had this man won the Franco-Prussian war, the Second French Empire would have lasted indefinitely while Germany would have become a republic. In this timeline France would be following the Sonderweg and France would commit the Holocaust. Think about it for a second... you know I'm right.
>>3211142
Germans don't genocide because they won a war, they genocide because Germans are still barbarians.
First as tragedy
Second as farce
>dies
>triggers a war between the biggest superpowers in Europe
Was his power underestimated?
he was a big guy
>>3211230
>>3211083
>be semi-retard
>yurop still cares for you tho
>tfw they even fought a large war for you
His importance was of great proportions.
Historically speaking, why do Jews have a "better than thou" attitude?
>>3211048
muh chosen people
Torah tells them they are "the chosen people". Simple as that. I'm a Jew, I was Orthodox at one point, and I also served in the IDF. You can ask me questions if you like. I'm watching GOT so there might be delays in my responses, depending on how interesting or shit the show is.
God kinda did say they're the chosen people.
What was that round temple that was neatly preserved atop some hill that is posted on occasions?
I remember seeing a picture like that but can't recall the name.
This?
>>3211701
No it was atop some elevation overlooking the surrounding countryside. It was round but not sure if it was surrounded by columns.
>>3212676
This?
What the fuck was his fucking problem?
I am having some doubts on wether I am understanding some of the concepts in Fear and Trembling
When Kierkegaard says that faith is absurd is it absurd because you just have to be willing to give everything to god, as Abraham was, even though the results won't make "much sense"?
When he says that an infinite knight resigns everything infinitely and then takes it back with the strength of the absurd, is this as Abraham did when Sacrificing Isaac to god but then getting him back as god truly did not want Isaac to be sacrificed, thus making this faith absurd?
Sorry if this doesn’t make much sense but this is my first time reading Fear and Trembling and I want to make sure I understand this as well as I can
more like fats and bumbling LMAO, what was this kook on about anyways???
Why do intellectuals pretend they have any relevance to the world at large? That by writing books they are creating sweeping paradigm shifts that spread throughout an entire society? This may have been true a century or two ago, but now philosophers are irrelevant.
>>3210954
Listen, man, I let Zizek cuck me every night, and I frequently kneel to him asking for blessings. This man is most certainly the biggest influence of this day and age, and you don't know shit about it cuz you're a little bitch.
Am I a Christian if I have faith in God and believe that Jesus died for our sins and try to follow in the Lord's footsteps every day BUT I think the Bible is irrelevant human propaganda and doesn't matter as long as I operate in such a matter that strengthens my connection with God every day (me and God directly, no pope, no hierarchy, fuck that shit)
Currently I would identify as nondenominational, maybe a Christian universalist but I really don't understand theology all that much.
Am I like a Protestant on crack or steroids? I'm just curious as to how we are certain that the Bible is the literal word of God and not just written by some people who wanted to control the masses in the early days of Christianity. I know that scripture and stuff has always been needed to keep people in line but humans have progressed enough to where I'm capable of being good on my own.
>fedoras not welcome to my thread
>>3210783
why exactly do you believe the overall narrative of the Bible if you wholey reject the text itself?
>>3210783
If you disregard the Bible as an authority on anything then there's no reason to raise jesus above any other heresiarch who was executed in the roman empire.
>>3210783
>Not believing in the Bible
>Protestant
If anything you're a Catholic on steroids
If IQ is the deciding factor in success, why is Mongolia a literally who? Is it because, maybe, just possibly, IQ is not as important as they think it is?
>yes I know this map is shit
>>3210761
They live in one of the shittiest places ever.
>>3210761
>largest contiguous empire in history
>literally who
>>3210761
It's because this board is full of pseudo intellectuals who put smartness on a pedestal. Being smart isn't as important as being determined or being lucky or being ambitious. Sure, being smart can make things easier, but it isn't the be-all end-all judge of who's better than who. But since we have a lot of people who think they're smart (and a few who actually are smart) on here we get more of that. You see the same thing on /fit/, people saying being healthy is most important of all, or on /r9k/ where they say charisma (which they understand they don't have) is most important of all. People who think they're smart are going to think smartness is most important.
