
84 kB, 600 × 800
>>9414
Sure, some things worked efficiently as is to be expected in a state that is essentially mobilized in for key industries in which the customer would be the state.
However, the bureaucratic nightmare was present in things that in a more liberal society would be immediately solved.
In general, whilst it is feasible for the state to organize itself to achieve set goals and set out a rational process to do so, the Soviet Union seems to have opened cracks in the system that could only be efficiently fixed in underhanded and corrupt ways. As time went on, these cracks became more apparent and I believe severely shaped the mentality of people who lived in former soviet/gommie states.
The thing that I find that really sets apart the corruption in the former Soviet Union and Friends is that this form of corruption wasn't wasteful spending as it happens in liberal economies, but in itself a valuable and necessary tool to keep the gears of the system spinning.
I suppose I'm not telling you anything new, I'm sure you're well aware of the three keywords thar defined the Soviet economy: Блат, связи и толкаш
>>
No. 9419
>>9414
Also, would you mind to post more about SU's industrial layout in regards to city planning?
I remember trying to research this topic before and finding little to no answers, some former CCCP Bernds would just tell me that cities simply had an "industrial belt", but I need to know more.
>>
No. 9421
>>9417
>pic related
Аахахаха блять, годно, в первый раз за долгое время проорал с картинки. Сохронил.
>>
No. 9422
936 kB, 644 × 644
>>9417
>However, the bureaucratic nightmare was present in things that in a more liberal society would be immediately solved.
Where do you think i am now?
>the Soviet Union seems to have opened cracks in the system that could only be efficiently fixed in underhanded and corrupt ways
They couldn't be. In fact even USSR faults are somehow results of the previous mistakes and mainly were the fastest possible solution at the time.
>The thing that I find that really sets apart the corruption in the former Soviet Union and Friends is that this form of corruption wasn't wasteful spending as it happens in liberal economies, but in itself a valuable and necessary tool to keep the gears of the system spinning.
The system did what it was intended to do. But when it's actually created some equality, completed industrialization and won the war, Union didn't know what to do else. It became the same historical inertia it was fighting against. People didn't see what else they can get from the union and communism
>I suppose I'm not telling you anything new, I'm sure you're well aware of the three keywords thar defined the Soviet economy: Блат, связи и толкаш
I would say that USSR had average normal corruption, less than in many western countries, but it was still ineffective. People cared especially about corruption, since it's always hard to tell what is actually wrong, especially when you have only that feel.
Here is youtube just recommended me one of my favorite bands. Always reminds of USSR, not only because it is about it, but because i remember like my father loved this song and somehow sound of this band songs over the wheat field is the brightest memory i have about USSR. Search for the translations of lyrics too, it's probably can't be fully translated, but still
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0mKkzqMyns
>Also, would you mind to post more about SU's industrial layout in regards to city planning?
Sure, but later
>>
No. 9578
62 kB, 163 × 166
>tfw reading Nazi occupation newspapers
D-g, this shit for brains gets me really hard.
Although, it's convenient to "think about fates of Motherland" in a cosy environment. I lack context of that time lived by myself, so I don't know, how would I behave if I were living at that time.
Neither I wish to know.
>>
No. 9579
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Protasova
>She replaced Countess Praskovja Bruce as confidante and first maid-of-honor in 1779. She became lady-in-waiting in 1785. Catherine entrusted her with her most intimate personal affairs. She is most known in history as "l'éprouveuse", the role she played in Catherine's love life. According to legend, she was to "test" the prospective lovers sexually before they became the lovers of Catherine, after they had been suggested by Potemkin, chosen by Catherine, and examined by a doctor for venereal disease. This very same unconfirmed role has also been attributed to her predecessor as lady-in-waiting, Praskovja Bruce. She accompanied Catherine on all her trips and journeys. Protasova is mentioned as "l'éprouveuse" in the poems of Byron.
So basically, this is like asking your secretary to fuck people to find out if they're good enough to bother with fucking. Do current Russian leaders do a thing like this? Is a sense of prostitution for lands and titles a Russian political tradition?
>>
No. 9595
60 kB, 800 × 522
>>9578
Some levels of hardship are better to be never known again.
Save for direct death, I think one of the worst common fates possible in WW2 would be to be a Soviet soldier who gets captured during, for example, the first Battle of Kiev.
You'd be stuck in a bloody battle that your side has absolutely no chance of winning, but it gets worse.
Not only would you see a very macabre dose fighting, seeing your friends die and possibly being wounded, you get captured by Germans and sent into a slave labour camp, under horrible conditions.

A few years later, you're rescued by your fellow Red Army soldiers, only to then be sent into a labor camp due to being a traitor who surrender Also your family that stayed home was also punished for your cowardice.
>>
No. 9616
>>9595
>Save for direct death, I think one of the worst common fates possible in WW2 would be to be a Soviet soldier who gets captured during, for example, the first Battle of Kiev.
>You'd be stuck in a bloody battle that your side has absolutely no chance of winning, but it gets worse.
>Not only would you see a very macabre dose fighting, seeing your friends die and possibly being wounded, you get captured by Germans and sent into a slave labour camp, under horrible conditions.
That's my grandad
>A few years later, you're rescued by your fellow Red Army soldiers, only to then be sent into a labor camp due to being a traitor who surrender Also your family that stayed home was also punished for your cowardice.
Nope, you would be transfered to another city, because you relatives are probably already transfered too. With no options to find them. Kiev battle was before the order 227.
>>9419
>Also, would you mind to post more about SU's industrial layout in regards to city planning?
Soviets had only industrial, science or military cities. City planning was pretty simple. If it wasn't, than a city was build before the revolution.
Factories had and still have their special industrial zones with only one enter(checkpoint). Zone is guarded and dogs patrol a wall around it at nights. People are using public transport public transport, cause cities and towns were often build around the factory and factories had parking lots only for bosses. They all have small markets near that checkpoint, where babushkas are trading with stuff from TV-shops and socks. There can be several factories inside of this town, cafe, institutes, colleges, development bureaus and even concert halls. And well it's often build near a huge road or railroad. It's really all i can tell, since there is not much to tell at all.
Fun stuff: City services don't have free access into this zones. And one of this services is to catch cats. So cats form huge colonies inside of this industrial zones and go out in packs at night.
>>
No. 9626
253 kB, 1000 × 1084
46 kB, 602 × 399
>>9616
Not before order 270 though, which already set forward the no surrender under any conditions rules, as well as setting penalties for it, although I checked up again and it seems 270 was primarily directed for officers. It makes sense since the memoir I read was of an officer who got the treatment I posted in the previous post.
Either way, the Soviet Union's enforcement of punishments were highly erratic during the period.

The Battle of Kiev itself is pretty sad, Soviet troops who had no possibility of surviving encirclement, being ordered not to break out. A tremendous blunder by the Soviet leadership.
Although in its own way, it helped defeating nadsies since it contributed to Hitler's megalomania. It was another case of Hitler going against what all of his Generals advised, and the result being spectacular.

Also such comfortable Portugal chairs when no harrowing tales of a war and suffering in my family.
>>
No. 9627 Kontra
>>9626
Also thanks for posting a bit on industrial cities. It still fascinates me that today Russia has closed cities.
>>
No. 9630
>>9627
>>9626
>Not before order 270 though, which already set forward the no surrender under any conditions rules, as well as setting penalties for it, although I checked up again and it seems 270 was primarily directed for officers. It makes sense since the memoir I read was of an officer who got the treatment I posted in the previous post.Either way, the Soviet Union's enforcement of punishments were highly erratic during the period.
Who cares. All pows were resettled forcefully or not, mainly because they didn't had an easy way to return people back. Even gulag would be overcrowded. Mandatory gulag for pows is kinda a myth based on survivor mistake. My Grandad told only bullshit to everyone about it. I know for sure that most survivors actually just were resettled.
>>9627
>It still fascinates me that today Russia has closed cities.
Closed cities are closed mostly geographically nowadays.
>>
No. 9664
24 kB, 276 × 280
>reading some russian emigrant's blog
>hurr look how everyone in Western Europe knows English latest 70 years and how they use English everywhere but only russians don't try to study this language and how people in Eastern Europe catch up to studying English
>mfw
[wewuzkangs]
First 40 years from latest 70 years those Europeans learned Russian as much as English, because we were stronk and they bowed to us. Russian man learning the English language and using it in everyday life is an act of bowing down to Anglo-Saxon world. We must protect our independence by not learning English.
[/wewuzkangs]
>>
No. 9665
>>9664
It's not like most of them know much Russian, or use it for that matter.
>>
No. 9667
62 kB, 567 × 438
>>9664
>First 40 years from latest 70 years those Europeans learned Russian as much as English
In western Europe? I have serious doubts. Substantiate your claims.
>>
No. 9668
>>9665
Well, yeah. Closed borders (for Russia and with Russia) certainly didn't help that case.
>>
No. 9671
>>9668
I'd say it wasn't a natural lingua franca, so it never went anywhere.
I rarely see Russian book at antiquaries for example, while German stuff is plenty, and so is English.
Most teachers who knew Russian quickly changed their main expertise into English (Sounds like a disaster and it actually was)
Kinda sad to see that there are so many monolinguals here. (I guess it's different in Slavic countries where the languages are somewhat similar to Russian)
>>
No. 9801
>>9664
As I know, germans not learning english as much as other nations. I think it just show how relevenat for people to learn foreign languages. Russia have hell lot of native speakers, almost all media translates into russian, I think there not much reason for majority of russians learn english that much.
>>
No. 9802
>>9801
As I know, germans not learning english as much as other nations.
Most Germans do speak English. They generally think very low of their native tongue for some reason. At least that is what I've heard.
Don't know why. It's a really expressive language.
>>
No. 9827
>>9801
>As I know, germans not learning english as much as other nations.

Everyone has to learn English from 5th grade onwards in Germany.
>>
No. 9835
>>9827
Everyone in russsia learn it in school nowdays, some even from 1rst or 2nd grade, but this not mean they know it
>>
No. 9915
>>9802
It is perceived as uneducated if one is not able to hold a simple conversation at ages below 50.

Germans are still quite sure that they speak one of the best languages there are. IMO only Hindi is slightly better.
>>
No. 9927
>>9915
It truly is one of the best language around.
It's expressive and has limitless combinatory potential to produce words that you can use to express your abstract ideas.
At least that's how I see it as a (mediocre) speaker of German.
>>
No. 9932
55 kB, 600 × 450
>>7816
>>7827
>>7834
>>7845
>TFW the men follow orders too the letter.
>>
No. 9945
>>7828
I heard that 11 out of the 12 leaders of the German Communist party at the time were Jewish.
>>
No. 9959 Kontra
>>9945
>I heard that
Which in other words sounds like some poltard artifact riddled jpg

Great proofs
>>
No. 10381
I found this super interesting
https://www.damninteresting.com/this-place-is-not-a-place-of-honor/
>Before one can communicate with unknown future societies about deadly nuclear waste, it is important to consider with whom precisely one is trying to communicate. Such people may be part of a highly advanced civilization, they may be a society much less advanced than our own, or they may have comparable technology to that which we have today. Further, they may not be directly descended from local cultures. Messages will thus need to communicate to anyone— regardless of their culture, technology, or political structure— that intruding upon the repository is not in their best interest.

>The ideas that sprang from the panel were varied and interesting. It was decided that the markers would need to be designed to impart multiple levels of information, ranging from the rudimentary— something made by humans is here— to the more complex, such as the exact composition of the waste. This approach, coupled with redundancy, was hoped to allow future discoverers to realize that the site was significant, but also providing detailed information should future society have the means to read the data. They also pointed out that the markers should be made of ordinary materials and absent of beauty, lest the finders see value in removing the markers from the site.

>Panelists described culture-independent ideas which are intended to trigger the danger reflex in all of humanity. One example indicated a massive “landscape of thorns,” made up of fifty-foot-high concrete spires with sharp points jutting out at all angles. Another intriguing idea was an arrangement of gigantic, black, “forbidding blocks” which are too close together and too hot to provide shelter.
But of course
>Ultimately, the decision for the WIPP markers was motivated by cost-effectiveness. Current plans call for the area over the waste storage panels to be outlined by “earthen berms,” which is another way of saying “large piles of dirt.” These berms will be jagged in shape and will radiate out from a central, generally square area. The jagged nature of the berms is meant to convey a sense of foreboding, and the exact size, shape, and configuration of the berms will be such that they will not quickly be eroded or covered. The four corner berms will be higher than the others to provide vantage points to see the area as a whole.
It truly would make a great dystopian non-fiction that the great civilization 7,000 years ago decided rather than actually warning people explicitly just made a bunch of dirt piles because they were too fucking cheap for anything else.
>>
No. 10669
80 kB, 800 × 617
135 kB, 800 × 556
191 kB, 557 × 405
Time to revive this thread with more Russia posting.

I'll post about how the Muscovite, and early Russian Tsars picked brides until Peter I abolished the practice.

It's important to understand that Muscovy was riddled with a very unique form of clan factionism, which according to my analysis primarily created due to the system of Rota and various forms of succession by seniority. This would plague Muscovy and Russia until the 17th century.

Muscovy/Russia had problems with acquiring foreign royal brides to marry the Tsar/Tsarevich due how much of a backwards frozen shithole isolated land it was. Likewise, due to the complicated clan intrigues and the urge of the Tsar to maintain the balance between various boyar rivalries. Additionally, there was the problem that any bride to be would have to convert to Orthodox Christianity.

In 1505, Vasili III of Moscow decided to copy a Bizantine Ritual and instate it as practice to select a bridge. Across the land, virgin noblewomen from low-middle nobility families were selected. Hundreds were brought to the court, inspected by doctors, priests and courtiers. They checked their health, beauty and most importantly how cut off their noble families were from the main clans of Moscow.

No matter how far apart these soon to be brides were from the most important family lines of the Russian court, families would attempt to push the ones that were more closely related to them up the "contest". Out of this period of pre-selection, a dozen or so women were brought to live in a palace in Moscow. They would present themselves to the Tsar, who would meet them before making his final choice. With his mind made up, he would hand the soon to be Tsarina a golden ring.

Their lives would be quite different to other European queens, as Tsarinas (like other upper class Muscovite women) lived lives of seclusion, never seeing the outside world in an harem like condition in the Terem Palace.
>>
No. 10682
>>10669
>It's important to understand that Muscovy was riddled with a very unique form of clan factionism
I don't say we was THAT unique and THAT isolated. A lot of maariage between european and asian royal families still happened, during different peiod of time many principaties have their connections with Poland, Lithuania, Moldova, Byzantine or other states. Same if you look at rzeczpospolita or grand principality of lithuania you may see some similar goverment elements here.

If we talk about state evolution as more big theme of disscution, creation of Rus as state was way different from all other civilisations and for different reasons. Same as you will look at start and reasons and look of our feudal period- concenquences and elements are similar to europe, but reasons and look is different. It sometimes feels almost like it is happened "accidentily" that russian history before Ptere I in some ways have similarities with Europe when there was only accidential similarities, but this question is far more complicated and it was actualy one of the most important political-philosophical quesion in russia in XIX centuary, with Westernizer and Slavophilia factions barking at each other russia is europe or it's unique shit between west and east with it's own path.
>>
No. 10686
>>10682
>I don't say we was THAT unique and THAT isolated.

I see it as fairly unique. Not that clans and rivalries didn't exist but the Rota system seems to have created a unique dynamic in my opinion.
As far as I know, no other state had to purposely avoid having the royal family marry into high nobility.
>>
No. 11074
https://www.opendemocracy.net/johann-hari/japan-place-with-strangest-drug-debate-in-world
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2014/04/19/lifestyle/cannabis-the-fiber-of-japan/
https://apjjf.org/2014/12/49/Jon-Mitchell/4231.html

Interesting. Is this true? It pretty much claims that Cannabis held a central role in Japan for centuries if not millenia until being stamped out by the US occupation at the end of WWII.
>>
No. 11143
1,2 MB, 2899 × 2019
ebin
>>
No. 11183
In meantime, Hitler as homo.
As if we had any doubts :DDDD
CIA published his file.
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/HITLER%2C%20ADOLF_0001.pdf
>>
No. 11189
>>11183
>SPEECH-MAKING TECHNIQUE
wow this promises to be absolutely golden, this is the most fascinating aspect of an otherwise mediocre leader.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpU2Vtzwh80
>>
No. 11198
>>11143
Wait, why would Vercingetorix wear roman armor? What am I missing?
>>
No. 11200 Kontra
>>11183
>He loves the circus. The thrill of underpaid performers risking their lives Is a real pleasure to him.

