So, let's get this straight once and for all....
Was the American Civil War fought over slavery or over the federal government's right to interfere in state matters?
I personally support the "state's rights" position since Lincoln clearly stated on several occasions that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave he would do it. Also, he avoided freeing the slaves in Union-allied states.
>>338665
Lincoln fought against state rights, the south fought to preserve and spread (that last part is often overlooked and proves that the south didn't give a fuck about states rights) slavery.
>>338686
>the south didn't give a fuck about states rights
Absolute bullshit. The South, and for that matter the North as well, valued state's rights extremely high. Everyone in that time period did. The North just didn't care as much because slavery was not important to them.
The South fought to "spread" slavery only in the sense that they believed that the new territories deserved the right to vote on whether or not they were a slave state. The federal government had been pushing laws that prevented certain territories from becoming slave states while allowing others to. Most politicians from the South simply wanted to allow them to vote on it.
These laws were put in place because the North was well aware of the fact that many settlers in the West might have been supportive of slavery.
>>338665
>Was the American Civil War fought over slavery or over the federal government's right to interfere in state matters?
yes
Sure, they're never really defeated on the battlefield due to overwelming $$$. But time after time after time, the yanks pack their shit in and effectively "lose" their original struggle by omission. It keeps happening time after time after time
Is this a deep rooted cultural thing? Just a meme? Sensationalist media? Do they really "lose" at all?
Because they fight bad wars with shit win conditions.
>>338581
The same way that every material power loses asymmetric wars. You get a calculation that the strategic aims envisioned aren't worth the amount of blood and treasure being spent to secure it.
The U.S. is still overwhelmingly the dominant military power in today's age. There's really very little that can conceivably destroy the U.S., short of Russia going crazy and launching all of their nukes for no real reason. So it's hard to justify considerable military expenses for stuff when no "real" threat exists.
It's a lot easier to justify "We need to fight to save our homeland", or "we need to fight to save our good ally" as opposed to "we need to fight because maybe, someday, if we lose here, it will start a domino effect to create more hostile states in the region which might or might not have the capacity to challenge us sometime way down the line."
As well ask why the French lost in Algeria, Caesar lost in Britain, or the Spanish lost in the Netherlands.
>>338581
>But time after time after time, the yanks pack their shit in and effectively "lose" their original struggle by omission
this has LITERALLY only happened in Vietnam, and even then, not really.
Did you guys know about this?
>On September 14, 1954, at 9.33 am, a 40-kiloton nuclear bomb was blown up as part of the training at the Totsky facility in the Orenburg region of the Soviet Union.
>In the 1950s, the government was seriously preparing for World War III. After tests in the US, Soviet officials thought it was essential to have “the bomb” in the Soviet Union. They chose the steppes of Orenburg due to their close resemblance to the landscapes of the Western Europe.
>The explosion occurred at an altitude of 380 yards. Out of the 45,000 soldiers who participated in the training, only 2,000 people have survived to the present day, and more than half of them remained handicapped or terminally ill for the rest of their lives.
>Neither the local population nor the soldiers themselves were informed about what the real purpose of the training was and what kind of bomb was being tested.
>The nuclear explosion was followed by a massive military training session, with people staying in the open air, unprotected from the radioactive emission, and with jets flying straight through the “mushroom cloud”. The number of bombs and mines exploded at the site that day exceeded those during the Berlin military operation in the WWII.
>Back then, it was primarily the blast wave that the command deemed to be the greatest danger, never minding the much more dreadful and long-lasting impact the fallout from the blast had on the participating troops.
>All of the participants of the training signed a 25-year-long gag order, and all the materials were classified as strictly confidential and were only disclosed after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the same time the surviving participants of the tragedy were finally allowed to talk. Dying from cancer, early heart attacks and strokes, they couldn’t even reveal to their doctors what they had been a part of.
This is just fucked up. Sending 40000 people to their death as a test.
A documentary about the incident:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk_nVyhL1MI
ITT: Historical Figures with cool nicknames
I'll start Charles "The Hammer"
Septimius Severus
I don't even know what it means, but it sounds cool
>>338405
William the Bastard
>>338435
It's a spell from harry potter
Napoleon is overrated.
He was a pussy-worshiping kuk who got lucky a couple times fighting Italians and coalition forces.
He censored the press, he was a despotic monarch who put his stupid family in positions of immense power, and marched millions under his command into senseless death cus he couldn't bully Russia to stop trading with Britain.
I used to think he was cool, that is, until I really read about him.
>>338200
>actively avoiding the word filters just to use now largely meaningless meme word
Stop.
>>338200
Are you the same butthurt faggot who made another thread stating the same thing and posted your shit in every thread about him?
