Archived threads in /his/ - History & Humanities - 3525. page

>>1203262

The one that never got caught.

>>1203268
>>1203273
damn.... makes you think #StayWoke

Vladimir Lenin

He created the biggest crime organization of 20th century, possible all time.

>>1203252
India

>>1203252
Lemuria
Their closest relatives are the australoid aboriginals

>>1203252
Some racial anthropologist call them veddoid race.

>when some sperglord from /v/ tries to make a thread on vidya gaems while greentexting

>>1203147

To be fair, when Hearts of Iron 4 comes out, we will have a lot of posts here in /h/ about it.

That game is too high brow for /v/

>>1203147
Actually I've never posted on /v/ believe it or not. I stick to this board, and /int/ occasionally.

>>1203183
This board is much higher brow than like 90% of the content on this website tbqh.

>>1203019
>Hannibal below scipio

>>1203065

Is there a problem ?

File: 1464375523297.jpg (748KB, 1641x1189px) Image search: [Google]

748KB, 1641x1189px

>>1203019
1. Alexander the Great
2. Napoleon
3. Subutai
4. Von Manstein
5. Charles Martel
6. Scipio
7. Hannibal
8. Zhukov
9. Philip II of Macedon
10. Genghis Khan

the bible

>>1202783

Europe's Spur: How the Levant was white before the arabs invaded

>>1202783
Ramses II

>>1202726
Jotmundgar, or however you spell the name of the Norse sea snake. I think anything that could be that large and come out of the blackness of the sea is pretty horrifying desu

Hydra, Bahamus

>>1202726
Balrog

>>1202410
Literally the worst

>>1202410
it looks sort of like a prototype of the eu
with all it's retarded flaws

File: 1464273745962.png (96KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 500x400px

>>1202413
>>1202431

how else could you protect the german minorities spread accross europe from being homogenised or ethnic cleansing?

File: 1458331909186.jpg (492KB, 776x1851px) Image search: [Google]

492KB, 776x1851px

>>1202031
Poverty,or as lefties like to call it progress

Why the fuck would you assume that people on 4chan are representative of a country's electorate?

It was basically just a cult of personality that appealed to the working class to stay in power after it seized power through force. There was some nationalism and anti-imperial sentiment, too, which played a big role.
Tbh I got most of my info about it from Evita.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI8i055X398

>>1204674
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tpvxsJAZPk&list=PL2yWTXQ4y8vkqHcDSTL00tNA2FRzW953g

Here's what I know about Peronist economics

They wouldn't be famous if what they said did not make sense.

Other than Rousseau and that Nietzsche cuck, that is.

>>1201952
Now you understand why Socrates hated sophistry so much

Now go find the truth and defend it

File: 1461723496399.png (257KB, 415x476px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 415x476px

>>1201970
>They wouldn't be famous if what they said did not make sense.

>hey guys
>I'm gonna be president for life, hope you don't mind
>country descends into civil war
>Britain slowly regains control of the colonies by playing the different factions off against each other
>US ends up with revolutionary blue balls, like France, and ends up permafucked politically, like France

File: trinity-test-nuclear-explosion_0.jpg (15KB, 443x480px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 443x480px

>>1201577
>Lets deconstruct the very building blocks of the universe, what could go wrong?
>It does nothing
>It destroys the entire desert
>It destroys the entire west
>It destroys the whole continent
>It destroys the whole atmosphere
>It destroys the whole world
>It destroys the whole universe

At the time, setting this off was the work of absolute madmen

>>1201686
Atoms had been split before that though.

>>1201355
They might refrain from using nuclear weapons at first, however when one side starts losing they will turn to the nuclear option. They might either threaten to use nukes to force a peace, or actually deploy them if that fails.

>>1201377

The consequence would be the annihilation of the remaining territory of the losing side (and possibly also that of the occupied areas). This seems far worse than the consequences of losing a conventional war

>>1201355
You're probably looking at another cold war scenario. I seriously doubt any world leaders today would have the balls/stupidity to use nukes even on the losing end of a war.

I guess it depends more on who you're talking about, really. Anything first world would probably not use them.

>>1201099
Both had persuasive points.

File: Vittorio_Emanuele_III_(c._1915–1920).jpg (47KB, 396x604px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 396x604px

>>1201099

>>1201273
throwing in the wild card

File: image.png (91KB, 1300x1656px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1300x1656px

It isn't over. Ask yourself, where are the Nuclear Weapons?

Extinction was never really plausible.

A billion or so deaths, more plausible.

>>1200980
>How it got started.
>Who it involved.
>How long it lasted.
>What it was over.
>And why exactly it is the closest humanity has ever come to extinction; and the entire myriad of circumstances that came together to prevent that from happening (which has been said to be tantamount to playing Russian roulette 13 times in a row and winning).

You can read all that stuff on Cold War wikipedia page you fucking idiot

>>1200957
More cucked and probably having Trotsky killed in a coup that installs someone else who's bloodthirsty.

File: Bukharin.jpg (8KB, 330x472px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 330x472px

How different would the USSR have been had Bukharin came into power instead of Trotsky or Stalin?

>>1200991
Richer.

>>1200716
5000 sounds low. Such are the heady joys of bureaucracy.

File: early American painting.jpg (3MB, 3811x2405px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3811x2405px

>that fb worthy meme
>having a picture make your point

I think this is bait, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt OP.
When a nation has about 4 million citizens, 13 states, and a developing economy, 4300 words of law is likely sufficient.
However, when a nation has 300 million citizens, 50 states, and the largest economy in the world, I think an increase in legislation is reasonable.

I love the good ol' days just as much as any American, but laws adapt to the circumstances of the nation.

File: 1123.png (102KB, 595x637px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 595x637px

>>1200762
I'd argue it is to the contrary.
A small nation can easily enact more laws since their scope of operations is so limited, there are not that many people to regulate and consider.

However, the more complex a society, the hardest it is for the legislator to effectively and accurately identify the issues which ought to be legislated, and then to craft the appropriate legal instruments to regulate them. It is much better in this case to make the law as general as possible, and to rely on the general principles of law to guide the Judiciary in their procedures.

This is specially true when dealing with administrative issues regarding the economy, the difficulty to regulate an economy by law increases as the economy becomes more complex, to the point where any specific attempt would be necessarily short-sighted and counter-productive.