The report does not give sources for most claims I think. I did not check on the homo sex lifestyle and many other points that can be seen in the table of contents. Also some sentences read like (pseudo) freudian analysis.
>>
No. 11225
4,1 MB, 100 pages
Here is pdf of the previous thread
>>
No. 11236
>>11225
>PDFs of EC threads
Good work, I like that.
>>
No. 11266
Where would be the best place to start, if I wanted to read about the interwar period.
With focus and economy and empires.
Focus European.
>>
No. 11317
>>11266
An introductory book about the interwar period could get you the classic literature to certain topics, usually they have a set of literature at the end of every introductory chapter to a certain topic of the interwar period

I quickly consulted my unis library search engine:

Anti-imperial metropolis : interwar Paris and the seeds of Third World nationalism / Michael Goebel, Cambridge University Press, 2015

Interwar Britain : a social and economic history / Sean Glynn and John Oxborrow, 1976

The European economy between the wars / Charles H. Feinstein ; Peter Temin ; Gianni Toniolo, Oxford Univ. Press, 1997

The world economy between the world wars / Charles H. Feinstein ; Peter Temin ; Gianni Toniolo , Oxford Univ. Press, 2008

The role of banks in the interwar economy / ed. by Harold James, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1991

The French empire between the wars : imperialism, politics and society / Martin Thomas, Manchester Univ. Press, 2007

I could deliver more books concerning empire perhaps if you specify what you are interested in...also I did not look for journal articles which will be another big heap of possible info

t. history student
>>
No. 11320
206 kB, 22 pages
>>11266
>>11317
some random journal articles

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43855011

http://vs.ucpress.edu/content/2/1/19

pdf can be had via sci-hub, example attached and perhaps interesting for you
>>
No. 11321 Kontra
>>11320

also when I wrote a small paper about the democratic subject in Weimar Germany I stumbled across papers that sum up current research concerning Weimar Germany, these papers talk about the latest books and their approaches and methods in research. But I don't know how to find them, they must exist for more topics than just Weimar Germany, like interwar empires e.g.
>>
No. 11322 Kontra
159 kB, 13 pages
312 kB, 39 pages
>>11321
As an example and just in case somebody is interested in Weimar Germany and wants to go behind already known facts and old close postwar narratives

Perhaps their are other review essays for your most loved topic in history.
>>
No. 11331
>>11198

He squared off against the chaddiest primus pilus of IC's army, who decided to gift him his armor as a gesture of humility.
>>
No. 11366
>>11317
Thanks I will look over these later.
Any personal recommendations.
>>
No. 11401
>>11366
I don't know them. Maybe the Oxford Press books are are good since they seem to cover the matter in a more general approach.

Concerning empire you have to be more precise I think.

Here you can look for articles
https://www.tandfonline.com/

just get the DOI and go to sci-hub if you find one that is promising
>>
No. 11405
>>11331
Wait, seriously? Where can I find out more about this event?
>>
No. 11618
13,4 MB, 480 × 360, 7:46
Why are Russians so memeworthy?

Although maybe this should just go into a webm thread instead if someone wants to make one.
>>
No. 12383
24 kB, 266 × 354
I found out about this guy while reading about John Bell Hood in Georgia/Tennessee and just remembered him again. Thought EC might appreciate this gem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Rights_Gist

I really love how his father was autismus maximus enough to name his son States Rights because he liked the doctrine of states' rights.
>>
No. 12407
>>12383
It famous thing when new political regime or social structure changed, people want name their kids in some "new" way that can be attached to current political events. Things like "Vladlen" which is abbreviation of "Vladimir Lenin". For some reason this guy is also reminds me of "American McGee".
Can you make more interesting and long posts about interesting things about Confederate heroes and some civil war events? I recently readed and watched some videos about Confederate equipment and weapons, some rare and interesting examples of wierd and cheaply produced revolvers and rifles by small enterprises, some of which is now forgotten or have very little information on them.
>>
No. 12409
22 kB, 740 × 218
>>12383
I wonder if he was ever tempted to join the Union cause in rebellion :DDDD

>>12407
>Can you make more interesting and long posts about interesting things about Confederate heroes and some civil war events? I recently readed and watched some videos about Confederate equipment and weapons, some rare and interesting examples of wierd and cheaply produced revolvers and rifles by small enterprises, some of which is now forgotten or have very little information on them.

When I see information about this stuff I often find myself wondering how it would play out in the modern world. All the advanced and plastic complicated weapons we have these days would never last more than a few months in a total war setting. Maybe we'd see a rebirth of SLRs and other battle rifles.
>>
No. 12410
48 kB, 599 × 407
24 kB, 778 × 341
17 kB, 512 × 239
248 kB, 1500 × 334
>>12409
Problem is, that now world filled with firearm weapons. Everywhere, in most shitty african country you can find chienese AKs, older german rifles like G3, hell lot of still working WW2 equipment, which obvious, that all produced hell lot of shit in WW2 and after WW2 most of it was throwed out in third world, or more modern equipment that was send in third/fourth world during cold war by all sides in hope local ogga-booga tribes convers communism/start eating free burgers, so there is not actual need to produced weapons in storage massively, when during civil war in USA mostly agrocultural south had real shortage in weapons, it was still times before modern wars, there was still a think "a guy on horse with spike".

However, I remember some funny cases of weapons of different eras meeting.

One is, when Papua New Guinea become kind of independed from Hetherlands and it was INSTANTLY invided by Indonesia who wanted MORE CLAY. While Indonesian army have to at least some degree modern ammunition, at least for post WW2 standarts... Papuases corps of poorly trained volonteers was armed by Dutch with FUCKING MAUSER 98K POLICE CARABINES with NATO 7.62mm. Of cource, they failed.

Second is situation that kinda similar to confederation one - at start of Jugoslavian wars, Choratia had shortage of weapons and appropriate mmilitary manufacturing so they builded a great amount of so called Šokac submachine guns, which is basicly kid of PPSh-41 copy made on most simple tolling on different factories that not produced weapons before war. There a couple of variants I have on 2-4 pictures. I wonder why they not did more advanced and usable, but yet much more simple PPS-42/43 which was in original build in most terrible conditions from most simple materials by most simple tools, kind of like some british weapons like STEN but this in some ways was TOO simple to be that much usefull guns, with this shit that replace pistol grip but well, I honestely don't much about story of it's production and usage, maybe it was better for them.
>>
No. 12411 Kontra
>>12410
>Hetherlands
Nederlands of cource, sorry for typo
>>
No. 12426
>>12407
I feel like it's slightly different to make a kludged name and naming someone after the thing itself. It'd be like someone called their kid 'War Communism'. It's pretty damn bizarre.

>>Can you make more interesting and long posts about interesting things about Confederate heroes and some civil war events?
Maybe when I feel more motivated. Doing other projects on the side right now that eats up my will to write.

>>12410
>when during civil war in USA mostly agrocultural south had real shortage in weapons

At the outbreak of the war, both sides didn't have enough guns. The US had to buy back a lot of guns from the civilian population at a loss even. If anything, April 1861 saw the Confederacy in a superior position in arms quantity but an inferior one in potential to build more arms. Throughout the war, their biggest problem was food though, guns could be captured and plenty enough were imported by the blockade runners to plug the gaps. As the war went on, the fact that their arms wore out and couldn't really be replaced without capturing more, and their foundries produced inferior cannon and cartridges at smaller numbers than the northern ones meant that their equipment quality tended to degrade doesn't change that they usually had enough in the weapons department, even if it wasn't an ideal amount. They couldn't feed a large army and they even had to reduce their count of artillery because they couldn't feed the horses. It was definitely in the rations part of logistics that they suffered.

>it was still times before modern wars, there was still a think "a guy on horse with spike".
It was the first modern war. The lancers you're thinking of were a pair of tiny Texan units that made one action with their lances at Valverde where they got butchered and the survivors threw down the lances and never used them again. Standard regimented cavalry was used either for scouting or as mounted infantry that would dismount and fight. Scouts did see fighting but it was skirmishing rather than pitched battle. There was also the use of very modern artillery including breach-loaders, rifled artillery, exploding shell, case, shrapnel etc. The armies were moved and supplied on an industrial scale with railroads and waterways where possible, arms were manufactured identically and in vast quantities, and by 1864, it was trench warfare and nothing less.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdukjMdp1-w
>>
No. 12427
>>12383
Maximum freedoms
>>
No. 12572
151 kB, 959 × 639
What are the best resources to gain a better understanding of the interwar period. In particular, I'm interested in the politics of the period and the various (new) political groups that were starting to gain steam in the period, such as national socialism and communism.
>>
No. 12575
Watch Babylon Berlin.
>>
No. 12581 Kontra
159 kB, 13 pages
312 kB, 39 pages
Huh, go to the history thread, I answered HK how to research a historic topic.

https://press.princeton.edu/titles/14747.html

It's criticized from a German historian as the old Weimar narrative sum up tho.

Do you have access to university library? Just use their search engine.

I put two review essays as pdf. They go thru Weimar research of the last decades and contextualize publications

Thsi thread should be merged with the history thread...
>>
No. 12592
>>12575
That actually was the inspiration for the question if you will
>>
No. 12625
>>12581
Have you heard anything about „the death of democracy" by Hett?
>>
No. 12628
>>12625
No, but it sounds, alright. I remember my teacher in highschool quoting someone who said: within months we will have him (Hitler) squeaking in a corner. So it's not a groundbreaking argument he brings up.

But Weimar is more than Hitler gaining power. One history book won't be enough to understand that whole period, which is a construction anyway, yes the Weimar Republic existed on paper from 1918-1933. But processes in society don't go along such dates.
Anyway, coming back to the issues of one explanation: it's just not enough, that's the crux of history, you have many arguments that agree with each other or don't, in the end it's an amalgam of different explanations that lets you get closer to what has been, but don't expect to find an ultimate truth to a such a complex, a sociality which I losely define as discourses and practices within a society
>>
No. 12629
>>12628
Naturally I didn't mean to imply that one book, especially when it's only 250 pages, could give a complete picture. I asked mostly because it's on sale on Amazon. However, if its main argument is something that is not really taken seriously by teachers in German high schools then I don't know if it's worth it. And I'm very much less interested in how the Nazis came to power and instead am more interested in learning about how society was such that the Nazis could come to power. I'm sure it's more complex than Versailles.
I see that the book by Weitz is available for a reasonable price as well. I particularly like that it seemingly gives thought to the social aspects of Weimar Germany.

Anyway, I'll stop bothering you after asking this: Are there any other academics that specialize in this period that come to mind?

Thanks for the help
>>
No. 12631
>>12629
>Are there any other academics that specialize in this period that come to mind?

There sure a some in the anglosphere. I can only think of Anthony McElligot, just take a look at the review essays I posted, they list the books before the article begins. I highly advice you reading the whole Hung article btw. as it touches upon the topic you are interested in.
Also Peter Fritzsche is dropped in this article and he was some important scholar on Weimar Germany it seems, his books are also available in English? Try to find out.

>instead am more interested in learning about how society was such that the Nazis could come to power

perfectly fine! my take on the things is similar.

You could read The Salaried Masses by S. Kracauer, it was written in 1929 and gives an interesting image on white collar jobs in Weimar Germany

https://www.versobooks.com/books/734-the-salaried-masses

Also Kracauers Ornament of the masses is well known in the anglosphere as well

Maybe look up some of these journal publishers like taylor and francis and search for weimar germany / interwar germany and mass culture, some introductory book in German had the subtitle "the breakthrough of modernity", so mass culture is an important point
>>
No. 12632
>>12629
>>12631
A paratext for salaried masses from verso

>First published in 1930, Siegfried Kracauer’s work was greeted with great acclaim and soon attained the status of a classic. The object of his inquiry was the new class of salaried employees who populated the cities of Weimar Germany.

>Spiritually homeless, divorced from all custom and tradition, these white-collar workers sought refuge in entertainment—or the “distraction industries,” as Kracauer put it—but, only three years later, were to flee into the arms of Adolf Hitler. Eschewing the instruments of traditional sociological scholarship, but without collapsing into mere journalistic reportage, Kracauer explores the contradictions of this caste. Drawing on conversations, newspapers, adverts and personal correspondence, he charts the bland horror of the everyday. In the process he succeeds in writing not just a prescient account of the declining days of the Weimar Republic, but also a path-breaking exercise in the sociology of culture which has sharp relevance for today.
>>
No. 12633
>>12629
> if its main argument is something that is not really taken seriously by teachers in German high schools then I don't know if it's worth it

it was taken seriously by my teacher, it's an important argument even, but it's not groundbreaking as this must have been in 2011/2012 and was known by then to some degree at least.

Maybe McElligotts Rethinking the Weimar Republic: Authority and Authoritarianism, 1916-1936 is more interesting to you then:
https://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1636
>>
No. 12637
>>7561
I watched Babylon Berlin the other day and the Social Democrats in the German government were trying to arrest the top dogs in the German army by sending planes out to Russia and taking air pictures of these air strips and tank testing grounds in Russia.

It's still a mystery to me on why Hitler decided to invade USSR when they could basically own all of Western Europe at will.
>>
No. 12638
3,5 MB, 6713 × 4004
>>12637
You realize that Babylon Berlin is fictional, right?

As for why the Nazis invaded Russia, it was, most importantly, because of their realization that Britain wouldn't surrender and tangentially because the clash with the ussr was inevitable eventually. The Nazis realized that Britain was holding out hope that they could ally with Russia to attack Germany; this was Britain's only hope and despite the Nazis attempts to make peace with London, London wouldn't have it. So, Hitler decided to invade Russia under the assumption that they'd be able to win easily and then force Britain to surrender. It is fairly clear (though the histiography may disagree) that the Nazis genuinely didn't want war with Britain and the attack on Russia was with a dual objective - to smash the soviets and to bring about peace with Britain. This is of course ignoring tactical failures of the Nazis (especially in Africa) but pretty clear.

To be certain, I am far from an expert and my only real sourcing comes from Shirer's the rise and fall of the third Reich (itself is fairly heavily biased in tone towards the allies but nonetheless a pretty good account of Nazi Germany). If you're genuinely interested in this then read the book. From what I understand about it, modern historians think it outdated and somewhat bad (i will ask >>12633 again for clarity as he seems to have a knowledge of academia) but I think that this is mostly because Shirer's tone is that which isn't entirely politically correct (his treatment of poles in particular is that of a man who sees Poland as a failed people) moreso than his bias towards the allies which I'm sure is still common albeit in a more underhanded way in modern texts. In short, I'd say that it's pretty good history so long as the reader is able to think critically and challenge some of Shirer's biases, but that doesn't fly in modern day history where everything must be such that everyone that opposed the Nazis are equal and good.
>>
No. 12642
If we are talking about weimar i have a question too.
There was a popular opinion in SU, that stalin could support German communists and this would start communistic revolution. But stalin didn't helped them, due to his isolationism. While it's a fact that stalin had his hands in German politics, i don't know about his influence on it. Was his threat to German politics real?
>>
No. 12645
>>12638
>in modern day history where everything must be such that everyone that opposed the Nazis are equal and good.

You don't celebrate in modern day history, that is unprofessional. I'm sure there are lots books that have a critical standpoint on history of the UK, US and Soviets and so on. E.g it has long been debunked that the German division is the soviets fault. A calm tone that does not try to take sides with anything is what should be the ideal. Overly poetic writing is frowned upon. Most historians will be pro democratic society tho, but that should not stop them from debunking a common narrative that came into being by whomever. I remember a text about factory work in Nazi Germany and they never said oh evil nadsis doing bad stuff with workers. The text just stated that the nazis took up on Taylorism that was already a thing in Weimar Germany. That means that they also debunk nazi propaganda at the same time tho.

Again, there won't be just one explanation but different factors that come into play why Germany started to invade Russia.
>>
No. 12647
777 kB, 1199 × 878
249 kB, 1200 × 900
>>12642
By the time Stalin came to power, the worst had passed for the Germans, and the threat of a communist takeover was far smaller than it had been just a few years ago.
The Russians did support these 1918-1919 communist uprisings, although their ability to do so was certainly lessed to the absolute mess that Russia was at this point in the civil war.
If anything, Lenin certainly seemed to have the belief that a "proletariat revolution" revolution was imminent in Germany, so that could have played into a possible lack of urgency. Additionally, the Bolsheviks didn't really like the brand of communism espoused by the German communists.

Overall I'd say that Lenin blew it by genuinely believing the revolution in Europe was imminent, something that would really hurt Russia in her peace treaties, and arguably the German communists too. One can't blame him for not giving more support, as Russia was in пиздец mode. The criticism levied at Stalin stems from a later Torskyist rendition of Stalin's Socialism in One Country, something that Lenin had accepted since Trotsky roped the Red Army into the Polish war fiasco.
>>
No. 12672
>>12647
I am starting to have to pay attention that I see the difference between your ball and Belarus.

