Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 2887. page

File: shoah.jpg (399KB, 1600x1077px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 1600x1077px

I'm currently in the midst of watching Claude Lanzmann's Shoah. The first-hand accounts of what happened at concentration camps in Poland are quite powerful.

Now, I definitely believe in the veracity of the official holocaust facts, but I've seen so much shit on the internet poking holes (supposedly) in the official story, that I find myself unable to feel the full experience of films like "Shoah" or visiting Anne Frank's House due to these residual doubts that rise in the back of my brain.

Obviously the rabid way in which Western culture defends the sacredness of the official story is suspect, but holocaust deniers can be even more biased and fucking stupid. I don't know who to believe.

Has anyone navigated the annals of Holocaust writings and found someone that has looked at these claims of deniers (gas not being used for extermination, changes to total number of deaths, etc) and one way or the other, set the record straight in his or her mind?

File: 1472761420213.png (331KB, 635x457px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 635x457px

Hey /his/ I need to design tshirts for Latin Club, so send me all your Roman memes for inspiration

File: BF1_EEDE_WallPaper_750x1334_v2-1.jpg (22KB, 134x187px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 134x187px

How historically accurate is Battlefield 1?

File: 676169267678992070.jpg (26KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 400x300px

>you will never have a harem
How do you deal with this?

File: Bayeaux Tapestry.jpg (69KB, 660x371px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 660x371px

Pardon me if this is a stupid question, but it's been looping around in my head a few days.

Why was there a battle at Hastings at all?

We all know what happened, the Saxons chose an extremely good position, high on a hill, with their flanks protected by deep woods that would be hard to maneuver through. The battle was a pretty close-run thing, but only so because the Normans kept trying to batter their way up the hill; the two abortive counterattacks the Saxons made ended disastrously, and even if you had some whole army rush, their lack of cavalry and missile troops would have made things real bad, real quick in an open space.

So given that the obvious strength of the Saxon position on that hill, why did William attack? He certainly didn't seem to be in any hurry to engage, as after landing he constructed fortifications and plundered the surrounding countryside instead of marching north to force a confrontation with Harold, who was the one running his army ragged to try to get far enough south to fight. And there can't be that many super defensive positions like the ones the Saxons enjoyed historically? Why not just try to maneuver around, head towards a vital target and force the Saxons to either let you bypass them or engage in terrain better suited to the Normans?

File: Nixon.jpg (40KB, 348x479px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 348x479px

Criminally underrated presidents

File: egyptian-pyramids-hero-AB.jpg (73KB, 334x250px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 334x250px

What was the greatest empire of all time? Please provide a logical and detailed response, and back your claim.

File: seminary.jpg (2MB, 2560x1052px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2560x1052px

Finishing up seminary here (at a Reformed seminary). I have a decade's experience teaching theology in both academic thinktank and church contexts. I plan to pursue a Ph.D. in ANE studies, focusing on the interactions between Israel and her neighbors especially in the areas of cosmology and worship practices.

If there's any interest, I'd be happy to answer questions about church, church history, liturgy, church/world distinctions, etc.

File: Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg (151KB, 964x1388px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 964x1388px

Has there ever been another man absolutely right about everything?

File: world_population_growth.jpg (77KB, 440x306px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 440x306px

is mass sterilization or genocide inevitable?

File: it aint me plays.jpg (7KB, 250x241px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 250x241px

>I believe God created THROUGH evolution.

File: Dr. Goebbels, I'm NSDAP.jpg (37KB, 450x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 450x600px

Reminder that the invasion of Poland was 100% justified.

File: Worst tank in history.jpg (314KB, 900x592px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 900x592px

Daily reminder that the Wehrmacht was the worst army in human history.
>le super tiger tank couldn't go more than 10 meters without the transmission exploding
>more concerned with LE KRUPPSTALH quality that every wooden bridge in west europe collapsed under the weight
>tiger 2's could barely make it out of the factory due to lack of ball bearings
>All the kriegsmarine did was sit in the Atlantic and get destroyed by the brits. Even the italians had a better navy.
>The Bismarck is a shitty ship
>Rommel was horrible at logistics
>He also was still a nazi war criminal even if he didn't like hitler personally
>"Muh asiatic red hordes" The germans always loose and wehrfags always have an excuse for it
>Major party leaders defected over simple things
>War based economy requiring endless war
Wow, holy shit, Nazi Germany was a failure in every sense of the word

File: rendition1.img.jpg (516KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

516KB, 1920x1080px

Hey /his/ I rarely post but I thought that this would be interesting to ask. Do you think the release of Battlefield 1 (set in WW1 1914-1918) will do more good or bad when it comes to people learning or getting interested in the Great War?

Honestly I think it will do more harm especially amongst the younger generation as they will think that WW1 was a faced paced war where everyone used Sub-machine guns and ran around in the open.

I also think, considering that I will buy this game because it does look fun and I enjoy BF, that this game is just a little bit disrespectful. The Great War was a horrific war fought between countries by ordinary men who didn't really know what they were fighting for. It was, like any war, a tremendous waste of life but the glorification of it in this way would most certainly desensitise a lot of peoples thoughts when it comes to WW1. However I very much doubt it will desensitise me or anyone on this thread since a lot of us already were interested in WW1 before this game was announced.

Thanks for reading.