Why were the U.S. and other western countries the greatest defenders of social inequality during the 20th century?
>>3210461
What is there to dislike?
would you rather have some poor people or everybody to be poor?
>>3210461
Because social inequality is good. If you think the lazy, the stupid, the mentally handicapped, the blacks and other people which contribute less to society than normal people should be "equal" when they have only themselves to blame for their inequality is retarded.
>Get mad the public opinion of you is low because you raped civilians, burned down houses and gunned down children 50 years prior and are currently occupying their country as a foreign force
>Try and improve your public image by disobeying orders to go and gun down as many civilians as you can for the horrible act of walking together, of which you tried to ban them from doing
What the fuck was their problem
I read that during WW2, much of the German military leaders were of Prussian background and hated non-Prussian leaders in the army. Is this true? Why was there beef?
>>3210321
That's not just during WW2, that's basically the entirety of Prussia's existence. The Prussia upper-class (Junkers, pronounced YUUNG-kər) always saw the German army as being theirs, and they hated sharing that power and prestige with any other group. They were an odd form of aristocracy; their privilege came in the form of heavily disproportionate influence in German government, especially in the Army, but also throughout the civil bureaucracy. Junkers were fanatically loyal to the Kaisers, and the Kaisers repaid this loyalty by ensuring that Junkers would always get the majority of government positions.
This feeling of entitlement was so strong that prior to WW1, the Junkers actually opposed efforts to expand the German army because were worried if the army became too large, they'd have to let non-Junkers become officers to fill all the necessary officer positions required for maintaining a larger force. This was when Moltke was desperately trying to drum up support for the creation of 4 new infantry corps.
Those 4 additional corps might have made all the difference in the world during the opening months of WW1. So in a very real sense, the Junkers were done in by their own sense of entitlement, and their staunch refusal to share power with other groups.
>>3210321
Also, in case you're wondering how the Junkers came to be distinct from other Germans in the first place, it's because they were not purely "German" but rather a Slavic-Germanic mixture. When the Junkers first took possession of Prussia, the population was too low to have a viable country, so the Junkers actually invited Slavic people to fill the country. They freely inter-married with the new residents and eventually came to be regarded as a distinct group of people with their own unique cultural identity. It was one of the ironies of history that this intentional mash-up of cultures eventually came to be held up as proof of Aryan supremacy by the Nazis.
This is the power of Spenposting
I'm starting to see why John Green is right about military history
*blocks your path*
come at me byzantine boy
how would you react?
>>3210025
what did xe said?
Watching this made me rethink my position on Adolf Hitler. Was he actually a good guy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnpTWKKWQ1o
Not sure what to think. I'm conflicted on what I'm seeing vs. what I was taught.
>>3209794
then take a look at what he did
I don't doubt Hitler wanted the best for Germans, but he just had to make life shit for the rest of Europe
>>3209811
Explain?
>>3209821
Well you see Anon, there was this whole World War thing that happened..
If there are only 6 or so major European powers that had territory in Africa, why are there so many different countries on the continent today?
>>3209769
Because Africa has more than 6 ethnies and cultures, just maybe ?
Retarded question
>>3209834
No I mean why split their territories into even smaller colonies? You know damn well they weren't based on ethnic lines. For example French West Africa, why didn't they just keep it one big colony instead of subdividing it over and over?
>>3209873
These places were all dirt poor. The small amount of developed infrastructure was not designed to maintain a whole country, just to facilitate the extraction of resources. There are also massive linguistic differences region to region. It would simply be impossible for these young, untested regimes to control areas so big. If they were released based on purely colonial lines, the new government's would immediately devolve into huge civil wars, ones even bigger and more confusing than the ones that happened IRL.
Besides, what would the European powers gain from releasing them as one big state? They had already divided them into sub-regions for administrative purposes, why would they go to the trouble of rearranging everything just to create a country that has a 90% chance of being a perpetual hellish warzone, or a 10% chance of staying together, and being powerful enough to resist soft control?