Thing is though, the "world proletarian revolution" is partly what seems to have unified Western Europe in fear, and what allowed Hitler to rise in addition to economics. Had the Soviets taken a more active role in German politics wouldn't that have played into Hitler's hands? It always struck me that seemingly his primary target never even was the Jews but the Bolsheviks, and that the only reason he truly hated the Jews was seemingly as a corollary of his hatred for Bolshevism. At the very least his language in Mein Kampf and elsewhere seemed to be more actively passionate in his hatred of Bolshevism than anything else, and seemed his primary fixation at least until just immediately prior to the war years in like 1938-39 and 1940s.
>>
No. 12679
49 kB, 600 × 338
76 kB, 505 × 700
60 kB, 799 × 489
53 kB, 600 × 300
>>12426
Sorry for late replay, but well, I'am not an Civil War expert, and indeed you know more about it than I - however I aware of blockade runners - and I know that initially both sides had shortage of weapons, since it was first time in USA histroy when they making so large scale military operations, and unlike Independance and 1812 wars it was something much more modern.

However, as you said yourself basicly - "amount of guns" is more therm of how fast and how quality you can constantly replanish, build thins guns, made ammunition. North had advantage on sea as I know and recived much more amoun of ammunition than south, north have industrial areas when south was agrocultural country. North initially had problems with conscription and standartisation of manufacturing, but they resolved this problmes much more fast - and south honestely never managed to do it.

South armies for most part of war had basicly whtever ammunition they can get - not very standartisated, often outdated and low quality. Exept rare exeptions, most of their equipment was from low scale production initiatives, who build simble, outdated, poor quality guns in small ammouns - like guy in field just build small factory in wooden storage and maded like 300 black powder revolvers untill he failed his buisness or untill north just burned this storage to ground.

And in modern world there most times no such situation - even in most terrible countries, like central africa, afghanistan and others with constant wars there so many china/west europe/middle east production AKs, PPSh/PPS, FALs, other leftovers from vietnam war/WW2/Ygolavian wars etc. so basicly all ooga booga tribes can immideatly be equiped with mid-XX centuary assult weapons. So such problem as was with south back than - basicly non exist nowdays exept extreme cases.

However I remember case about north - guy created kinda nice carabine but was bancrupt or something and basicly Mayor of New Yourk bought his factory and started producing this guns, but then started civil war, and hell lot of angry people during New York draft riot burned down this factory with almost all already produced carabines that was still not delivered anywhere lol
http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_417026

On topic about this was fist MODERN war - kinda yes but I'd don't say that there is physical mark where you can place end of old style wars and begining of new ones. Like I may say that first true modern war was Franco-Prussian War - with it's significant usage of many modern technologies that was not used in this scale in USA civil war, like trains for transportation and many other things. Some other people will say that first world war was truley 100% modern war where was used first time most of important parts of modern warfare - airplanes, air carriers, submarines, automatic rifles, cars and tanks etc in significant scale.

>>12642
Stalin supported germany communist political movments, not in a way that they created a revolution - but more or less as political movment. They was kind of major power - Рот Фронт (Rote Front) may be familiar thing for you. However, Stalin actually came to power from result of fail of Trotsky with uprisings of Workers in England, and proposed his doctrine of "socialism in dedicated country". I don't remember correctly, if it was actual Stalin thing that England protests failed (because SU don't help helped this uprising) or it was resolved by itself - capitalist owners tricked this loosers to stop riots and continue working as slaves, but anyway, Stalin won and USSR become isolationist totalitaric country.
And existance of experience of civil war in russia and becomeing it just semi-totalitaric kinda-empire not played on popularity of stalin-backed commie organisations around the world. Nazis was also not that popular honestely, but was more lucky and more active/aggresive.
>>
No. 12682
92 kB, 1000 × 529
>>12679
The problems the Confederate industry had were scale and quality control. They always had enough guns, even if the logistics got awkward when half a corps had .58 rifles and the others had .55 rifles. They couldn't produce enough local arms to standardise though, this is the scale problem, and it also manifested as the inability to be overly picky with what they did make so some lower-quality pieces slipped through which didn't really happen in the northern factories which had production surplus. They also had some older (but not outdated) production methods such as at Tredegar Iron Works which made artillery. It was modern artillery like Parrott rifles but they were made using workarounds so they were the same design but a bit bulkier than northern designs. Same with ammunition, they were making the same stuff. The Burton bullet that was being used by both sides was invented in Harper's Ferry in Virginia even and the Confederacy inherited that armoury which was one of the most advanced in the world at that stage. It's not like they were making smoothbores and round shot to fight the north. They were using the same technology but with the problems that a less-developed industrial base brings. With things on large-run production you had poor quality control, but their small-run production like in Fayetteville, NC and Richmond, VA, was more known for above average to very high quality armaments with the downside of them being hard to get in large numbers.
>>
No. 12736
202 kB, 1200 × 1737
406 kB, 1000 × 750
168 kB, 1000 × 541
30 kB, 467 × 320
>>12679
>However, Stalin actually came to power from result of fail of Trotsky with uprisings of Workers in England, and proposed his doctrine of "socialism in dedicated country".
>Stalin won and USSR become isolationist totalitaric country.
>And existance of experience of civil war in russia and becomeing it just semi-totalitaric kinda-empire not played on popularity of stalin-backed commie organisations around the world. Nazis was also not that popular honestely, but was more lucky and more active/aggresive.

If there is one particularly insidious bit of Trotskyism that seems to seep into most of the evaluations of Stalin's rule, from the Trotskyite's rendition of Stalin as a traitor of the proletariat to the most amateur of simplifications that Stalin was merely the particularly most violent of Soviet dictators, it is the one that Stalin decided to throw out the Marxist ideal of proletarian revolution.

It is important that to remember that this is a criticism of Stalin that Trotsky would pen while in exile, far away from the cold pragmatism of running a state. In this position, Trotsky was able to criticise the Soviet Union's present form by appealing to traditional Marxism. It is accurate that under what Marx wrote, the idea of a nation attempting to maintain itself with a "proletarian" regime would be an exercise that would end in failure. As the saying goes, only a worldwide revolution would overthrow a worldwide system.

There are many more venues through which one can criticize the Soviet Union from an "orthodox" Marxist perspective, though. The most damning of which, in my humble opinion, is that a socialist revolution within the Russian Empire would not happen at all. After all, the crisis of capitalism would reach first and foremost the industrialized capitalist nations of the globe. Marx put them as Britain, the United States, France and Germany. In his view, these would be the nations in which the proletarian revolution would hatch, and spread into the more backwards, less economically advanced nations.

Given this premise, the Bolsheviks found themselves in the position of needing to justify how it was that Russia was the first of nations to enter a revolutionary period. The explanations put forward were several, from Russia's unique position - how the reactionary nature of the Tsarist regime created particularly progressive revolutionary class, to Russia's early "exit" of the war via popular unrest - due to the Tsarist's regime weak hold power and even the Bolshevik party line that peasants had gained class consciousness and could be seen as allies in the revolutionary struggle.

At the outbreak of the revolution, the Bolshevik party operated with the assumption that their revolution was the first of many to come within the next few years in Europe. The end of capitalism was nigh, and now was the time to strike at its heart. From my understanding of writings of Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky and writings about Kamanev, it seems that everyone was fairly on board and unanimous with this premise. This would be a mistake that would severely harm Russia in the leading up the Brest-Litovsk treaty. Lenin particularly did not see a considerable point in squabbling with Germany over territory, given that in a few years Germany too would be a proletariat state.

As the years progressed, it became increasingly clear that great European after WWI would not come along. That Russia would stand alone as the sole red power in Europe. Lenin in particular, took a fairly pragmatic position on this claiming that the Soviet Union should not predicate its existence in "fairy tales". It is worth noting that is the same man who a couple of years previously had claimed that without a revolution in Germany, the Soviet state would collapse. Lenin had no qualms with reversing policy at key issues should the situation call for it, the introduction of the NEP is a good example. Once the Kronstadt rebellion broke out, Lenin would reluctantly introduce something he greatly opposed in order to secure stability.

Trotsky was far more of an idealist than a pragmatist, but he eventually would fall in line with Lenin. After the grand fiasco that was the Soviet-Polish war, it was clear to anyone who was not blinded by the ideological kool-aid that the Red Army had no chance to following the ideal of sparking the revolutionary flame that would engulf Europe. Likewise, the falling into place of a new interwar status quo would help drive the nail into the coffin of a proletariat revolution seizing Europe. Lenin himself would write to dispel the notion that now was the time for the Soviet Union to spearhead a grand revolution across the continent.

Stalin's "Socialism in one country" was nothing more than the setting into stone of a pre-existing governmental policy. If one were to follow the purely Marxist narrative, the Soviet Union should either sacrifice its dwindling resources into one final great push against worldwide capitalism, or the Bolsheviks should step down from power and offer Russia to a capitalist liberal clique since the Marxist would simply be that the world's material conditions were not yet ripe for revolution.

Once in exile however, Trotsky, no longer bound by the cold reality of being within a position of power in the game of nations, was able to levy all sorts of accusations against Stalin. He would necromance the theory of permanent revolution that he had not touched since the Bolshevik revolution broke out, and write down how the ideal true socialist revolution would go. As Lenin wrote down the April thesis, denouncing the idea that the Bolsheviks should onto state power while giving capitalist control of the economy, Trotsky stayed quiet. Now in exile he was once again free to write as he pleased, without any check from reality. The man would go so far as to write how minor logistical mistakes prevented the Polish proletariat to rally to the red army's flag during the Soviet-Polish fiasco.

Mind you that not withstanding Stalin's position, it was still under him that the Soviet Union would reach its revolutionary apex. Before the Sino-Sopviet split one could see that this rainbow of different ideologies united under ideological orthodoxy spread from Berlin to Beijing.

On a final note, to say that it was Stalin who began pushing the Soviet Union into "semi-totalitarianism" is absurd. The Bolshevik was a totalitarian enterprise from the start, no matter how hard the final carrot of a complete communism of democracy and plenty was dangled over the Russian starving masses.
>>
No. 12749
569 kB, 945 × 1170
>Byzantinian Christianity was chosen by Vladimir because it was the fanciest and the richest among Roman Christianity, Islam and Judaism
ebin :DDD
>>
No. 12799
>>12749
This is from myph of "choise of fate"
In reality it was just most basic politics.
>>
No. 12841
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2018/11/43935/

A review of a new biography of Charles de Gaulle. Here goes a sample

>In de Gaulle’s view, the French were exhausted. Longstanding wounds left by France’s eighteenth-century struggle with Britain for global supremacy, the Revolutions of 1789 and 1848, the Napoleonic Wars, endless conflict between church and state, the Dreyfus Affair, the sharp economic divisions that replaced those of birth, two devastating world wars, and the humiliating defeat of 1940 had compromised France’s capacity to maintain its “rank.” This is why, Jackson states, “de Gaulle challenged the way the French thought about their history and politics.”

>De Gaulle didn’t, however, believe that the solution to France’s malaise lay in subordinating it to supranational entities. Such organizations, he thought, might have technical uses. From de Gaulle’s perspective, however, they fundamentally lacked, to use one of his favorite words, “legitimacy.” By this, he meant they didn’t have the historical and cultural depth possessed by nations.

>Nations like France, for de Gaulle, were real in a way that supranational bodies could never be. Supranational entities couldn’t generate loyalty from their members. Thus, they left people unable to defend themselves against the technocrats who invariably dominate such institutions. It’s safe to say that de Gaulle would be no fan of today’s European Union. As Jackson gently observes, “his intuition that a European project built by technocrats would have difficulty in creating a durable sense of common destiny and collective identity seems more compelling than it did thirty years ago.”
>>
No. 12844
102 kB, 700 × 544
>>12841
>Nations like France, for de Gaulle, were real in a way that supranational bodies could never be. Supranational entities couldn’t generate loyalty from their members.
He has a point but I fail to see how an increased loyalty leads to a better defense against oligarchs.
>>
No. 12910
93 kB, 1000 × 700
413 kB, 1023 × 358
72 kB, 702 × 390
16 kB, 476 × 360
>>12736
Some russian marxist theoreticans and ideologists about transition from empire to direct communism said, that russia have "unique example of pesant communities" - and before they was touched by any more advanced economical-social structures, we can easely translate them to understandable communism even more easely, than we can did in developed capitalist states! I did not particulary remember, what Marx hismelf saif about such things, but generaly I assume that there can not be "skips" of any economical-social structure levels, espessialy if one they want to skip in does not exist anywhere in the world at that time. Basicly, pesant community by itself is on level of so called "primitive communism", or, if we talk without science talk, "oga-booga" tribe. Case is, what Marx and his followrs put in direct theory that "communism" is theoretical social-economical structure that will replace capitalism, when science and organisation of makind achived some noted level of goods manufacturing and resource managment. What that level is and how it to come, as I know, different among different theorists, but I can easely say, that "oga-booga tribe" become true communists by itself trought some kind of "revolution" is clearly not an option. Trought, idea of revolution is one way on another was said by marx too, but this is different story.

I can adittionaly metion "Atta Troll" poem, by Heinrich Heine, who actually was kind of firend of Marx and supporter of his ideas, if I not mistaken, well, this was about a pet bear on funfairs, who start grow his political position and start fight for rights of bears, lol. There was kinda similar example in "Собачье Сердце" Булгакова, and I think you familiar with it already so will not post exaplanation of plot, but it directly touch meme of dumb uneducated person trying to be on edge of modern social ideas. Both examples in particular, present protagonists as "Animals", to more clear show opposition between two main things - theoretical communism and persons who be actual Marx theory belongs to much more lowel social-economical structures and that it is impossible convert one to other, by skipping other stages, at least already existing capitalism in general.
In conlusion, bolsheviks main idea at times when they taked rule was, like if for examle, said: "In future we will fly into space" t.theoretical scientist man and after it appeared some group of people who want immideatly build giant canons, or anything, they not entierly shure what is, and voluntarily-forcibly shoot all people in space by them, since they know, that in future we will cleary fly into space!

Bolsheviks party in general was oriantated on more centralised rule (dicktatorship of proletariat and all other things), however I may say that before actual mid 20s they really all not yet decided what to do, even in their short range of political spectre some different ideas floated around and nobody yet was shure what implement and what not, and there was really range of variations of them, and fact that Lenin banned "factions" indie pary since he trought that factions can be supported by different classes, and in result can make a detached 2nd party with opposite ideas, from this was bored meme "General Party Line" in 1925, but this is yet again different sotry. More than that, many people changed their theoretical opinions trought time, based on their practical experience. For example, intialy they trought that it was possible to get rid of monies from start, this is one of reasons initialy sovdepia just printed Temporary goveremnt style bills of meh quality, "just for inital time" as they trought.

Word revolution was important part of Trotsky's ideas, even after war with Poland. As he many times said - based actually on what you metioned about Marx troughts - they need to make revolution in developed capitalist states of europe, that lagging behind russia by itself would not manage to achive any kind of communism, and they need developed europea states, which he trought, already ready for acrual real communism transition. Reality obviously showed that most developed european states only do first stepts in this direction only at start of XIX centualry, and we still very far from real transition to actual communism, even our technological level significantly more high than it was in ealry XX centuary so it was even in theory 100% fail back than but who knows what happened if РККА won poland..

Funny thing that at times of late Lenin, Trotsky was absoluetly against НЭП and for immideatly indutrialisation - thing that latery Stalin implemented. Lenin was against instant industrialisation, and also was against to do too much wide democracy, on level more he already proposed, since, as he said in short: most of young USSR population is absolute bydlo who don't know absolutley shit, and it be absoluetly easy for everyone to manipulate them in such "democracy" and this was proven to be true in case of russia and most post-ussr, with current Pootine/Turkmenbashi/Lukashenko/Nazarbaev etc. regimes - so he had plans for difffernt theoretical levels of what people should be allowed to party, like some degree of education and some degree of actual working experience (by today standarts, only really educayed-profile persons) who also know actual politics and in reality cares about political and economical future of country, and Trotsky in opposition was for "taking in party everyone" to have more support and control over popuation, we can see elements of such system in more late USSR and Nazi germany and to some degree in modern authoritarian regimes, like pootine one where major part of pootine electorate is babushkas with marasmus who don't understand anything but always vote for pootine.

Stalin changes trought was inspired by previous ideas already I can put in kinda different directions, and what I said about "semi-totalitaric" and huge impact on "socialism in one country" meant different thing that building НЭП or things like that - what I tried to impact on, that what Stalin did was not even actual re-establishing of Empire with different flag, but actually sucsessfull re-implementation of Oprichnina. What Ivan IV only dreamed of, Stalin implemented in real life at maximum. A state under direct control of one person, that turned into one giant prison camp with oprichniks (НКВД) who directly serve "tsar" itself. And in many degrees it is much more powerfull that so called "absolutism" of XVIII centuary. This is real Oprichnina, that actually works, a most crazy product of political system from mix of worst parts of west and east societis, and this why Stalin and his times have even today so huge impact on politics and society in general - there was indeed more powerfull dicktatorships and ancient monarchs, but in modern world and in so giant country, I can say that post-WWII Stalin was most powerfull man existed in human history, controlling half of the world by his fists.

