Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 1297. page

File: EdisonPhonograph.jpg (104KB, 552x540px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 552x540px

LOOK AT THIS PHONOGRAPH

File: maltatemples.jpg (2MB, 1783x1171px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1783x1171px

Back in 3600 bc, when not even Sumerian civilization proper existed, these niggas built dozens of massive marvelous temples, magnificient art and hypogeums, how come?

They were surrounded by nothingness, Sicily had nothing like that and yet the Maltese temple builders came from there.

File: st.peters bascillica.jpg (308KB, 640x425px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 640x425px

Why do many white nationalist retards want to go back to germanic paganism, when literally the greatest accomplishments of western civilization were done under the banner of christianity

File: C__Data_Users_DefApps_AppData_INTERNETEXPLORER_Temp_Saved Images_17862779_1676028819080176_4075354696585186443_n.jpg (37KB, 650x710px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 650x710px

I've found this very interesting graph in a facebook page and the population boom experienced by England for the last 300-200 years amazed me.

First, in comparison to other countries, specially France, in which this didn't happen at all. The French population only double from more or less 30 millions by the 1700s to the 60 millions nowadays. Both England adn France rule vast empires and became industrialized by the same time. What makes me think the same didn't happen to the last is that the initial French pop. was already high, then the rate of natural increase (geographic term for population growth) was saturated. France had been the larger country in population in Western Europe for centuries, for things such as the area and suitability for agriculture, etc. Do you see other possibilities for this discrepancy?

Another thing that made me think is the comparison between the countries in the British islands, in the graph, specially Ireland. Do you agree that the heavy immigration waves the Irish took part in made their population stagnate? For me it doesn't seem enough to explain it all, as the, by the time, huge birth rate could still keep the rate of natural increase high, don't you think?

File: IMG_2619.png (373KB, 2000x1254px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 2000x1254px

Could East Germany have ended up like North Korea? A "rouge" state which follows it's own ideology and is only nominally aligned to Russia (in the same way North Korea is only nominally aligned with China)?

File: 02A878A7-1038-4E41-B385-C7180778A33B-14526-00000CFB265A59D2.jpg (157KB, 1280x707px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1280x707px

>only commulists can design horribly
Destroy all modernist buildings

File: FB_IMG_1491061295841.jpg (40KB, 700x964px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 700x964px

Hank Hanegraaff (aka The Bible Answer Man) left Protestantism and converted to the Orthodox Church on Palm Sunday.

>Orthodox article:
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2017/04/hank-hanegraaff-aka-bible-answer-man.html

John is joyous. Lot's of Orthodox in America have been celebrating this.

>Protestant article:
http://pulpitandpen.org/2017/04/10/the-bible-answer-man-hank-hanegraaff-leaves-the-christian-faith/

They're obviously bitter because they think that the Solas are true, and that their theology/scholasticism is superior to Orthodox Tradition.

File: Stirner.gif (10KB, 279x305px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 279x305px

Daily reminder that there is no "objective morality". I challenge anyone of you to prove to me that morality is objective.

>An action or consequence can only be called "good" or "bad", if there is an objective way of evaluating it
>This method of evaluating an action or consequence to determine whether or not it is moral or immoral must be independent of all social constructs, emotion, etc in order for it to be truly objective.

However
>A scientific and materialistic understanding of reality leaves no room for concepts like "morally righteous" or "morally wrong" except within the context of delusions and emotivism.

Also
>If this objective moral evaluation method could be created, then why be moral? It is the case that good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people, making it seem as though it does not matter if you live a moral life or don't. If the effect of your morality came in the afterlife, then it would be the case that humans would only act morally in order to gain something, when the point of being moral is to do it for its own sake.

Finally:
>"God did it" won't work here. How does God decide what is moral? Did He pick and choose things at random, deciding what was moral and what was evil in the spur of the moment? This would make morality completely arbitrary and fundamentally meaningless.

File: mapofcountiesofireland98kb.jpg (98KB, 856x1145px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 856x1145px

How did Tyrone become a common/stereotypical African-American name?

File: Flag_of_Russian_Empire_for_private_use_(1914–1917).svg.png (333KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

333KB, 2000x1333px

Is there a single state on earth that has as good a W/L ratio militarily than Russia in all its incarnations throughout its history?

>BTFO'd Polish-Lithuanians on most occasions
>Overthrew and BTFO'd Golden Horde so badly they never mounted a serious threat to the Russian states ever again
>BTFO'd Kazan
>BTFO'd the Tatars when they rebelled
>BTFO'd the Turks on virtually every single occasion that the B'nai British/Caliphate of France weren't backing them up or the Swedecucks weren't attacking them on two fronts (e.g. Astrakhan, Ivan's wars, the taking of Azov, the continuous humiliations they inflicted on the Turds through the 18th and early 19th centuries - even after suffering a humiliating loss at Austerlitz)
>BTFO'd Asiatics in Siberia so hard they chased them all the way to the Pacific Ocean
>Won the Great Northern War
>BTFO'd the Persians under Peter
>BTFO'd the Polish Kingdom under Catherine
>Expelled Napoleon and the largest army ever raised in Europe, chasing him back across the Niemen
>Only lost at Port Arthur because they were facing revolution at home and projecting power halfway across the entire world is fucking hard. BTFO'd the Japs in the Soviet-era anyway and took the Kurils from them, which they are still butthurt about

Russian military history is goddamn impressive, you have to admit. What is it that makes them such good warriors?

Also: Good books on the Russian Empire?

File: marchinggermans.jpg (148KB, 980x552px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 980x552px

I tried posting this on /pol/ but they were bitter cunts about it, so I'll throw myself at the feet of /his/, a more rational board.

I'm trying to make a WWII playlist on Spotify. I want war songs from all countries provided they're evocative and pro-war.
What are your favorites, from any nation? Mine is Katyusha, especially when the Red Army Choir sings it.

File: CbRxTpPXEAEqkkJ.jpg (13KB, 200x280px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 200x280px

Why does he trigger the British so much?

File: IMG_0732.jpg (72KB, 556x556px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 556x556px

It's the new craze sweeping 4chan. Let's have a History Edition

File: bGGdE3g.png (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

> In 1932 F.D. Roosevelt's New Deal turns out to be a total economic failure worsening the Great Depression
> From 1933 onwards Hitler heavily finances the Silver Legion of America
> Mass wave of unrest in the USA, fascism support grows
> in 1936 William Dudley Pelley of the S.L.A wins the Presidential Election
> the USA gradually become a fascist state
> somewhere between 1936 and 1939 the USA join the AXIS


My questions are:
2) Would Japan still do the Pearl Harbor attack if they were allies with the USA?
3) How would the presence of the USA turn in favor of Germany in WW2?

File: muhammad.jpg (24KB, 200x253px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 200x253px

or is this just a meme