Did Cromwell do anything wrong?
>>2003274
Are republics wrong?
Brutally murdering countless Irishmen and women, yes he did wrong
Yes, the roundheads were basically protestant ISIS.
Was he the greatest man in human history ?
rip in piss
fuck castro and fuck aII comies
>>2002425
Yes.
Well he survived countless assassination attempts, led a revolution, and eventually died because of old age.
If the ``General Winter´´ had not reached Stalingrad.The Germans would have a chance of win?
If the forces of nature were so in favor of a Nazi victory that they would forestall the seasons just to prevent their blunder from actually impacting them then I suppose the Nazis would have been legitimately invincible in war.
>>2001471
German failure at Stalingrad was not principally due to weather. In fact, Chuikov's memoirs said he only had two real worry points during the battle, first being the initial rush, and secondly when it started to get cold, as his resupply was threatened when the Volga was partially frozen and it was hard to get barges across, but not so locked in ice that you could just drag things from shore to shore.
Honestly, the main reason that the Germans couldn't take Stalingrad is they got too badly battered fighting (in the open, mind you) trying to get into position in the first place.
>>2001471
Germans lost because they got encircled, not because of the winter.
Whats are the differences between serfs and slaves?
>>2000898
Landowners were required to allow serfs some benefits, such as owning some of the products of their labor.
Chattel slaves are the legal property of a single person.
Serfs are tied to a particular estate/area of land. They serve whoever happens to own that land.
>>2000898
serfs believe they have choice, slaves understand they have none.
Was it autism?
>>2000690
Anti Communism, the Anglos and Frenchmen wanted something to guard against Communism.
>>2000690
The autism was East Prussia.
>>2000690
No but this was
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermarium
Why was the French Revolution so horrible hostile towards established organized religions, to the point of replacing them with the Cults of Reason and the Supreme Being? I understand anti-clericalism due to the disproportionate power the clergy had, this anti-clericalism was also present during the American Revolution, but the downright bloody suppression and wholesale slaughter of the clergy and those that followed them? Where did that come from? Especially when the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen defended religious freedom?
tl;dr: Where did the desire to entirely dechristianize France come from?
atheism
I dunno, but it's probably another instance of the people getting slaughtered not actually dindu nuffin-ing.
>>1999209
Jacobins taking things too bloody far
You can only pick one, lads.
Choose carefully.
>>1996386
Napoleon.
Napoleon, an actually talented guy. Hitler is a fucking LARPer in comparison.
>>1996409
>implying Bonaparte's whole life, civil, political and military, wasn't a fraud
How good where the 1815 cannons at hitting targets?
>>2003356
Extremely accurate
Pic related
French cannons use to have an high range (1000m range) but not with a good accurance in long range. In short range they were great
Why did Japan think this was a good idea?
They were probably trying to push the decision in the other direction.
>If I decide to go to war with Japan, they'll probably do more of this
That or they were trying to provoke America into war for some reason(?)
>>2002842
The leadership expected it would be a repeat of the Russo-Japanese War i.e. a devastating first-strike that crippled the US followed by swift co-ordinated attacks would force the US to sue for peace
>>2002916
That makes sense, Russia was a huge Empire too, so they probably thought they could manage it.
Now that the dust has settled, what went wrong?
>>2002586
Bay of Pigs invasion, numerous assassination attempts and making Cuba submit because of embargo.
>>2002586
External threats drive authoritarian policy
>>2002586
The dude won, his government still exist and will keep existing. Those Cuban exiles are never getting that sugar back.
Communism won.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Scjy-jQWTQU
In the future, would it country to exist that monitors its citizens and every inch of it's country with cameras and AI bots. Oublic streets and alleyways would be monitored by human being with cameras. Everyone wears the same similar clothing with a microphone and camera whih is controlled and monitored by an advanced AI. Private areas like bathroom stalls, private areas like homes, bathrooms, restricted areas would be monitored by AI cameras.
To prevent corruption. Human beings who operate the cameras are monitored by other human beings through cameras and microphones at certain periods of time or possibly recorded. Police and soldiers while on duty and such would have their actions recorded by bodycams and such and also monitored by human beings at certain periods of time.
All this for the sole purpose of civil peace and national prosperity.
Would such a country flourish like this? Could it be possible?
This is a crude idea and a more of an idea that i've been thinking of day and night while attended classes in school. It's something I daydream about and have thought about different flaws in this type of system. I like to patch those ideas and just have it as some sort of project in my head which will probably ever come true but would exidt as a dream. I thought I'd share it here and maybe hammer out some flaws or something.
>>2002129
>In the future
what event from 25 years ago are you refering to op?
>>2002129
Privacy is stupid in general, it's better if everything is just made public.
>>2002140
Exactly. If you have nothing to hide and are not breaking the law. The governemnt should have the right to maintain it that way.
What the fuck happened? How did Liberia go from the promised land of the free slaves to the civil warring ebola riddled shithole it is today? Betcha Monroe's kicking himself on that one.
>>2002054
Niggers.
we smoke crack to be vigilant
Military coups are a lot like potato chips, in that they cause failed states and anarchy.
Is there any branch of Christianity that rejects the idea of God being omnipotent and omniscient, but without rejecting the idea of a creator God entirely?
Most arguments I find discussing the idea of God being neither omnipotent nor omniscient tends to end with "so he can't exist".
>>2001910
The Jewish god. He is somehow unaware that adam and eve had eaten the apple until after he literally found them in the garden and saw for himself.
There's this thing called the demiurge in magic is real-tier Semitic religions, but that's highly unchristian.
some gnosticisms
I can prove fate and free will at the same time.
Each being capable choice is capable of enacting free will. Wether they are aware of said choice or not it doesn't matter.
Free will is your ability to choose between a set of predestined events and to enact what you will upon it. You can choose between a set of actions which will always happen anyway. In the moment there is freewill, but outside the moment there is not.
There is only a certain amount of things which can happen due to matter and the finite amount of ways it can define itself. So even if you had chicken for breakfast this morning and not cereal, rest assured there is a universe where you didn't have chicken and had cereal, yet everything in that iteration happened the exact same, it's just one day your choices are different. There is also a universe where this choice leads to vastly different outcomes.
Fate only appears when you look at the whole iteration of the universe, from start to end as it was always going to happen in that way, and you had a pseudo-choice.
You are both free and confined by destiny. Infinity is a bitch.
Pic unrelated.
Your paragraph defining free will is a total mess bordering on nonsensical. What do you mean when we can choose "from a set of actions that will always happen anyway"? If you can't satisfactorially prove this is the case to others, everything else you have falls apart.
>>2001885
>from a set of actions that will always happen anyway
>asking to be spoonfed.
It's in there, bud.
>>2001895
>I'm gonna make this super-bold claim about the nature of reality, but I can't prove my assertions
You have nothing more substantive than people who wonder if maybe we're the reflection, and what we see in the mirror is actually the real world.
Was turning against religious their biggest mistake? It seems that communism should be compatable with christianity, but they just arbitrarily decided not to be.
>>2001720
>Bolsheviks run by a crapload of jews
>staying christian.
>>2001720
>It seems that communism should be compatable with christianity, but they just arbitrarily decided not to be
It could be compatible with Christian beliefs, but when communism was created institutionalized Christianity was very conservative and had historically opposed radical social change, so its not "arbitrary" at all that Marx didn't like them
>>2001720
Definitely. Although it's easy to see why Lenin was anti-Christian, given his wildly reactionary and Tsarist the pre-revolutionary Patriarchate had been.