Is it absolute 100% of what direction of ВКП(б) lead them, that there was no other choises after revolution that it was only matter of time that such monster was borned and taked control? I'd say nah, it was more conjuncture, coincedence of cases that all ended like that. Different bolsheviks had different ideas, and not all of them lead into this.
>>
No. 13025
By the way, if someone interesting, recently from scratch and peaces was restored 1918 documentary movie "one year anniversity of revolution", with many pragments previously not seen before - some shots from february, from october and after. Many parts with trotsky, lenin and other guys (no stalin tho nobody cared about him back than lol :--DDD, tbh as he said НЭ ТАК ЭТО ВСЁ БЫЛО)

Here is the trailer - dunno where to get full movie now, but it will be shown on somce cinematic festivale
https://youtu.be/YL976arvZmU
>>
No. 13036
>>13025
Intresding, thanks
>>
No. 13060
>>13025
This deeply interests me.
>>
No. 13349
https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/97701/1/787963348.pdf

Really good 40 pages long article about german industrialization in late 18th and early 19th century. The authors are attacking another study where empirical studies apparently confirm the age old version of History where Napoleonic institutional reforms kickstarted german industrialization and modern german economy. They criticize both the idea that institutional reforms can cause such a thing, and also the many perceived flaws in the empirical study that ignore common knowledge among current historians of german industrialization.

I don't even remember how I stumbled on this paper, but it was very informative and there's certainly a lot of good names in the references if someone wants to study it further. I know very little about the issue and wasn't looking for it, but usually what we hear is that Frederick and the Junkers were some kind of enlightened despots, that Napoleonic reforms were essential to modernize german economy and law, that german economy and politics was backwards and fragmented as fuck before that, and so on. Here I learned a lot of different things: Napoleon's law actually benefited the old german aristocracy, some parts of germany were actually highly competitive and had a more globalized trade, Napoleon tried to concentrate industries in France at the cost of Germany, Frederick and Junkers were backwards and the modernization of Prussia was due mostly to a small and select group of state bureaucrats, and overall germany was already a pretty advanced economy before Napoleon and the unification. This is their main point, because they want to attack the "Napoleonic institutional big bang" of the other paper, they explain that there's no big bang, but rather gradual development of german economy ever since the end of middle ages.
>>
No. 13443
Hello history pros.

As you might know in the German media, especially since the rise of the AfD to third strongest party in the Bundestag, there has been lots of rhetorics about fear that "it will happen again". "It" being revival of Nazi Germany, new Hitler, Holocaust etc. So I've heard it a few times that someone sees some (possibly superficial) similarity to pre-WW2 times and starts fearmongering about the imminent 4th Reich, but I can't say that I'm convinced. I feel like there is in general a fixation on the history of the 20th century, while hte rest of history is somewhat disregarded.

So I'm curious what are your thoughts/predictions on this issue? What might be similar now to pre-WW2 times, what different? What would be your arguments?
Maybe these questions are a bit too broad, so feel free to focus on whatever you deem important
>>
No. 13445
>>13443
> What might be similar now to pre-WW2 times, what different?

the creation of the other as threat to whatever. Common for group shaping.
People are feared real and imagined, mostly the latter and the AfD uses this as catapult. There might be similarities to back then. Afaik AfD like the NSDAP have been voted to vast amounts by the middle class and not by the working poor. The people that think they have to loose something, usually there jobs won't be done by immigrants but instead of abstract capital their project their worries and hate onto immigrants. Back then it was jews, yet I'd say it was a totally different level, antisemitism in its speciality is far older than the recent immigrant hate, but then again hating foreigners is not new in history...
>>
No. 13466
>>13443
From my perspective there aren't many similarties with our present times and the pre-WW2 times.
I see more similarities between our times and pre-WW1 times.
Because of a looming financial crisis due to 2008 one being swept under the rug and not solved. What makes me say this?

>falling mineral prices
>stock market massively overbought
>US gov investment as % of GDP falling
>opiods killing 80,000 people per year
>inequality higher than ever
>corporate profits falling; rate of profit falling
>hard brexit likely
>oil prices creeping up, leading to more inflation
>currency crises in Argentina and Turkey; likely to spread with rate increases to other overleveraged countries
>trade war that America has no hope of winning

USA has to maintain its hegemony militarily. That means unobstructed access to resources, and slapping down challengers to that hegemony. That means going to war with Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and intervening in Syria and Venezuela.

If it doesn't maintain it, it will collapse, and the world will recede into multi-polarity, regional powers, wannabe hegemons find out the hard way that the hand-off of the status of global hegemon from UK to US being peaceful was a caprice of fate, and a divided elite all looking out for their own interests. And a globally divided elite will do what they do best - start wars.
>>
No. 13538
706 kB, 1301 × 635
>>13443
No way. Germany today is very different from then, when democracy was new und controversial, the economy deep in shit, revanchism, jingoism, militarism etc. all very common and society itself much more authoritarian/patriarchal.

>>13466
>USA has to maintain its hegemony militarily. That means unobstructed access to resources, and slapping down challengers to that hegemony.

There's this theory that most major wars come about when a hegemon is challenged, as Sparta was by Athens.
>>
No. 13544
>>13443
The comparison between AfD and NSDAP is mostly political propaganda. The AfD is a literal joke in comparison to the NSDAP, where is the uniformed SA beating up leftists and jews on the streets (meanwhile the identitarian movement hangs banners once a year and poses for pictures on instagram)? Where is the hidden Reichswehr planning the downfall of democracy and the daily gunfights and violence in the streets? Also where is the strong communist party that is seen as a danger by conservatives and reactionaries? I guess no self-respecting leftist, if this isn't an oxymoron, would say that DIE GRÜNEN would be a communist party. Not to mention that the big financial players like coca-cola are openly supporting the leftists, whereas in the wrimar Republic you had german capitalists working together with the fascists.

At the end of the day it's just typical political shit-flinging, more than often on both sides. However I think it's quite possible that the AfD will win this fight and succeed in their project, even if not on their own but with the help of a re-conservativized CDU. We may then witness a domesticated and liberal form of nationalism like in the Visegrad-states, but then again the left is also on the rise so only time will tell.

It doesn't matter anyways because I don't think any really great change will happen as long as the Germans still are relatively well off and don't have to fight a daily struggle to survive. Maybe give this country a few million african immigrants more (it doesn't even need to be the number of 50 million estimated by Stephen Smith) and we'll see again. Yet the germans still feel safe, the illusion of peaceful multiculturalism is only beginning to show cracks. When this country will be continually flooded with immigrants there is barely any chance for it to survive in its current form.
My final prediction is that reactionaries wil, either im form of islamic migrants re-establishing traditional values or in form of german right-wingers stopping immigration and re-establishing traditional values.
The left is dead, especially when the massive immigration continues. And if it doesn't the right has won.
>>
No. 13562
396 kB, 1400 × 1085
>>13466
I think the main difference you're missing is that WWI was a multipolar world with a dozen great powers that were roughly equal to each other. It wasn't implausible for a rival great power to think it could defeat another. Now we live in a world completely dominated by one great power, the United States. We will not see another World War until the America/Atlantic hegemony collapses and I doubt that will be soon.

Even with it's internal problems, the USA is still has the world's largest economy and military by a huge margin. It has the geographic advantages of vast size, plentiful natural resources and easily defensible borders. Remember, the Rome was decadent and corrupt in the Republican era, but the Mediterranean was unipolar for hundreds of years after Julius Caesar.

Another point of disagreement: the United States doesn't need to instigate wars with the Russians, Chinese, Iranians or even North Koreans. All of those powers will avoid an open conflict with the USA because they would lose in a horrific manner. The United States does not want a major war because it does not need anything from it's enemies and the American public will not accept a foreign war against a nuclear power. The USA does not need a big, costly war to maintain it's hegemony.

In my opinion, the next big upheaval will be the result of economic problems brought on by automation. The retail, food service and transport industries in first world countries will all be gutted by the ability of large corporations to automate that sort of unskilled labor. Hundreds of millions of low-skilled clerks, servers, fast food workers, truck drivers, Uber drivers and so on are going to be fucked. There will be a lot of unemployed, angry men that will turn to extreme political ideologies. I expect to see either revolutionary civil wars or "peaceful" government takeovers by political extremists in the first world.

The worst case scenario would be a full scale civil war in the United States. The power vacuum would lead to what you mention in your last paragraph: open war between the many second-tier regional powers.
>>
No. 13563
>>13443
I think this is too dumb thematic to seriously disscus. I wonder that with such post you get any answers. Sorry, but this is litterly poltard tier and not historicly post.
>>
No. 13570
>>13443
>The comparison between AfD and NSDAP is mostly political propaganda.
no, it's not. the most influential group inside the afd can safely be called nsdap v2.0, the only difference to the last century is that new fascists primarly hate muslims and love israel/jews. höckes speeches even sound a lot like two infamous nsdap-politicians, he claims that he does not want to be associated with either of the two though. however, reading his books and listening to him reveals that it's not only the tone that he shares with them. his political views appears to be very close to the nsdap's first program. and he makes very clear that he wants to do away with democracy if he manages to get into power.

>where is the uniformed SA beating up leftists
they are not uniformed, but they do beat up leftists (or rather who they perceive as leftists, mostly they attack liberals, real leftists are rare these days). there was a huge mob of violent right-wing hooligans, skinheads and such attacking a leftist quarter of leipzig some time ago, there are lots of political right-wing hooligan firms and brawls occured between right-wingers and left-wingers in chemnitz this year. and there's certainly more i'm unaware of, since i follow politics rather sporadically now, actually politics mostly annoy me today, thanks to all the propaganda and astroturfing in the internet/on chans.

> Where is the hidden Reichswehr planning the downfall of democracy
https://www.taz.de/Rechtes-Netzwerk-in-der-Bundeswehr/!5548926/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6374085/Secret-plot-200-elite-neo-Nazi-soldiers-German-SAS-slaughter-politicians.html

>and the daily gunfights and violence in the streets?
there were no daily gunfights in the streets during weimar republic, but a couple really ugly violent incidents.

>Also where is the strong communist party that is seen as a danger by conservatives and reactionaries?
right-wingers built a huge chimera, they claim that leftists/communists rule the country and corporate/public mainstream media from behind. said chimera and the mass migration (which is not a chimera, but a real problem caused by liberals and conservatives) is enough to keep new fascists riled up all the time.

>I guess no self-respecting leftist, if this isn't an oxymoron, would say that DIE GRÜNEN would be a communist party.
the greens are warmongering hillary clinton style bourgeois-neoliberals who curbed workers rights, deregulated financial markets and went to war the first time after 1945 when they were in power. since recently they are even in bed with the gmo lobby, if i'm not mistaken. the greens are everything but leftist. however right wingers don't care, they don't differ between (neo)liberals, conservatives and leftists. linke, the greens, the spd and even the cdu are all "leftist" to them, even though they aren't leftists and most of them are actually on the right side of the political spectrum.

>Not to mention that the big financial players like coca-cola are openly supporting the leftists,
you mean they support liberals and conservatives. the only leftist party (who are more traditional social democrats rather than communists) in the bundestag does not receive support from corporations and they are extremely hated by corporate media. like bernie sanders in the usa, they don't get donations AT ALL, except small donations from their members.

>whereas in the wrimar Republic you had german capitalists working together with the fascists.
the afd was founded by people who are members of influential invite-only think tanks as well as by high nobility and other rich people. they get donations and support by foreign billionaires and big corporations. the afd's memberlist consists mostly of wealthy and upper/middle class academics. this enables them to run bigger advertising campaigns than the ruling coalition itself, not to mention that germany's biggest publisher axel-springer-verlag supports them, too.

>However I think it's quite possible that the AfD will win this fight and succeed in their project, even if not on their own but with the help of a re-conservativized CDU.
that is very well possible.

>We may then witness a domesticated and liberal form of nationalism
or nsdap v2.0.

>but then again the left is on the rise
no. die linke stagnates and will not increase support until wagenknecht eventually comes out of the closet with an own populist party. the spd is still plummeting, despite turning moderately to the left which is due to lost credibility among her core demographic thanks to schröder's reforms, it may take a long time until she is able to recover, or maybe she is just as devastated as her french sister party ps. the uk's labour party was also plummeting, but managed to recover thanks to corbyn though.
the greens are on the rise indeed right now, but they are liberal, not leftist. they attract new voters from both cdu and spd.
>>
No. 13571
127 kB, 736 × 865
>>13570
>>13570
valid analysis.

Times of (perceived) instability/fragility activate cravings for control again.
>>
No. 13578
>>13563
Why do you think it's dumb?
I admit it's a hot topic that can lead to emotional discussions but that's why I posted it here on EC because I figured if anywhere that's where one might have some civil discussion on this topic. And I think the answers so far are giving some good input.
Maybe the way I wrote my post might seem dumb and I could have phrased it better, but please forgive my ignorance, I'm really just curious to hear what other people think about it who can draw some arguments from their understanding of history.
If it's not too much to ask, please elaborate a bit on why you think it's a dumb topic.
>>
No. 13583
>>13578
Don't mind the Runglish critic. He is always complaining about the quality of other people's posts on EC yet he never posts anything good or thoughtful himself.
>>
No. 13584
>>13570
Good post, very concise and clear. Thank you. When I try to explain to someone that a "rise of the left" is a myth, I always drift into rambling.

Regarding the AfD == NSDAP cunundrum, there is a recent "event" that needs to be mentioned: https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Protest-gegen-AfD-Meldeplattformen-von-Lehrer-Aeusserungen-formiert-sich-4186281.html
(chosing heise here as a middle ground between the shit-press and the heavily biased press).
People need to just stop and think about what kind of group would feel motivated to start a modern day Blockwart-programme against public teachers that talk negatively about their political party. No other party does (or would do) this. Not even the NSDAP did something like this until their late game push. For someone stuck in this kind of thinking however, people who are shocked by this are leftists and categorically wrong.

Honestly, for me the only valid solution is to get out of Germany as soon as I have my degree. It's just all too depressing :<
>>
No. 13585 Kontra
>>13578
It's kind of dangerous to think you can deduce the outcome of our present thru history, but it can be seen as possibilities and tendencies.

As long as we have no non-argument pol tier discussions with crude assumptions combined with insults or insulting tone, it's alright to ask and discuss such questions.
>>
No. 13586
>>13571
thanks you. compared with other world regions germany is doing rather well for a long time now. neither reunification, nor euro crisis, nor mass migration caused significant political and/or economic turmoil or instability, so the rise of the afd must have other reasons. it's due to the weakness of the populist left and the former moderate left (spd; greens) turning (neo)liberal during the last 25 years, alienating them from their traditional voter base. you see, even die linke actually lost voters to the afd.
>>
No. 13588
>>13578
I not expert in modern german politics, but it feels much more political theme than historical.
This assumptions and tryings to make parralels between modern politics and random historican event is not something that can be honest and seriosly analysed on level of actual historical science. Suspicions and projections like this "is pootine new tsar of russia??" "is merkel new hitler??" "is trump going to kill all jews? X--DDDD" - is pol tier themes, and even in polite forms it better keep for other, political dedicated thread, like news one.

Why just not make any other post about german history? 30 years war, Austria-Prussian war, Franco-Prussian war, mid-late XIX german philosophers, development of german cars in interwar period, history of mauser company and their rifles development etc.? Anything you want, so many thing to disscus exept modern politics.

>>13583
You probably can't properly distinquish one Russian post from another, and instead of say something on concretic topic - you gone personal trought third person with categorisation. I absoluetly don't like when people do something like this, it is childish.

And if you already go personal - you can continue my disscution about french cars, about political direction of early post-revolution communist party, or about rare firearms and development of different assault rifles concepts. Or even more old posts about supersonic jets or even do some serios post for thread about antropomorphic animals - all this posts I done for interesting disscutions and tried my best, clearly not to get characteristics about it like this.
>>
No. 13589 Kontra
>>13583
Hey, no bullying the assburger Russia. He's a good poster, shame about his zoophile leaning
>>
No. 13591
>>13586
I wrote a text three times but my laptop shut down three times while doing so. I will make it short this time.

Fear, caused by neoliberal reforms causing instability in economic situation. People fear to become the Hartz4 'low-life' that cannot provide wealth for family and has to take shut jobs to make it. They fear to be excluded from the wealth one day. Funny tho that the AfD consist of people who propel this neoliberal attitude that causes fear in many people.

I can elaborate a bit more if needed. I mention Oliver Nachtweys Abstiegsgesellschaft some days/weeks again here on EC. A good read in that regard.
>>
No. 13601
>>13589
It awesome to hear something appretiate all walls of text I put on this board.

