>Julian questioned the idea that all mankind is descended from the same pair. He pointed out "how very different in their bodies are the Germans and Scythians from the Libyans and Ethiopians". Even more do these people differ in their dispositions and intelligence.
>"Come, tell me why it is that the Germans are fierce, while the Hellenes and Romans are, generally speaking, inclined to political life and humane, though at the same time unyielding and warlike? Why the Egyptians are more intelligent [than Germans] and more given to crafts, and the Syrians unwarlike and effeminate, but at the same time intelligent, hot-tempered, and quick to learn?"
-Julian, Roman Emperor
>>2681617
Patricians were Germanic.
>Syrians, Egyptians more intelligent than Germs
my how times have changed
>>2681665
>WE WUZ ROMANZ UND SHIESSE
>the same event have happened more than 100 times in different places in different periods of times
>DUDE IT'S JUST A COINCIDENCE LMAO
>>2681343
>slavery was a thing until relatively recently
>dude lets just implement slavery again
>>2681343
>a religious minority was repeatedly treated as religious minorities were treated in medieval times
Wow.
I guess all the times Christians were persecuted by Muslims proves that Christians are pure evil too then, and vice versa.
Sup /his/tericals.
I tried to calculate the percentage of Germans that in reality ware slav kids kidnapped by nazis.
I came out with something like 14,5%, I wonder if you agree.
It's hard to determine because there are different estimates, and I was unable to determine with certainty the age range of children being kidnapped (some said "not older than 9-10 years", other - "2-12 years old"). I eventually used the 2-12 in my calculation, even though there ware reported cases of infants being taken away. I think infants had little chance of survival in the harsh transport conditions.
Some sources say it was 200.000 polish children, other mention 250.000, some even 300.000. And those are children who survived transport and ware labeled as "Racially Pure" - rejected ones and those who ware resistant to germanisation, got murdered.
Judging from this graph:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Germany_sex_by_age_1946_10_29.png/800px-Germany_sex_by_age_1946_10_29.png
There ware 3.550.000 children aged 2-12 in Germany in 1946.
The official number of kidnapped children is 400.000, but I increased it to 450.000 - if many polish sources clame it was actually 250,000 not 200,000, and there ware children stolen from other nations too, I think its safe to assume that the total number was greater than 400.000, maybe even getting closer to 0.5 million.
After deducting 450.000 from 3.550.000 I was left with 3.100.000, and that gave me 14,5%.
So, from my calculation, it seems that a German person born between 1934 and 1943 has a 14,5% chance that he is actually a child stolen from his slav parents, within that, there is 50% chance he is actually Polish.
What do you think?
Links in comment.
P.S.
Sorry for bad english.
Articles on the stealing of children:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping_of_children_by_Nazi_Germany
http://bibula.com/icp/?p=2299
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/stolen-children
Statistics of german demographics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_in_Germany#1871_-_1945_German_Empire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Germany#1945.E2.80.931990
You can see that the statistics of children are weird, there is a growth in ages from 2yo to 13yo.
At first I thought that it can be an evidence of the stolen children pumping up the stats, but than I remembered that this increase of children might also be the effect of increased birth-rate after Nazis got into power and launched their fertility programs.
>>2681310
>but I increased it to 450.000
usually the lesser numbers are more close to reality
>>2681369
It depends, I guess.
For example, real number of people who ware harboring Jews from the Nazis at the risk of their own lives is much higher than the official number, because only well documented cases ware taken into account.
>said slavery was an evil institution
>worked to end the slave trade
>owned slaves
seriously, what the fuck?
>>2681273
He wouldn't be human if he didn't have his own contradictions.
He probably justified it to himself by saying he was treating them well
>>2681278
>didn't have his own contradictions.
yeah, but this isnt just some minor one. How could you be against slavery AND own them?
This is like saying you are against alcohol but get drunk all the time.
He didn't treat them as "slaves" though so technically they weren't.
Can we take a moment to remember the single greatest friendship in history.
>>2681165
>friendship
more like two assholes who hate each other putting their differences aside because an even bigger asshole is fucking with both of them
>>2681165
>Anglo
>Friendship
Only scheming and cunning
Are we talking about Churchill and intoxication?