Stop being assblasted ffs, it's been 200 years
>who got lucky a couple times
ah, so you read that one polemic book and now you're going to parrot its point for the next couple of weeks.
>East Germanic languages are ddeeeeaaaadd
Why the hell didn't the Gothic languages take root in Iberia and the northern Italian peninsula? Why is an entire section of the Germanic language family gone forever? Wasn't it enough that pure Anglo Saxon English was raped by Norman latinates?
Those languages sounded like shite anyway.
>fat gas station attendant with a triple chin
>m muh Germanic heritage!
>>338174
No fuck you
Why are northern aboriginals (say the Coast Salish) so dark skinned? Vancouver is the same latitude as Luxembourg, but the indigenous populations look completely different.
I am really curious about the historical reasons for this, was it due to recent population movements? Climate?
i might might sound like a dumb cunt but it can be neanderthals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Paleoindians
Migrations
>>338122
Neanderthals were only in Europe and near east
Philosophically illiterate fag here.
Is there any philosopher I can read that justifies conservative values, family values, honoring family values, patriotism and this kind of thing? Pic somehow related.
>>338054
OP here. With " honoring family values" I meant "honoring traditions". Don't know how I ended up typing that wrong.
>>338054
>>338064
Just become Roman Catholic.
There is a mod for mount and blade:warband called floris. Like mount and blade it attempts to be allegorical to history.
It focuses on battles between 20-800 soldiers and pic related is some of the units one of the nations can have. How close to medeivil nation was this one?
Here's another nation.
mercenaries
Is there a philosopher who puts great emphasis on collective spirit and loyalty to one's society? I'm currently reading Mr. Spookbuster and would like to see the opposite side of the coin.
hobbes
>>337797
I read Leviathan. However, it doesn't really have much to do with ethics. He does a nice job of proving why society is necessary, though. I also read Locke (Two Treatises of Government).
>>337797
Hobbes is more about loyalty to a sovereign than society itself.
What OP is asking for is really the orthodox position when it comes to political philosophy (ie we are better together than apart), so there is an element of it in almost all political philosophies.
The furthest you can get away from Stirner's egotist shit would probably communism I guess, so you could say Marx is the opposite end of the spectrum.
Redpill me on this war /his/. Would Iraq still be considered the bad guys if they didn't break the geneva convention and used chemical weapons?
posting some random images
>>337331
>Redpill me
Stop using this stupid phrease.
>>337331
Iraq was totally, and entirely the bad guys.
They bombed civilians and used chemical weapons - there is no 'if'.
Explain to me how giants can exist in every single ancient mythology?
Also explain how giants have the same origin, being a result of Heaven copulating with Earth?
well its obv bruh giants actually existed
now that u know what u gonna do with that noledge? the conssequences will never be the same
Titans aren't giants. Read Hesiod.
>>337179
Was there ever a more glorious/romantic style of combat?
>>337065
>any combat in world war 1 being romantic.
Are you serious?
It's crazy how this shit started
>As Dickson had predicted, initially air combat was extremely rare, and definitely subordinate to reconnaissance. There are even stories of the crew of rival reconnaissance aircraft exchanging nothing more belligerent than smiles and waves.[8]
>This soon progressed to throwing grenades, and other objects - even grappling hooks.[10] The first aircraft brought down by another was an Austrian reconnaissance aircraft rammed on 8 September 1914 by Russian pilot Pyotr Nesterov in Galicia in the Eastern Front. Both planes crashed as the result of the attack killing all occupants
>Eventually pilots began firing handheld firearms at enemy aircraft,[8] however pistols were too inaccurate and the single shot rifles too unlikely to score a hit. On October 5, 1914, French pilot Louis Quenault opened fire on a German aircraft with a machine gun for the first time and the era of air combat was under way as more and more aircraft were fitted with machine guns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_in_World_War_I#The_dawn_of_air_combat
>>337065
Competitive penis fencing.
Which city has the best collection of art?
That's debatable
I'd say either Florence, Rome, Paris, London, St. Petersburg or New York
>>337028
>florence
no. all of its art was basically looted by france. the uffizi has some great stuff admittedly, but it is small relative to the british museum or the louvre. its the architecture is influential no doubt, but a lot of it makes no sense with all of its churches stripped of all of its fine art and most of medieval florence demolished after risorgimento baka. and a lot of its buildings can be seen in three days or so, very provincial imo
>>337022
Rome, then Paris then London.
Would you have fought for your country in WW2 if there was a choice in doing so and you wouldn't have been just forced to do it anyway?
Of course I would sign up.
but then I know that the US experience in WWII was entry level babyshit compared to what all the other powers had to deal with.
I have shitty eyesight familia.
>>336972
Niemals