>shame about his zoophile leaning
I touched this theme once because I was forced. Currently this thread free from it and we trying to make there civil disscution, good art and other awesome things, so everyone welcome.
I can try protest about public view on zoophilia trought and fact that this is not abusing or something horrible like people trought, but I guess nobody now will ever listen me a bit, so better wait better times for such talks.
>>
No. 13610 Kontra
>>13601
>still trying to defend raping animals
If there is one thing the internet has taught me is that any group of people you think are shit are in fact way, way worse than they're ever criticized for. I wouldn't have even thought to call furries animal abusers. I just thought they were a particularly cringey group of sexual fetishists. Yes, fucking animals is wrong.
>>
No. 13616
33 kB, 300 × 342
>>13591
i think we do not disagree on the matter.

>Funny tho that the AfD consist of people who propel this neoliberal attitude
this might turn out as their biggest problem eventually. the afd sports a public political image which does in large parts not reflect her actual political agenda. currently the afd dwells on a lot of lower class/middle class supporters, who are not aware that they are likely to be thrown under the bus by actual reactionaries or fascists in power. this demographic will turn away sooner or later from them, adding themselves to the pool of people who never voted afd. anyway, they might win state elections next year in saxony due to the weakness of the local cdu, spd, greens, linke and freie wähler, however on federal level it seems that their rise has already come to a stall.

>Oliver Nachtweys Abstiegsgesellschaft
thanks for the tip, will have a read. it has a lot of recommendations. i haven't read politics related stuff in a long time.

>>13588
>I not expert in modern german politics, but it feels much more political theme than historical.
you are right. i apologize for kinda derailing the thread, but i wanted to reply to that specific post up there. pic unrelated, but it's historical
>>
No. 13623
441 kB, 1280 × 843
>>13616
The history of the Hanseatic league is an interesting read. Free cities within the Imperial structure commanding great influence and large trades "empires". I really wondered how one would feel as a free man in say, Lübeck, where life is far different than in the surrounding countryside. I wonder how these merchants saw themselves, and how they saw other groups of the feudal society.
>>
No. 13628
>>13623
>Free cities within the Imperial structure commanding great influence and large trades "empires"

In my first semester I had to read a monography about the herring fishery and trade in the baltic sea, the hanseatic merchants play a very important role between the 12th and 16th century. Yet the book concludes that the Hanse was more or less a group that came together because out of interest, they did not form an "empire". trade privileges have been given only to some cities in varying degrees and also only in certain times in non-hanseatic cities in Sweden e.g. the kingdoms did so to generate income via "free" trade (toll/customs). This is only for the herring trade ofc but might be similar for other goods. I also remember that the Hanse meetings were not strict when it came to attendance and such. So one could conclude that they were influential but did not really had a common goal. They were clever merchants that knew how to get themselves privileges nonetheless.
>>
No. 13630
209 kB, 1170 × 638
>>13628
>Yet the book concludes that the Hanse was more or less a group that came together because out of interest, they did not form an "empire"
Yes, this is my understanding of it too, that's why I placed the word empire in quotation marks.

>This is only for the herring trade ofc but might be similar for other goods.
To my limited understading on the particular topic of Hanseatic operating structures, I would assume the Hanseatic League would function in a similar manner to other merchant guilds. That is to say, their revenues would not be exclusively out of the trading per se, but the entire work of logistics of transporting goods around and maintaning contacts, setting up a proto-banking system, etc.

>So one could conclude that they were influential but did not really had a common goal. They were clever merchants that knew how to get themselves privileges nonetheless.
This interests me, as I'm not sure how these trade privileges would fluctuate over time, how extensive certain laws and trading rights would go to furthering their own position and how severely restricted in operations, at a different epoch or zone, they could be.

Do you know of any good books on the topic in English? I don't know how well I understand The Hansa, since I don't know how much they are comparable to merchant guilds operating within a "normal" kingdom.
>>
No. 13631
>>13630
Maybe one could describe the Hansa as a network?

>Do you know of any good books on the topic in English?

No, sorry.

>This interests me, as I'm not sure how these trade privileges would fluctuate over time, how extensive certain laws and trading rights would go to furthering their own position and how severely restricted in operations, at a different epoch or zone, they could be.

For the herring trade there was a period when they had their own area with own laws, the trading was regulated certain times of the year only e.g. but no regulation on the amounts of fish by the kingdom within the operational area , which also decided over the privileges, yet they also wanted the Hansa trading at their areas because that generated income. Afaik it all stopped with proper taxation by the kingdom, which made giving out privileges useless.
The monography examines, Rügen, South Sweden, Denmark and south of Norway. Always focuses on the important market places. And it all varies over time and in extent.
>>
No. 13636
54 kB, 670 × 494
3,2 MB, 2360 × 2052
483 kB, 1134 × 1198
1,0 MB, 1978 × 1413
>>13631
>Maybe one could describe the Hansa as a network?
That really is a good way of putting it. A network of traders, and the associated workers, in several cities, specializing in several markets who maintain varying degrees of allegiance to the same banner.
In the mediterranean, this very much is the case with the case of the Genoese traders.
One of my favourite things about the evolution of the Genoese is that this group of mediterranean traders would become the primary financial group in the area. The combination of having information networks, a knowledge in trade and the following concepts of investment/return/interest, key positions in the political structure, etc. would lead them to become the heads of finance in the mediterranean sea after the glory era of Mediterranean trade republics had passed.

This is a short interesting read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_of_Saint_George

Also the Holstentor Gate is really cool
>>
No. 13652
>>13636

Wait, what is the relation to the Holstentor? I've visited it and the exhibition inside is purely about military technology of the time (weaponry, torture devices, etc). Unless I've missed a room there was nothing in there about either trade or networks like the Hanse.
>>
No. 13658
80 kB, 800 × 600
>>13652
Well, it was built by the Hanseatic league as part of a fortification around the city of Lübeck, which as their capital.
>>
No. 13663
>>13584
Epic, just pretending as if there isn't a massive leftist denunciation cult in Germany against anyone and anything that is slightly more right-leaning (just remember about the labor union paper giving tips on how to ger your right wing co-worker fired :DDDD). And just pretending as if the teachers (not to mention the press, cultural industry, huge parts of the german church, the government, the intellectual caste, state sponsored media) weren't mostly leftist.
This kind of hypocrisy is so disgusting to me.
>>
No. 13664
>>13663
Okay, sorry for the heavily emotional response. I'm a bit hungover.
Maybe let's just take another route. I sometimes wonder if todays leftists can even imagine what it feels like to have to be careful about what they say in public. Leninist-marxists, friends and followers of one of the most brutal and bloody ideologies can roam the street freely and don't have to fear any kind of repression. They can meet-up in uni and larp planning the communist revolution - nobody gives a shit. But beware if a politician or police representative wants to discuss if it wouldn't be a good idea to close the borders, a massive "antifascist" protest begins, antifas (I'm not even talking about leftist students, those we're quite civil in their demonstration - no, I'm talking about the friendly fellows with nose rings, green mohawk haircut, leather jacket and beer bottle and some people uniformed in black) storm the place, enter the stage, cheer their slogans, no discussion happens and the university director himself comes over to tell the awaiting listeners to go home because the discussion couldn't take place. You see, this was the point where I snapped and realized that what they're telling me was: no, you're not allowed to discuss this, if you plan any resistance against our infantile powertripping, you are a nazi.
>>
No. 13665 Kontra
>>13664
>Maybe let's just take another route. I sometimes wonder if todays leftists
Now it gone too far. I not follow this disscution that much, but this looks like badly covered pol shit, that crealy not suposed to be here. I wonder, if it that "inflitration" metioned by german poster from kohl, a assume that this is what it is. Poltards of any kind is last thing I want to see on EC, and espessialy in hostory thread.
>>
No. 13666 Kontra
>>13665
Gonna have to go with the Russian on this one, these were a series of /rvss/ tier posts.
>>
No. 13667
138 kB, 1247 × 668
143 kB, 800 × 1125
1,6 MB, 1280 × 715
Somebody can tell more about Second Mexican Empire and in general, French interventions in Mexico? Where I can get more concretic at least english-language historical sources on it, like mooks that desribe this time and events for someone woh isn't very familiar with Mexican history? How Second Mexican empire affected Civil war in USA, since I readed somewhere that it had good relationships with confederates? How this events affected France?
I onlt know a little bit that with end of civil war, french stop support of this and withdraw their troops from mexico, which lead to actual fall of this empire since french support of Napoleoon III was only thing that kept this short living monarchy from fall. It will be interesting to read something about person of Emperor Maximilian I too.
>>
No. 13668
2,4 MB, 1403 × 1890
>>13667
Their relationship with the Confederacy rang a few bells in Washington but it was never really considered to be a legitimate threat. There were a few calls to send troops to the border and fewer still to even launch an offensive campaign but the place was falling apart almost as bad the US was at that point so they didn't come to anything. The most relevant thing was them using ports in Tamaulipas to export reb cotton.

In the west, the Hispanics were actually fairly pro-Union with the New Mexico Volunteers having one of the highest concentrations of Hispanic soliders and officers in the war. Some parts of southern and eastern New Mexico Territory were pro-Confederate, specifically pro-Texan but a lot of the state had their grievances from their long-standing territorial dispute with Texas galvanised by the invasion. Some of the New Mexico officers like Lt. Col. Chavez were even veterans of the Mexican officer corps who swore allegiance to the US. So a Texas-friendly Mexican Empire probably couldn't have stirred up too much trouble there even if they'd wanted to. They had neither the organisation or the support for it and so their impact on the Civil War was minimal.
>>
No. 13669
>>13665
>>13666
Well, believe it or not but I've been here since the very first second and I never visit pol or kohl. Thing is only I've very rarely if ever posted about german politics here but this time I couldn't quite endure the outright leftist propaganda. I'd rather like to keep this discussion out from here at all but I couldn't this time. I see though that our perceptions of what's happening are so heavily different that there is not much to discuss.
I don't really discuss it anymore in real life as well anymore for the same reason, it just doesn't make sense any more.

>>13584 mentioned that he finds the situation depressing and plans to emigrate after getting his degree. Well, I have no problem with that as I am pretty happy about the change we're facing here. But I don't want to spark any further political controversy, as this is not what I visit this page for. I usually stick to non-political threads anyways.

However what I mentioned in >>13664 actually happened (it was a public discussion in uni, where politicians of all bigger parties were invited, leftists brought it down because of one AfD guy) and I was around, if you want I can link you the newspaper article. The image of those growling and grunting ugly punks cheering about their success while I just sat there for nothing burned itself into my mind. As I didn't know what would happen next I've waited a couple of minutes and hoped that there was a voice of reason somewhere stopping those cavemen but there was none, the authority just let them bring down the discussion.
>>
No. 13671 Kontra
>>13588
>>13665
>>13666
Well, I'm sorry for hijacking the thread with my post. I guess you're right that I probably should have started this discussion in another thread (if at all).
But for me there were still some interesting points made, even though most were not so related to history in the end.
Maybe we can just leave it at that for now.
>>
No. 13706
http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-ii-who-did-it/

I'm now convinced that LBJ and Israel killed Kennedy. tl;dr LBJ was being sidelined and betrayed by the Kennedys so they could dump him for the 1964 election, and Israel was butthurt that Kennedy was trying to interfere with their US lobby and nuclear program.
>>
No. 13714
>>13706
I dunno. I personally think that the JFK assassination was a multi-party job. There were plenty of interested parties with some of the means but not all. Makes sense that a few powerful individuals or groups would work together for a common benefit.
>>
No. 13728 Kontra
>>13665
Butthurt sissy, tear apart her argument if it's so bad

(User was banned for this post)

>>
No. 13734 Kontra
>>13728
>Butthurt sissy, tear apart her argument if it's so bad
This is kind the quality of posting we don't want here
>>
No. 13737
>>13714
i've read years ago on heise an interesting theory which only involved a couple cia big bosses of the time as main suspects for the murder, unfortunately i can't find the article anymore (it was in german anyway). the author had done a decent amount of research and what he came up with sounded all quite plausible. jfk may not have been on good terms with parts of the united states' "deep state". he was about to introduce some restructuring within the secret service apparatus over there, so his assassination was probably not about international or american politics, but more about personal careers. which seems plausible to me, since nothing changed substantially in international politics after jfk's death.
>>
No. 13743
95 kB, 748 × 341
>>13737
>on heise
>involved a couple big via bosses
It sounds like this:
https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Die-magische-Kugel-des-Allen-Dulles-3376471.html
An article about The Devil's Chessboard, a biography of one-time CIA director Alan Dulles.
Sorry if I'm derailing the History thread with >>1225 things
>>
No. 13757
>>13714
The LBJ/Israel theory is itself already what you describe, and implicitly assumes mob, CIA, and anti-Castro nut collusion.

>>13737
He had a lot of enemies for a lot of reasons, and it's not hard to see how there was mass support in the CIA for the assassination.

But the huge cover-up of the Warren Commission - and the murder of Bobby Kennedy along with its own cover-up - demand that there be a wider conspiracy. One would expect a president following an assassination attempt to want to uncover the truth of it, so that he wouldn't be at risk.
>>
No. 13760
>>13743
nice, this is it. i recommend you deepl.com/translator for translation into english, deepl's ai does usually a better job than google translator for me. also, too bad kompa doesn't publish as much as he used to.

>derailing
the cia is already releasing documents from that era herself and archeologists are excavating and examining artifacts from cold war times. jfk's assassination is in the realm of history, not in the realm of politics anymore, as is the whole cold war era in my opinion. even when there are certainly politicians, journalists etc. alive still who are not interested in research nor releasing data & facts about specific events in that era.
>>
No. 13772
>>13760
>jfk's assassination is in the realm of history, not in the realm of politics anymore, as is the whole cold war era in my opinion.
i think it's still in the phase of shifting towards that. there are still some on-going things linked to that era; e.g. the propaganda-project to paint conspiracy theorists as crazy (thou, some documents about this have been released as well).
i often wish we could just do a hard cut full disclosure and deal with the things happening directly instead of waiting until it is history.
>>
No. 13813
So I learnt there was White Serbia and White Croatia.
Given that White Russia still exists to this day, I wonder - maybe White has some meaning in slavs when applied to land?
>>
No. 13822
>>13813
Well our Belorussia is for different reasons.
About Croatians if I remember correctly, this was name of the tribe... and if not mistaken, not connected to modern Croatians. Or I mistaken something.
>>
No. 13827
>>13813

As I understand in ancient slavic languages color attribute (especially black, white and red) as part of a name for a tribe, or people or region/land refers to cardinal directions, in case of White Croats it would mean the Western Croats. (western in relation to where they lived before)

>>13822
>not connected to modern Croatians.

Well the first Croats entering the roman-mediterranean realms of today's Croatia were probably such tribal Croats splitting from the greater White "Croatian" tribe, so one cannot say there is no connection. But the connection is basically just the ethnonym itself, and the rest is mostly lost in archaic history.
>>
No. 13828
>>13760
I've been thinking about what separates a reasonable Conspiracy Theory from proper History. I think you've pinned it down, that the most important differentiation (apart from time) is politics.  When an event is sufficiently distant to limit the contemporary ramifications of any subsequently revealed conspiracy, then it becomes History. Once that occurs, whether it is in 25 years or 50, Conspiracy Theorists  are no longer radicals trying to uncover the crimes of sitting officials, but Historians left to assemble timelines and probabilities from a mountain of documents. As you say, the official JFK files are being released, which is a fair indicator that we are making that transition. This reasoning doesn't apply to all Conspiracies, as some of them are perpetually renewed by theorizing long-past actions which are in turn subject to modern coverups..  

>>13772
>i often wish we could just do a hard cut full disclosure and deal with the things happening directly instead of waiting until it is history
Agreed. The truth is  more valuable when it can be applied directly, rather than used as an object-lesson by whatever historian manages to piece it together. 
>>
No. 14035
737 kB, 1000 × 898
2,8 MB, 1500 × 1196
808 kB, 1000 × 655
1,3 MB, 3351 × 2251
That feel when they're never coming back. It hurts inside. For those not in the know, we used to have an actual Fleet Air Arm that had fighter-bomber jocks and not just rotorheads. We used to be stronk and blue water with carrier-provided force projection and shiet and now the best we have is a glorified helo carrier (it is still a pretty fucking cool design with really awesome operational capability but it's not aircraft carrier cool, you know?).

I have a massive hardon for carriers, and they're actually pretty useful to us considering we're trying to be a player in the Asia-Pacific region. I wish the government would do something cool with the tax money like give us a new carrier instead of spending it on spying on us.
>>
No. 14038
>>14035
Why the fuck don't you have carriers?
>>
No. 14041
195 kB, 1500 × 1000
123 kB, 1280 × 957
>>14038
When the HMAS Melbourne got sent for scrapping in the 80s (handing the design to China in the process), we were considering buying a replacement from Britain. That fell apart for various reasons, the biggest one being Britain deciding to not scale down their carrier fleet after the Falklands. Then it was decided to not have a replacement for a few reasons, expense being a big one. The fact that we weren't really in any real conflict was another. ANZUS was another one. A huge amount of our military strategy is to let the US use us as a forward base and let the USN do the heavy lifting in a naval conflict.