Why would god allow so many avoidable tragedies and atrocities in the world?
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26)
>>2681146
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?
>>2681146
If I remember correctly from Aquinas, some suffering is necessary so that all gradients of good may be filled and expressed.
Memes aside,would alexander hamilton establishing an american monarchy really be bad thing?
>>2681106
This is just a "monarchy is da best" thread disguised as a legitimate question, isn't it?
>>2681154
>Would establishing an American monarchy really be a bad thing
Possibly not.
>Would Alexander Hamilton establishing an American Monarchy really be a bad thing
Yes.
America is turning into a monarchy with its own dinasties (e.g., Bush, Clinton) and whatnot. Sad.
instinct
God.
>>2680972
Then how come moral systems tend to differ so much between different societies.
At what point in history did American foreign policy become so... brutal? Americans frame themselves as the arsenal of democracy and as fighting just wars, but the actions of the United States seem indistinguishable from any other hegemonic power, except maybe in rationalization or framing. Was it always values at home and realpolitik abroad - not to wake up /pol/ obviously I don't want this to be about 2016, just about historical trends that seem pretty obvious to anyone who has a more than surface level of knowledge.
Ike warned us about the military industrial complex while setting the groundwork for it and assassinating the rulers of newly free african nations. I can go farther back to the spanish-american war and the other acquisitions of the late imperial era, or go forward to vietnam, iran-contra, etc. etc.; But everywhere I look in antebellum american history, it seems like the broad trend is (from an american perspective anyway) is to ignore the warmongering or fucking with the internal affairs of latin american countries, and focus either on internal injustices (sufferage, civil rights, etc) or to focus on the big european wars we fought in (often while masking the role we played in creating or supporting those wars, or our desire to profit financially or in terms of power from them).
I guess what I'm asking is, was it this way from the start? I know the founders were men who carried dreams and ideals but also held slaves, and I respect them as men of their time. but behind closed doors were they also just counting their pocketbooks and putting pins on maps? if it wasn't this way from the start, what changed it? the civil war? the growth of global capitalism linked with empire? some ideology i am missing?
pic unrelated it was either sad john mccain or a screenshot from dota
War of 1812
war is a defining factor of human conduct, but war with europe is bad for the economy so they fought non-europeans
"A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired." -Thomas Jefferson
Why are Swedecucks so proud of their pathetic "empire"? No one gives a fuck about it besides them.
Yet you care enough to make a thread about it :^)
>>2680902
Weak reply
>success breeds jealousy
Who's in the wrong here?
Sunni
>>2680774
Both
They both worship Satan.
Christianity and Islam both hail from arab peninsula.
Christianity takes in roman arts, architecture, dressing, values and languages.
Islam takes in persian bureaucracy, architecture, fashions and arts.
Is current Christianity vs. Islam a continuation of Rome vs. Persia ?
>>2680639
Catholics aren't Christian
1) Christianity does not hail from the Arabian Peninsula.
2) Islam "borrowed" a lot from the Greco-Byzantine tradition, not just the Persian one.
>>2680639
>Jews are Arabs
>not Sea peoples
WEW lad
All right, /his/, post your best World War I memes.
What the fuck happened here? Look at this mess
>"Alright, we're done."
>"But sir, what about everything south of the Levant and Mesopotamia?"
>"I don't fucking care, just make it three big rectangles."
What the fuck happened here? Look at this mess
>>2680576
Any country with borders drawn with a ruler is illegitimate.
>the revolving door of rulers and dynasties that ruled Iran between the Sassanids and the Safavids, permanently stunting its economic and demographic growth
>>2680483
To be honest, famlam, once the Abbassids came to power the Islamic Arab Caliphate was more or less dependent on Iranic soldiers, generals, and governors up until the Turkics came in. Iranian Intermezzo period is pretty important for a reason, also a lot of interesting dynasties showed up.
>Bavanids
>Dabuyids
>Tahirids
>Saffarids
>Samanids
>Buyids
>Sallarids
>Ziyarids
Mardavij was a pretty interesting fellow too.
>>2680483
Once Islam came Iran was doomed to irrelevance just like every country Islam over-runs.
>>2681834
Cry more, Frankish homosexual.
الله اكبر