We then changed doctrine into more of a green water fleet focused on territorial integrity and transitioned into a majority cruiser/destroyer force. Nowadays the closest we have is our flagship, the HMAS Canberra. It's part helo carrier and part amphibious assault ship. There was some talk earlier this year about converting the Canberra into something F-35B capable but it was shot down on expense grounds and the fact that it wasn't necessary. Personally I think that with the Chinese naval buildup, and their claims over local oceans getting aggressive, even a light carrier like a converted Canberra would be useful, if only in the role of escort carrier rather than fleet carrier like the USN can support. Plus we saw in the Pacific War that there is an arseload of open ocean in our region and carriers are better than cruisers at patrolling open ocean.
>>
No. 14045
>>14041
Yeah due to China I would rate your country as a laughable joke at this point. The whole "Five Eyes" concept is a joke, Canada's useless, NZ is non-existent, and your security is so full of holes it's ridiculous. The fact that your whole doctrine is to basically just let USA use you as a base is ridiculous. What if we're distracted or can't get there in time? You're on the other freaking side of the planet. Tell your idiot politicians to stop wasting their time on banning porn and start buying carriers. I would recommend three of them. And maintain resource sovereignty ffs.
>>
No. 14046
>>14045
That's why we let you station troops here in peacetime. You'll come for your own men, even if you won't for us.
>le wily convict

This is also history at this point, we can't even hang on to a PM for a full term these days. Haven't had one sit a full term in over a decade.

If you want to continue contemporary Australian politics, I'll be glad to regale you with tales of political incompetence in the news threda.
>>
No. 14257 Kontra
>>14045
Kc tier
>>
No. 14301
47 kB, 800 × 590
131 kB, 1200 × 656
2,2 MB, 2560 × 1920
Here's a wee something to honour our new Egyptian fren.

The HMS Nith which later became the the Egyptian Frigate Doimat, and in turn the last ship to be sunk in a conventional gun engagement between surface combatants. While her end is kind of anti-climatic really, it was also kind of ebin. A piddly little frigate whose main guns were used mainly as ack ack on the light cruiser she was trying to kill actually kicked it off with the first shot after being ordered to stop :-DDD

I mention it because I actually used to volunteer for a while at the HMAS Diamantina over here, and that's her only remaining (whole) sister ship. Nothing fancy here, just a neat little bit of topical trivia for you.
>>
No. 14339
>>14301
I just saw your post!

well, our navy isnt as reputable as the british navy, we havent even had much naval battles in our history - not that I am aware of. The only naval "battle" I am aware of was the sinking of the Eilat destroyer - a Z class destroyer - back in 1967 via a Komar-class missile boat.

Hey, we stuck HMMWVs on a newly acquired french frigate, and apparently it works :DDD
>>
No. 14348
>>14339
I mean that's not uncommon and it's not dissimilar to what a lot of better funded systems do anyway. There are multiple examples of even the US jury rigging existing systems to do jobs they weren't designed for. The Sea Sparrow is a very good example of this being an AAM turned into a SAM. Same thing happened in Israel and Norway has done a similar thing with the AIM-120 with the UAE placing an order for the same system. It might look bad, and not be as effective as an integrated weapon system, but you know what they say. A musket's obsolete until someone shoots you with it.
>>
No. 14373
>>7561
Yes, the Germans were working on tanks before but Hitler improved the process by giving it his support. Even when they were not allowed to own tanks the Germans would send officers to Sweden to examine theirs, study English tank related tactical and technical manuals and run exercises using mock tanks.
>>
No. 14564
144 kB, 396 × 227
467 kB, 1280 × 945
Where can one find in depth material on the Russian colonization of the lands east of Muscovy?

The books on Russia I managed to find will gloss over it for the most part and mention a few examples that have a greater relevancy. Where does one find the tales of slavs taming the tribal peoples of the east?
>>
No. 14587
>>14564
i can recommend vladimir arsenyev. his books about his geographic explorations in the russian far east are a great read. there's a movie adoption of one of them by akira kurosawa too.

>>14041
it's probably a dumb question, but i always wondered how these carriers survive tough, stormy weather conditions/cyclonic windstorms with all the planes on deck etc. i mean sure they are huge, however i know the atlantic can be really really wild. i've only witnessed a mid-sized storm on the coastline once, but the size of the incoming waves was already impressive. i can only imagine what waves an actual cyclone can produce.
>>
No. 14589
>>14587
Generally planes won't be operating in rough weather anyway, they will be stowed inside or maybe lashed to the deck.

Not him by the way.
>>
No. 14699
>>14589
>they will be stowed inside
i see. i was wondering whether all aircraft would take off and rise up to a high altitude not affected by storm.

found some footage of cruise ships struggling with angry sea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31cZdeVnV-0
>>
No. 14718
>>13668
So, this "empire" was very unstable state? How much actually it controled it's territory, or it is was just guy placed in capital by french troops, and it has not real power, only some kind of control in areas with loyal to this emperor troops and french army? Since Hispanics was generaly pro-union it sounds that majority of mexicans hated this new emperor, which is kind of obvious, but still.

>They had neither the organisation or the support for it and so their impact on the Civil War was minimal.
It be interesting if they have, since if so, it'd mean that France entered this war and it is not more civil. Hovever, it is not history questions about "what if"
>>
No. 14740
>>14718
Louis-Napoleon was actually quite enthusiastic about intervening in favor of the Confederacy. But France at this time was Britain's bitch sidekick, and the British elite were smart enough to stay out of the war even if most of them were sympathetic to the Confederacy (especially Palmerston).
>>
No. 14954
4,000-year-old board game discovered in floor of shelter used by Bronze Age cattle herders
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-14/4000-year-old-board-game-bronze-age-hounds-and-jackals/10622674

Interesting things - in Azerbaijan was discovered markings on the stones. This looks like it was board game, played 4000 years ago. Similar ones for example known was popular in egypt. This version looks like was played by nomads

4,400-year-old tomb discovered in Egypt

Same time was discovered tomb from mid III-centuary B.C. in really good shape that belongs to a high priest
there is offical twitter posts with photos:
https://twitter.com/AntiquitiesOf/status/1074048565230665728
https://twitter.com/AntiquitiesOf/status/1074045868150583298
https://twitter.com/AntiquitiesOf/status/1073949130572087303

Antiquities Minister Khaled al-Anani said the tomb had been discovered at the Saqqara archaeological site and was from the 5th dynasty of the pharaohs, which ruled roughly 4,400 years ago.
The tomb belonged to a royal purification priest known as "Wahtye," al-Anani said in a statement. Inscriptions suggested the priest had served during the reign of King Nefer-Ir-Ka-Re and was the king's supervisor and inspector of the holy boat.
>>
No. 14957
>>
No. 15005
45 kB, 700 × 467
707 kB, 1200 × 796
52 kB, 492 × 334
106 kB, 585 × 583
>>14954
Interesting that as early as the late Bronze Age, the Caucasus had a level of trade with Egypt via other nations that would make an Egyptian game show up in Azerbaijan.

I was always under the impression that the Caucasus was fairly isolated, even thouhh they are very close to significant trade routes. It is impressive that cattle herders would play a game invented in Egypt.

Although I suppose it is entirely possible it's just a similar game and Dr Crist is just assuming things with little evidence.
>>
No. 15010
>>15005
>I was always under the impression that the Caucasus was fairly isolated, even thouhh they are very close to significant trade routes.
Without trying to disrespect the people living there today, I guess the area made a perfect strongpoint for groups raiding those trade routes. So it possibly wasn't directly trade that brought the game to those cattle herders.
>>
No. 15028
>>15010
the caucasus was early home to a number of different interesting cultures. mining and wielding bronze was likely developed there around the same time but independently from mesopotamia.
metal artifacts from the caucasus were discovered in uruk and horse tack bits from the caucasus were found in the alps, so the products of these peoples were apparently traded along the danube as well.
i learned about it in an archeology book about economics/trade in the alps during the early/late neolithic.
>>
No. 15029
>>15005
The Maykop culture, active around 3000bc, is noted for its relatively high level of social complexity, and apparently strong cultural and economic links to Mesopotamian civilization in the south (mediated through northern outposts of that civilization in eastern Anatolia).

What really caused the decline of the North Caucasus was probably the rise of nomadic pastorialism in the steppe. Once the Indo-Europeans invented the Mongol model, it would be very difficult for any kind of advanced society to permanently exist on the immediate border of the steppe. You get a few statelets in the more defensible areas, but they never lasted long.

The south, of course, remained relatively advanced to the present day. The biggest cultural and linguistic upheaval was the Turkification of what is now Azerbaijan.
>>
No. 15034
185 kB, 539 × 606
>>15029
>statelets
ahaha how qt. never heard that before. is that an actual common word for small states?
>>
No. 15037
>>15028
Since I did not read any books about mining in neolithical Caucasus myself, it was, like I said, a guess. Not the best maybe, but also not completely impossible I think.
>>
No. 15041
>>15034
Lol yes it is
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statelet
>Teutonic statelets
>Baltic statelets
>>
No. 15060
>>15037
my error, i actually wanted to reply >>15005

>>15041
noice, i see it has some trolling potential, too :3
>>
No. 15093 Kontra
>>15060
>it has some trolling potential

definitely :3
>>
No. 15355
57 kB, 800 × 581
Interesting discussion of the influence of cultural psychology in history, specifically how Catholicism and the ban on consanguineous marriages relates to individualist Western culture.

I think it has an effect, but if you look at this map, it really doesn't line up with early penetration of Catholicism being the main explanatory factor for Western individualism. Much more important to me seems to be the influence of Germanic and Magyar cultures.

But that begs another question - it seems like a plausible explanation for what's going on in Western and Northern Europe, but why does Slavic influence not coincide with individualism? By all accounts the ancient Slavs were even more egalitarian than other barbarian groups. Similarly, the Magyars are the only steppe nomad-influenced culture that seems to be highly individualistic.

I can think of two explanations. The first, that you need a combination of egalitarian barbarian culture + eventual adoption of Catholicism - adopting any other religion for some reason squashes individualist attitudes. The second, that there was something very specific about Germanic and, apparently, Magyar culture that led to them having a very strong individualist influence down the ages. I think the first is more likely, or perhaps that there was something unique to Germanic culture, with the case of Hungary being an odd outlier that would be explained by contingent circumstances. I don't know why Magyars would stand out from other steppe nomads, but the only other examples of (relatively) demographically dense forest-zone barbarians in Eurasian history are Slavs and Jurchens/Manchus, and cultural similarities between these groups would naturally be less than among different nomad groups across the huge cultural spread zone that is the Eurasian steppe.
>>
No. 15376
>>15355
I don't understand how could you present the map without the methodology and then assume it's correct. How do you mesure and define individualism? Does showing vague psychological concepts in numbers even makes sense?
>>
No. 15378
118 kB, 800 × 581
>>15376
Good point. I took it for granted as I trust and respect the guy who I took it from, but looking at the actual source, it's made by a random person from a forum called eupedia. He says it's based on work by Geert Hofstede, and presumably he's working from a source that provides data on the national level, but with gaps in coverage in Eastern Europe. Pretty sure the data he used is the same on this website: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/product/compare-countries/

So, all subnational gradients, as well as in much of Eastern Europe, is just subjective bullshit by the autist who made the graphic. But at some level it's based on real data.

>Does showing vague psychological concepts in numbers even makes sense?
You can do this properly by coding responses to particular questions. If people in one country say that loyalty to family is more than loyalty to country at X frequency, that's data that can be compared to another country. For now I will assume that the source of the information is valid, but I will look into it in more detail later.

Unfortunately, the particular graphic I posted above is highly misleading. I made a new one using the same source of information. Please forgive the poor production values. All countries on the map with available info were colored in, and I also did 9 countries that are not on the map (Anglosphere and Sinosphere + India).
>>
No. 15401
>>15355
You're going entirely too far with this theory. Levels of individualism have long been established as the result of industrialisation and the depersonalisation of the state which is why scores broadly follow Europe's industrial heartlands. It was central to the idea's of Tönnies and even to a degree Marx for example.

East of the Elbe is it's own hell for different reasons to do with serfdom and shitty geography.
Hungarians from what I've observed just passionately hate one-another.

>>15378
>Ireland any different to the UK

hue.
>>
No. 15434
Was Britain a Republic, after Cromwell had Charles executed.
I never really thought about this, as had always thought it was a parliamentary monarchy.
Being as the monarchy is ceremonial.
Also what are the definitions of what a republic are, isn't every country a republic in that case, outside of shithole countries.
>>
No. 15435
>>15401
>Hungarians from what I've observed just passionately hate one-another.
That's true, and it has multiple reasons.

1.) Everyone has an agenda. If you are working under someone, and you have a different vision, then you'll do all sorts of underhanded tricks and digging. To fuck the one in charge over for your personal gain.
2.)"Dögöljön meg a szomszéd tehene!" "May the cow of the neighbour die!"
This is a pseudo-marxist economic doctrine based on jealousy. Everyone should be equal. In practice this means everyone should be 1 forint poorer than me. If my neighbour has one cow more than me, I'm not going to work harder, so that I'll get a cow for myself too, I'll wish for the destruction of his other cow.
Anyone who has a cow less than me is a lazy asshat who deserves to die.
3.)We are a nation of 10 million politicians, football coaches, economists, physicists, doctors, mathematicians, teachers, psychologists.
Even the last fucking bydlo on the street has an uneducated, dumb opinion about how "Everything should be!". "If I ran this place it's be richer than the west!"
4. Culture of backstabbing.
Our nobility practised this egoistic, self-centred, lunatic way of gaining power for a thousand years. This of course seeped into our lower classes too, and it got later intensified during communism.
5. Communism. Under communism, you could exert your hatred on your perceived enemies (Fellow proles and bydlos), by simply reporting them to the secret police. Then the government would report you for your goof behaviour.

So yes, we hate each other. But if a foreigner were to say this, then the entirety of Hungary would respond as a single entity, one man with one soul, saying "IT'S NOT TRUE!"
>>
No. 15438
>>15434
Constitutional monarchies are regularly not called republics, even if they operate identically. Republican parties and movements in Anglo countries outside of the USA all intend to abolish the monarchy.

"Representational democracy" is the best catch-all that includes all functional first-world countries, regardless of the theoretical basis of their government.
>>
No. 15443
367 kB, 594 × 4673
>This is a pseudo-marxist economic doctrine based on jealousy. Everyone should be equal. In practice this means everyone should be 1 forint poorer than me. If my neighbour has one cow more than me, I'm not going to work harder, so that >I'll get a cow for myself too, I'll wish for the destruction of his other cow.
>Anyone who has a cow less than me is a lazy asshat who deserves to die.
I'm pretty sure that's not even remotely Marxism. If anything that sounds like a bunch of aristrocrats, or people who wish they were aristocrats.
>>
No. 15445
>>15443
It's all in the name of equality :^)
>>
No. 15447
>>15445
Hungarianism:
You have one cow. You poison your neighbor's cow and then laugh at him.
>>
No. 15449
>>15447
More like:
You have one cow. Your neighbour has two.
You badmouth him constantly and hope his business fails. Your other neighbour who has no cows does the same.
>>
No. 15559
>>15435
>We are a nation of 10 million politicians, football coaches, economists, physicists, doctors, mathematicians, teachers, psychologists.
pan-turanists are right, we are truly same people indeed.
>>
No. 15983
How much 'pure' history can we actually know? A lot of it is so subject to interpretation of events rather than the events themselves and it makes it hard to uncover truths in a sense. The easiest example of this is the stab in the back theory/myth. If the axis wins WWII then the stab in the back is true history. They lost so it isn't. Is it folly to conclude that the answer is in the middle? If so, what's the point of history?
>>
No. 15985
>>15983
>conclude it's in the middle
This is a logical fallacy in it's own right. And regarding the Axis, while it is also quite well known how blatantly evil the allies could be, the overwhelming cruelty and sadism of the Axis i.e. Imperial Japan and the Nazis, is one rare case of being extremely well documented. This does in fact make WWII a rarity in that we can largely know a great deal of what happened. The only twist is what people tend to ignore, but it is recent enough that we know the truth. For instance, America and iirc the British sent ships full of Jewish refugees back to Nazi held territory. Funnily enough nobody mentions this fact and so they make bullshit films about being the heroes saving the Jews and giving everybody freedom etc when we also know the CIA provided cover for importing those very Nazis some of whom possibly had a hand in torturing and murdering those Jewish inmates.

The difference is here we know the actual history. The documents have not been lost, the people who went through that war left actual video testimonies of their experiences, which is not something you can really find in any other war.

When you go further back the problem being there are no witnesses and there is spotty documentation. The Spaniard invasion and genocide of South America is not really well known and only told from their side to such an extent I question whether all those South American kingdoms truly practiced mass sacrifice as described in the codexes of priests. Which is a greater shame because they had some weird unique writing system using string that is now lost forever, which is much of the problem. We do not have the personal diaries of troops fighting Alexander "the Great's" army for instance, or true recorded accounts of the mongols or life in medieval Europe etc. This has probably also made the bible so important because it is the one surviving codex that keeps getting passed on, regardless of how much blatant bullshit is in there regarding history, much like the Quran.

So in other words yes I largely agree that most history remains totally unknown and a complete mystery despite the false confidence of story tellers repeating some detail without question across the ages. I furthermore predict that you all are living in a an actual dark age. Think back, how many family films were on projectors or 8 tracks? We have some on VHS. Who even has a VHS player anymore, let alone the technology to play earlier things? Or what of how fragile they are and how quickly they decay? This is in fact a huge problem for the federal government https://archives.ncdcr.gov/government/digital-records/digital-records-policies-and-guidelines
In case anyone didn't know, we have massive underground bunkers for the national archives which includes things like the original film of the Canada assassination, original recordings that kind of stuff, none of which is going to last. I would predict in fact that our reliance and utter dependence upon electronic ever changing technology will leave this era with no real records behind. All of it will be lost anyway with constant change and advancement in peace time, but should any catastrophic event happen like global economic collapse, solar flair, new world war, anyone blasting EMP air burst and so on, the technology and records will all be lost.

I predict that we are entering a dark age of mankind. All the booms will be burned and only digital copies will be left. There will be no paper trails. Not even digital ghosts. That is why I advise you to do as I do, and memorize the textures of buildings and monuments as you walk past the Ancient America. Nearly none of the Romans ever thought ahead or bothered to think they were living in present day "ancient" Rome, or that in 2000 years one of the few things left is discussing essentially bathroom scribbles on a magical thing called internet, or that the idea of someone ethnically "Roman" does not exist.

Likewise with the concept of Britishness, which is itself a mutt island with an amalgamated language and an empire come and gone.

My greatest advise to you is to use stone if you want something to be remembered. Almost all others get washed away suddenly through time, by decay or by accidents like the Brazilian history museum fire, or destruction of Alexandria.
>>
No. 16010
>>15983
The past is a foreign country. History today is interpretation, explanation and concluding from all kind of strands to puzzle. But it never really ends. Some things are more or less provable. Like the existence of the GDR and it's head of states.
You can always think different of history and come to other results, too. The truth is metaphysical as it cannot be mathematical in history

I see academic history as a gatekeeper when it comes to history but many people know shit about it so it does not work.

You can read: David Lowenthal - Possessed by the past. It deals with the difference between heritage (personal normie history, continuity and imageboard tier history dealings) and history as academic discipline that knows it's limits and operates on that.

Btw. the back stab myth is WW1? Dolchstoßlegende?

>>15985
>left actual video testimonies of their experiences

Video and Photos show certain angles and are therefore sources that needs to be treated as equally sceptical as texts.
>>
No. 16012
>>16010
The easiest example of this is the stab in the back theory/myth. If the axis wins WWII then the stab in the back is true history.

No, it's just the official state doctrine in that case. Of course that can be all kind of non-sense, but it has nothing to do with science. That's why freedom of art, science and research are so important.

>They lost so it isn't.

it isn't because it isn't.

> the answer is in the middle?

No, the answer is based on factual evidence. .

>what's the point of history?

Understanding our past.

>>16010

>History today is interpretation, explanation and concluding

Of course.
>>
No. 16013
>>16012
>Of course.

I wanted to state that these things have nothing to do with a truth in the metaphysical sense which the American seems to desire.
>>
No. 16014
>>15983
They probably would not have believed it was still true after they won, just like the Allies these days don't believe the Germans in WW1 made soap out of people or bayoneted babies. It's propaganda to ignite the masses at the time.

But yes, there is allot of subjectivity in history as in everything else, the idea is to sort through this.
>>
No. 16015
110 kB, 400 × 692
>>16014
>just like the Allies these days don't believe the Germans in WW1 made soap out of people or bayoneted babies

I would put nothing past the evil mind of the German people.
>>
No. 16021
>>16015
So, perhaps to be meme tier retarded discussion let us find the perfect combination for the worst kind of autistic murderous psychotic degenerate. We already know that mixing a whole country worth of French with German ethnicity will produce baby rapists, possibly due to the psychotic autism of the German and utter depravity of the Frenchman, or the Zetas tier dismemberment of mixing Spanish with Aztec, but I think we can do even better.

What would happen when you make a nation entirely out of a German/Japanese admixture? How about Danish and Anglo? How about Guatamalan and Austrian? Can we buy an island and experiment on people for concretic results?
>>
No. 16023
>>16015
That was just propaganda to horrify the yanks.
>>
No. 18503
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_China_(1915%E2%80%931916)

Somebody can recommend litetature or sources of this short living attempts to make China "empire" in 1915? And about this "Five Races Under One Union" period
>>
No. 18506
>>18503
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17535654.2012.670512

Basically anything you can find that is not chinese in the search engine of my universities library

>Hongxian Emperor

Gives one result in my universities search engine.not related with china Even the dates 1915 and 1916 + china don't really give any results of interest to you. It's either not researched (in the west or on english), unimportant or historically not proven.
>>
No. 18511
>>18503
>Five Races Under One Union
This sounds rather like a slogan of 大日本帝國 (Japanese Empire) right before WW2. Maybe it was 滿洲國 (Manchukuo).
>>
No. 18517
>>18506
I will try to search, thanks

>>18511
Well I just quoting wikipedia article in this case
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Races_Under_One_Union
>>
No. 18572
>>18503
I wonder why this Russian desires to learn more about attempts to establish an Imperial rule during a failed Republic.
>>
No. 18573
>>18572
What if he wantsto have fun?
>>
No. 18576
>>18573
Don't we have a Russian here who dreams himself the next Stalin or Lenin or Putin or something? Iirc we have a poster who thinks in himself it is his destiny to save Russia from itself.
>>
No. 18578
>>18576
It's not me
I'am Pan-east slavic but I against disktatrship and nationalism

>>18572
I'am russian who want learn more about china history
>>
No. 18579
>>18578
Also interested in obscure short-lived sthates that nobody give a fuck. Short lived 2nd Mexican Empire, 1917 republic of russia, chian empire in 1915-1916 - such things always interests me because in some ways they are something fresh, unusual from regular more known histroic states.
>>
No. 18648
>>8128
>benefits from grains consumption
error
>>
No. 18653
>>18648

>making an increasing population growth possible

>not a benefit
>>
No. 18783
>>18653
I'm guessing part of what he means is grains aren't actually that nutritious. Although I recently discovered contrary to expectations that apparently salmon was peasant food
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeVcey0Ng-w
That's a pretty sturdy looking meal tbh. I also vaguely recall there were some other drawbacks to us switching to a grain diet but I forget what. Obviously though over a long enough timeline it can't actually be argued if one is "good" or "bad" per se because eventually people will adapt, like our adaptation with lactase.
>>
No. 18791
>>18783

He's of course correct, as in the nutritious value
that a portion grains has being inferior to a portion
of average hunter-gatherer's food (let's assume meat and
berries for instance). But as you have shown with your
link not all the delicious stuff (salmon) vanished
overnight just only because there was an additional source
of carbohydrates available.

What really mattered of course was that thanks to
agriculture a higher population per square kilometer could be
(and had to be) supported, even (as has been the case some times)
at the price of deteriorating health and average life expectancy
of the individual.

This alone would put all surrounding not agricultural societies
at a permanent disadvantage and most importantly at a permanently
increasing disadvantage.
>>
No. 18804
>>18791
If you mean winning by sheer weight of numbers then yeah sure I guess, but cities also have two huge disadvantages: disease spreads like wildfire (and fire too in fact), and siege tactics, especially when both combined. In fact these issues provided a nonstop problem for city dwellers and human society for millennia. Disease was rampant and could quickly liquidate whole cities. This became a bad enough problem to collapse empires at times.

You also have to deal with soil exhaustion. It is thought that these factors contributed to what appears like outright abandonment of several South American cities.

I think the main advantages cities offer are in long term predictable amounts of energy in food, even if the food itself is shit and the conditions terrible. On some level moving to a city due to commerce and money today is the same metric.
>>
No. 18910
1,1 MB, 3000 × 1949
I saved this image a while ago. It's an interesting little map from the Second World War era.
>>
No. 18912
>>18910
>britain long controlled afganistan
Lol, it was neutral territory between british and russian empires
But I liked how map squished way to make russia look biggest country in da world (exept mine region, it squashed to look small! Rasist!)
>>
No. 19437
145 kB, 966 × 1726
75 kB, 434 × 650
44 kB, 600 × 800
125 kB, 1115 × 1600
This is what ancient greek sculptures looked like before they started to learn
about realism from the Egytians, who opened up itself to the outside world around 650BC.
If the Egyptians under the Saite dynasty hadn't decided they want closer contacts to other
mediterranean powers/cultures we might never have seen a classic European antiquity as we know it. For some reason I wan't sufficiently aware about this connectedness of events.

Summary:

https://www.britishmuseum.org/research/online_research_catalogues/ng/naukratis_greeks_in_egypt/introduction/greek%E2%80%93egyptian_relations.aspx
>>
No. 19455
>>19437
Hmm, 650BC - this is already in era of colonisation, right before "archaic greece". It ~300 years after "dark centuries" period, so in many ways greece civilisation was not "oggga bogga tier". This is interesting period, when greece slowely turned in what we know it look in "classical greece".

>who opened up itself to the outside world around 650BC.
More like not them opened themselvs, but it was "late period" of egypt - after 3rd Intermediate Period but before they was conquered by Persia and then by Alexander the Great. What was around 650BC..? If I remember correctly only recently Psamtik I managed to unite egypt once more and remove Assyrians for quite some time.

>mediterranean powers/cultures we might never have seen a classic European antiquity as we know it
Many of culture, style and trades was Phoenicians, who domitated sea and builded colonies around middetrin sea even before greece. I think you are familira with one of their late colonies, Carthage.

But anyway, interesting pictures indeed.
>>
No. 19468
2,6 MB, 2000 × 1282
2,3 MB, 2000 × 1282
682 kB, 1804 × 1460
Before thread going down again, is anybody interested in history of Armenia?
I very interested in history of Urartu, before they was conquered by Achaemenid Empire and become known as Armena, mixed with Persians and ruled by Eruandids. I know it on basicl level, but curious if anyone can reccomend me more specific literature
>>
No. 19491
>>19468
I'd be interested in learning about it, I know literally nothing.
>>
No. 19492
1,7 MB, 1394 × 1118
16 kB, 380 × 380
62 kB, 850 × 500
1,3 MB, 1280 × 821
>>19491
Well, I can tell only on level what I know from articles and basic sources and sources that metioned it. To more easely understand this thematic, best be to have knowlege about history of states Mesopotamia region - from Ancient Shumer and to First Persian Empire, since Urartu and then Armenia will be closely connect to it.

All started when during Late Bronze Age collapse most of civilised states turned into deep shit - map on 1st picture shows major civilised powers right before this collapse. In times of 1206—1150 BC Mycenaean civilisation fallen in all greece exept Crete, from invasion of ogga-bogga tribes that after centuries will become Greeks as we know them. Egypt resisted invasions of "sea tribes" at first, in times known as "New Kingdom of Egypt", but soon it ended with "Third Intermediate Period of Egypt" which was basicly end of Egypt as any power and then it was just territory that maybe recovered for short time, but basicly controlled by others - Assyrians, Greeks, Roman empire etc. Assyria was in deep shit, at certain time non Babylon, non Assyrians basicly had no control over their lands and basicly was hidden in their cities, making Assyrian state something like modern Somali
Hittite empire was in very bad shape. Phrygian tribes that moved from Balcans finished it and all what remained become Known as Syro-Hittite states - small former provinces of empire which you may see on picture 2.
I heared somewhere that Urartu was founded when some parts of former Hittite empire joined together with Hayasa-Azzi, confederate state that existed on Armenian highland in late bronze age, before "deep shit". Then I also heared, than somewhere there was tribes of Mushki that was metioned by Assyrians but not by Hittites. Some Phrygians managed to end there, who passed thought fallen Hitti state, and as I know, they managed to develop tribal unions with Mushkis. Exept Hayasa-Azzi there was also in same region metioned states of Arme-Shupria which was also during long time in bronze age, as you may see in map 3. Both Arme-Shupria and Hayasa-Azzi often metioned as most early sources of protot-armenian civilisation.

In conclusion from what I understand, in same this location during collapse of bronze age managed to appear many new tribes, they destroyed this late bronze age states and turn them back on tribal level. Then, all this tribes creates a big tribal unions, which become known as Urartu since XIII—IX centuries BC. However, as actual state, with actual known ruler it first time metioned by Assyrians 859—844BC - Arame or Aramu, first known ruler of Urartu as united state and also prototype for legendary hero. From this time, state of Urarty become main enemy of Neo-Assyrian empire, as you can see their wars during this period on picture number 4.
>>
No. 19494
>>19492
Thanks for the interesting introduction. This looks like something indeed worth further reading into. Of course I was aware of the historical importance of the whole region, but I never knew that the Armenian territory and its inhabitants played much of a role.
>>
No. 19496
303 kB, 735 × 788
2,3 MB, 2000 × 1282
1010 kB, 800 × 520
358 kB, 1024 × 704
>>19492
Later, Urartu slowely become more and more developed and protected place. Since this region was constantly under attacks from wild tribes from north, same as regular wars with Assyrians from the south, most of towns in Urartu was well protected cities-strongholds. Fist ruler of Urartu that known from actual Utartian texts is Sarduri I, who was the son of Lutipri, and Lutipri ruled after metioned in previous post Arame. Anyway, this first Urartian texts actually on stone, which describe foundation of new walls-strongholds. On pic 1 you can see photo of remnats of wall and this text, on Assyrian language modified by Urartians

Then, from Ishpuini to Sarduri II (828BC-735BC) was golden age of Urartu - army become more adn more strong, new cities rised, nearby tribes and even states of Mannaeans which was between Urartu and Media at that time also was conquered. More than that as you can see Urarty damanged Neo-Assyrians hard, closed their trade routes to Anatolia region and also conquered all sources of Iron - which of corce in age of Iron become most imported material, so Assyrians was forced to buy iron from Urartu. During this period, more specificly during rule of Argishti I was founded city on place where modern capital of armenia is, on pic 3 you may see text about foundation, during this time it was known as Erebuni and was primary a stronghold, as it typical for Urartu.

In this late golden age times, Urartu lost some wars to Assyirians and lost controls of this important tdated routed. From 735, since times of rule of Rusa I started period of "Decline". It was not absolure decline, there was short periods of restoration, but they never achived sucsesses of golden period and basicly existed only untill Assyrians had other enemies and their new empire growed it's borders. After Cimmerian and Scythian invasions was even periods when Urartu become actual vassals of Assyria.

During rule of Rusa III there was some change for Urartu - Media with Babylon destroyed Assyria, but it not change everything that much for already poor state, where even many great cities become just small strongholds and garrisones or just abadoned. Rised Empire of Achaemenids in place of Media fastly conquered remnats of Urartu and made it thier Satrapia (region, province) Armina. During one of the rebelions in this region as part of Persia, Darius the Great placed there as Satraps to rule what latter will be known as dynasty of Eruandid dynasty. All this slowevy start histroy of state which from part of Persia latter will become Great Armenia or Armenian empire, but this is different story

On pic 4 you may see map of Neo-Assyrian Empire at their maximum, with Urartu as ther vassal. There is a lot thematics what can be learned and disscused - languages, religion, most famous city strongholds, wars and conflicts, archeticture and leaders, relationships with nearby nations adn place in history, but I not that much compitent in more concretic themes since I only started learn it closely. Before I learned it mostly as background for history of other nearby states.
>>
No. 19498
77 kB, 2000 × 1184
56 kB, 673 × 669
39 kB, 437 × 599
>>19494
Well, after fall of First Persian Empire when Alexander the Great removed it, Satrap Evrand (Orontes) II claimed himself as independed ruler. Armenian Empire and it's rulers become even more epin and powerfull shit, one of the great sometimes ally, sometimes enemy of Rome.
Sadly yeah, articles on English even on wikipedia for example is total shit, even on russian they are like 100 times more informative in places.
Even in more late periods, during Roman Imperial period it remained independed for the most part and was Ally of rome. Roman-Armenian border was first place, where after Rome stopped their expansions in IInd centuary removed most of their legions and placed only some garrisons (then rome will do for the most part it on all of it's borders, which started decline of Roman war machine but this is another stroy)
>>
No. 19506
16 kB, 240 × 106
Original Ernstchan was so thoroughly taken over by the srsbiz /pol/ crowd that their "generals" and "today" and other newfaggy bullshit rules are taken as gospel.
All the same noobs that immigrated to KC and changed that board's culture to the point that the admins closed the site have then decided to make EC their new home and were unwelcome there too. Isn't that a crazy little episode of internet history?
Why on earth would anyone lend credence to the traditions of a group of people who are so disagreeable that they've been kicked out of every website they've ever been on?
>>
No. 19507
>>19506
Yeah what about it? They're almost like the new Jews, except in the most awful stereotype possible. They are basically just the kind of dumb faggot that listens to Rush Limbaugh and takes the words of fat illiterate retards as gospel, the kind of people who think NASA is lying that the earth is flat to deny religion or some silly ridiculous bullshit, and these same dorks and assholes have a major origin on stormfront not to mention how many apparently are pedophiles.

They have systematically ruined every single fucking chan and get kicked out of every board with moderation. First they ruined 4chan. Then they followed a migration of fed up users to reddit, and eventually ruined reddit. They returned back to 4kanal to shit it up even more, then proceeded to 4chon and 8chan among many others like a cancerous virus. They wound up on KC and fucked up our cozy little international board too, then fucked over EC.

Currently the cesspit is k*hl. They're fucking retarded annoying assholes with borderline sociopathy and pedophilia. So far as I'm aware they've been fucking up numerous other chans and it wouldn't surprise me if 7 if it still exists, 420, and even dvach have become totally polluted with these fucktards.

So I know what I mean. I felt like we were on the frontier of the idiot, and all these complete assholes we tried to escape from just kept following in our wake as we moved further West thus forcing us to find another refuge. But then again that begs the question, are we the cancer too? Is our arrival to an area of the internets a harbinger of its coming destruction with shitposting, stupidity, and normalfaggotry and literal children posting?
>>
No. 19509
>>19507
keep the tears flowing
>>
No. 19512 Kontra
>>19506
So, who is the problem?
>>
No. 19518 Kontra
>>19506
What? Generals was from start of EC /int when KC leave and there remained not much people and it was great idea to coordinate mostly in single threads than to make more pointless ones. I created first or second such thread I don't remember.
And now, please, fuck off from history thread with this bullshit
>>
No. 19519 Kontra
>>19506

>>>meta
>>
No. 19520 Kontra
>>19509
>>19512
>>19518
>>19519
Don't respond. It is pasta. He posted that before.
>>
No. 19523
129 kB, 750 × 1075
344 kB, 1182 × 1856
122 kB, 1153 × 1920
47 kB, 325 × 650
>>19455
>If I remember correctly Psamtik I

Yes, exactly he and his successors of the same (last native) dynasty opened
up Egypt towards more intese relations to their mediterranean neighbourgs
(Greek city states, Lydians etc. probably also Phonicians).

On of the main reasons was as you stated correctly that they had to hire many
Greek mercenaries to bolster up against the Persian and Assyrian threat.

But with mercenaries there also came traders, artists, writers, adventurers...
Eventually the Greeks were allowed/encouraged to build their own city on
Egytian imperial territory, Naucratis, very close to their central port/trade
hub Heracleion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naucratis

The interchange of Greek and Egyptian goods, mercenaries, art and culture became
a permanent, institutionalised factor.

It was exactly this time when Greek sculptures began to change from the shown above
archaic-geometric appearance to a more realistic one, at first by simply following
Egyptian examples.
>>
No. 19562
176 kB, 1045 × 1335
>The Bohemian corporal assembles an autism gang and starts throwing money on uselesss shiny uberwaffe
>The US become so afraid of the Germans making the bomb that they start to develop their own nuclear program
>In the end, Germans wasted billions of dollars on stuff that couldn't win the war like they hoped to, and only Americans by sheer luck draw the "Victory" card by getting nuclear bomb, the US were capable to beat any country and genocide the whole world if only they wanted to
It's an incredible luck that the rich, technologically advanced and densely populated state has turned out to be democratic and was the first one to get the ultimate doomsday weappn, and didn't try to achieve world supremacy by military means. Just imagine what would happen if some developed totalitarian state, like Germany or the USSR, was the first one to get the bomb and the same opportunities the US had after the war.
>>
No. 19563
>>19562
>USSR under Trotsky bringing about world revolution through a nuclear holocaust
Just like in my Posadist manifestos.
>>
No. 19565
>>19562
>Just imagine what would happen if some developed totalitarian state, like Germany or the USSR, was the first one to get the bomb and the same opportunities the US had after the war.
In hindsight, how do we know the US wasn't totalitarian back then and all we know today is anything but made up propaganda?
>>
No. 19567
>>19565
How do we know that the Earth isn't flat/Frederick the Great wasn't a woman/Lenin wasn't killed by his own fellow communists/Hitler didn't run away to Argentina/you don't live in a Matrix world and all we know today is anything but made up propaganda? Conspiracy theories can go very deep if you start to consider any available information a lie.
>>
No. 19574
83 kB, 960 × 720
89 kB, 600 × 799
8,0 MB, 1280 × 720, 0:13
>>19567
That's just because we ultimately take everything based on faith, which makes all conspiracy theory and religion ultimately a practice of each other. When you look at it this way you come to realize that God is the most grandest of all the conspiracy theories, where some dude or something possibly like an eldritch abomination at the top is not just capable of making and ordering the whole universe and even reading your thoughts, but is somehow despite people possibly (or not if you're a Calvinist for example) having free will, is capable of not just seeing the future but actively engaging and manipulating every one of the smallest things happening in your life and is ultimately in control of the whole situation.

So when you look at it that way you come to understand that most conspiracy theories are ultimately a practice in religiosity in a godless and consumerist secular world.
>>
No. 19578
5,5 MB, 640 × 360, 0:58
6,4 MB, 640 × 360, 1:09
4,7 MB, 640 × 360, 1:05
15,7 MB, 640 × 360, 2:48
>>19565
I live here. We have been becoming totalitarian for the last few decades, steadily sliding into true despotism and the application of terror and violence to solve any problem. You just don't see through it now because of all the propaganda which is corporate instead of state, so you falsely assume because it is not directly connected to or made by the government that it is somehow safe or not attempting to be manipulative.

You must also remember that we actually became a state in the first place by stealing other people's clay and completely, wholly, and utterly genociding them to such an extent that they even set up indoctrination centers for the few survivors to force them through their children to utterly lose their very language, culture, and beliefs
https://www.history.com/news/how-boarding-schools-tried-to-kill-the-indian-through-assimilation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#United_States_colonization_and_westward_expansion
this is actually interestingly dealt with in this game https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ishWEzGFr7k

The actual policies of the early United States were genuinely completely Nazi tier. In fact, Adolf Hitler actually got inspiration for his concentration camps through looking at us and studying how the US attained complete supremacy and genocide against a whole race of people. You can still see some of the neuroses of people today in worries about disturbing Indian graves and being haunted. You can see this general cultural guilt of different people reflected in their scary movies https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMAuvFU8_FM

As for the people, it depends on who or what you are at what time in this country. Generally speaking, there have been quite a lot of brutal and totalitarian policies and attitudes in this country unfortunately from very early on. I would say that America has generally failed to live up to its premise, to the principles and promises it guaranteed to people yet failed to deliver the product and instead gave us this shoddy alternative.

We have been steadily losing every last one of our freedoms and no longer have any privacy. The worst part of it is that even if I take the battery out of my phone, I have fucking dozens of people around me who also have these phones. The sheer depths of totalitarianism in this society is simply well concealed from the generally brainwashed citizenry. Do we have freedoms? Do I? Quite frankly, no, I do not actually feel that I have any actual freedoms except for maybe freedom of speech and freedom of religion, since at least all the borderline illiterates know and respect that one enough it's generally not infringed, and a good number can read to the second amendment as well and thus will go apeshit if one and two are fucked with in ways they personally don't want.

As for every other right nobody has actually read past two so all those are routinely infringed, and the Bill of Rights of course does not apply to anybody systematically murdered and terrorized outside the country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Program nor for that matter does it actually truly apply to all of us because of the carte blanche given to certain legally criminal elements in high places
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgewood_Arsenal_human_experiments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States
and so on.

In terms of my actual day to day life, there are always cop cars around, including the stealth ones that look just like a normal vehicle without any lights or markings on top, in other words a kind of secret police, and no I don't actually feel free at all. I am always nervous about doing something potentially illegal which is funnily enough lampooned here http://www.sjgames.com/illuminati/50awful.html
>26. They keep everyone – yes, everyone – under constant surveillance. Every time you fill out another questionnaire, you're weaving another strand of the net that binds the world.
>27. They are working to make the law as confusing as possible, so everything will be illegal or potentially illegal – then they have a hold on everybody and everyone will fear the laws.
This is actually truly and completely accurate about the day to day lives of the citizenry. Each and every thing you do feels like it could potentially be illegal somehow. This includes crossing the street. Every time I cross a street I wonder if a cop car would see me and arrest me.

It has largely become a totalist police state from the bottom up over the last twenty years and I have no faith whatsoever in us even resembling a free society in the coming decades. The abuse of executive power under Bush, the launching of wars without Congressional approval, the torture and secret murder camps black sites, followed by Obama's droning of US citizens without any kind of trial, and on and on to the rampant and blatant abuse of executive power by Trump, is all just part of a complete Roman cycle of degeneration into an autocracy and finally a decadent, obese, abusive, awful and internally weakened state and empire.

To see what we are becoming just look at this and understand it has become routine to involve law enforcement in stupid in school arguments https://www.ibtimes.com/police-arrest-11-year-old-florida-boy-refusing-stand-pledge-allegiance-2765878

When I go outside I am under the constant surveillance and superstition of the agents of The State aka the police, who can and do literally get away with murder here. They are in essence the bottom feeders of the police state hierarchy with the agents working for the Company at the top https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/09/22/the-cia-70-years-of-organized-crime/

You cannot be drunk in public. If you go to the beach at night and crack a beer open, you have this overwhelming sense of not knowing if either going to the beach or opening a beer is legal or even encouraged, or if you're going to get beaten and possibly shot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQQ9xOhuFrk One of my friends was body slammed to the ground in Central Park because I guess they have an evening curefew and she was there too light. Yes she had massive bruises from this. Every time some guy goes on a rampage shooting cops, I smile.

On a daily basis, I am actively afraid of having to deal with the cops, despite the fact that I am white. I'm afraid of the genuine reality that calling US cops is like calling and death squad and that any day I can get tazed, beaten, and shot, and I also was terrified of any engagement around dogs because they will shoot your dog with no recompense. This is their normal behavior:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ooa7wOKHhg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e69p18CHa4Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mezvCg0A5c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3x7k2QIp5I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KMwnIhF438
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVAhOLbQEHM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KhRcIOuurI
and so on and so forth. Do note that this kind of behavior is not restricted to murderers, but rather can be triggered by any number of tiny things, including not standing for the pledge in school as a child or having a bottle of beer at the beach.

So no we are not free. If you have an objective, non-emotional and irrational view of this society, it is not even close to being a true free and democratic society, and it never has been. The only difference is we have Hollywood and Madison Avenue, and they did not.
>>
No. 19579
49 kB, 580 × 580
2,3 MB, 1280 × 720, 0:20
6,7 MB, 480 × 360, 2:36
122 kB, 620 × 376
>>19578
Like I really don't think you guys actually understand how disturbingly fucked our society has actually become
https://www.infowars.com/dhs-supplier-provides-shooting-targets-of-american-gun-owners/
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/02/20/no-more-hesitation-homeland-security-and-police-dept-request-targets-for-shooting-practice-to-help-desensitize-law-enforcement-to-shooting-average-americans/
https://www.prisonplanet.com/retired-cop-desensitizing-police-training-is-brainchild-of-sick-social-engineers.html
Yes yes the sources I know whatever. But you have to understand, this is a normal actual reality in America now, and as you can plainly see, these are not mere one-off things: they're actually trained to do this. This is their actual training, as plainly and brutally evidenced by the aforementioned videos of them enacting this training, so whenever you see Americans complaining about cop training you can see what we mean. Of course, there are still fat brainwashed retards who actually defend this shit for some reason.
>>
No. 19580
May I ask moderator to clean history thread from this crap?
>>
No. 19582 Kontra
>>19580
What crap? Hey fuck you Ivan, I was collectively asked about how free or totalitarian USA is behind the propaganda, and so I answered such a shit as thoroughly as possible
>>19579
>>19578
although trust me I could go on and on about it. USA a shit! A SHIT! You, the Ukrainian asked me how is, and so I extrapolated.
>>19565
>>19567
They as foreigners asked the question of what if my country is more totalitarian but just hidden behind the propaganda, and so I answered you yes, why yes it certainly is to some increasing extent. If I have to worry about cops and for profit jails constantly then by definition I don't have lots of freedoms. If I worry any sudden movements can result in my death for crossing the wrong street, then it is not truly a free and open society, and in fact the 2nd Amendment was specifically outlined as this right because without arms you cannot back up the rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religious belief by mere words alone against a tyrannical government.

The founding fathers understood this and worked very hard to construct a system of government in which the rights of man are thoroughly enumerated and the government set in opposition to each other while balanced with various responsibilities and powers, and one aspect of this was the acknowledgment that a tyrant might come some day, five years, fifty, even a hundred or two hundred years later and attempt to subvert the Constitution, Congress, the Judiciary etc. The right to bear arms was specifically in opposition to the slide into these tyrannical acts, and to grant us the freedom to fight back against it using force if necessary.

Sadly while we have guns they have not been used in such a capacity. The right to bear arms is specifically to put the fear of God and a bullet into armed thugs like the cops we have today. It is specifically there so if some man dressed all in a black uniform comes to steal your things, abduct your family members, shoot your dog and beat or shoot your young child, that you can have every right to shoot that man dead in your own home. Quite sadly this is rarely if ever employed except by a phew lone and unsung heroes https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQvDn9MEtNo
>>
No. 19591
>>19582
Stop shitposting history thread with your pol shit, please.
>>
No. 19592
>>19591
How in fuck is it polshit?
>In hindsight, how do we know the US wasn't totalitarian back then and all we know today is anything but made up propaganda?

>How do we know that the Earth isn't flat/Frederick the Great wasn't a woman/Lenin wasn't killed by his own fellow communists/Hitler didn't run away to Argentina/you don't live in a Matrix world and all we know today is anything but made up propaganda? Conspiracy theories can go very deep if you start to consider any available information a lie.

I addressed these questions and it isn't shitposting. I gave plenty of citations and examples to back up my claim of how the difference is between the propaganda and the reality. If you want polshit go listen to some vatnik or fatnik telling you lies about his country.
>>
No. 19593 Kontra
>>19591
>>19592

>Sadly while we have guns they have not been used in such a capacity. The right to bear arms is specifically blah bla bla

Yeah, totally not shitposting...
>>
No. 19634
>>19582
>>19592
Schizenu, please go fuck yourself
>>
No. 19641
603 kB, 868 × 859
519 kB, 1804 × 1008
>>19523
Greeks also adopted and modified Egyptian sword Khopesh, which became Kopis and will spread across all mediterranean and across. And then will evolve into Makhaira, which also be used, most notably in Rome, where it evolved even further. If I not mistaken, famous Gladius is very evolved Makhaira
>>
No. 19645
>>19641
>Greeks also adopted and modified Egyptian sword Khopesh, which became Kopis and will spread across all mediterranean and across
This is just speculation and there is no evidence for this. Just because both swords are curved does not mean the Kopis evolved from the Kopesh; the names could easily be a coincidence.
>>
No. 19648
>>19645
They both serving same purpose and have same role of slashing thing. Considering how much egypt was inspiring for other nations and that this swords appeared firstly in egypt makes it logical to conclude. I always readed this as fact, never seen anybody denied this, interesting. If you about that there no proof like historic document - so well, half of history from this period is "suspections"
>>
No. 19667
105 kB, 800 × 1200
>>19641
It was the precessor of the Gladius that was supposed to be an Roman adaption of the greek Xiphos.
The Gladius is supposed to be a Celtic/Celt-Iberic sword initially, and so is the word gladius itself derived from the ancient Celtic *kladi(b)os or *kladimos for "sword". In Greek it was called "iberila machaira", "sword from Spain".
>>
No. 19668
>>19667
Oh okay, so I mixed up Gladius with some other sword, probably.
>>
No. 19670
>>19668
But you were spot on with the Kopis being based on Egyptian Khopesh.
>>
No. 19692
From a book about the Royal Academy of Science in 17th France. The chapter deals with the medical responsibility the academy thought to have according to the author, Alice Stroup. Alice Stroup. A Company of Scientists: Botany, Patronage, and Community at the Seventeenth-Century Parisian Royal Academy of Sciences. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.

>The diet of peasants was not nutritious: it rarely included meat, milk, cheese, or fruit of good quality. Bread, gruel, and legumes formed the basis of a diet that was "both heavy and lacking in nutrition, insufficient during winter and increasingly so as spring approached."

Makes me laugh when I think of people favoring some kind of naive back2nature approach. Tho one should ask why they didn't have much milk, meat and other things, might be due to certain power relations whose alteration could provide the necessary nutrition.