ITT: Unpopular views of history you hold > The world would

>>492961
Genocide is simply a way of dealing with a problem

>>492967
Really unpopular one, but I agree on some level.

The world would be a far better place if the European colonial empires hadn't disintegrated.

America is a communist country.

>>492961
Medieval Europe would have been in a much more advanced state if the Romans hadn't destroyed all European cultures.

Genghis Khan wasn't a general at all.

>Rome pretty much turned to shit after the Republican period ended
>it's an absolute disgrace that all of the states claiming to be successors of Rome were Empires and not Republics

>>493551
What?

>>492961
The firebombing of German and Japanese cities was morally justifiable even when we were specifically targeting civilian areas.

some wars and genocides were the only realistic ways to solve problems that would have dragged on and caused more destruction and suffering in the long run

>>493566
Genghis Khan was a political leader, not a general officer.

Comparing him to Subutai is dumb, they served different functions.

>>492961
Serbs dindu nuffin

C was a mediocre language.

>>492961
Well everyone that knows anything about Genghis Khan agress with your second point, but the fact remains that he was subordinate, not a leader, therefore irrelevant to history.

Trianon was a mistake
"Turkey" shouldn't have come out of WWI relatively unharmed
The Eternal Anglo meme has a bit of truth into it

this is history
>>493593
We should have threads about things like this, history is a circus tent rather than an umbrella term.

Italy did well in ww2 considering the 3 recent wars they had before which pretty much depleted their resources
For example the Spanish Civil War
>The monetary cost was put at between 12 and 14 milliards (billions) of lire,in other words twice as much as Italy's annual military budget. A quarter of a million Italian rifles were left behind in Spain when the Italians went home, as well as nearly 2,000 pieces of artillery and more than 750 military aircraft, which together amounted to a third of Italy's available armament

That was taken from Mussolini's Roman Empire by Denis Mack Smith

Japan was always an Italy-tier power.

The only reason they were even remotely impressive for any period of time is the fact that they were far away from any other civilized nation.

>>493634
You could say the same about the British

>>493643
Britain was right across the Channel from France, and only a little further away from Germany.

At the time they were an empire, Western Europe was the center of the civilized world.

>>492961
> St. Paul was either not Jewish at any point or was Hellenic Jew with little to no religious training and education.

>>493648
Yet it was never invaded, after it controlled the British isles, they didn't have to worry that much about expanding in Europe. They focused mostly on their navy and overseas colonial expansions.

>>493664
And, you know, constant diplomacy/warfare to keep continental Europe divided.

>>493634

This is an unpopular view? Granted, I've only really studied them in WW2, but they don't really do much that's impressive from a military science point of view. The Malay campaign is really the only thing clever or tactically/operationally noteworthy they did, and you have to balance that against a LONG string of idiotic moves on their part, starting with not blockading Vladivostok when it would be trivial to do.

>>492967
>Genocide is simply a way of dealing with a problem
I don't think anyone disagrees. The reason that other ethnic/religious groups become "problems", originates from nationalism or variations of it, ideas that arose less than two centuries ago.

>>493685
>The reason that other ethnic/religious groups become "problems", originates from nationalism or variations of it, ideas that arose less than two centuries ago.
What about tribalism?

>>493545
>if the Romans hadn't destroyed all European cultures.
wat. most Germans, and all Slavs and Hungarians never lived under Roman rule. The French lived under Frankish (german) rule for centuries after Roman rule disintegrated. The Iberians lived under Visigothic and then Arab rule for centuries after the Romans as well.

>>493692
>tribalism
what about it? please elaborate, you mean that tribes have committing genocide in the past?

>>493597
The Turks had to fight a war to come out of ww1 looking like that. They also lost half of the land they owned

>>493662

Oh look, a Jew.

>>493699
>what about it? please elaborate, you mean that tribes have committing genocide in the past?
Well, what constitutes genocide?

Since the beginning of recorded history ethnic/religious/cultural groups have been invading each other and either killing off other groups or carrying them away as slaves.

>>493699
Not him, but forced movement of peoples is something very old, at least in the Middle East. They often turned into death marches due to either incompetence or cruelty. It's not different from the Trail of Tears, which is often considered a genocide. The armenian genocide also included death marches, though it wasn't exclusively about that. It was even done by leaders that are generally seen positively like Abbas the Great.

>>493704
>The Turks had to fight a war to come out of ww1 looking like that.
I know, something they should be praised for. It's probably my Christian bias, but I still feel like Armenia and Greece should have gotten more out of it, maybe even Kurdistan could have been a country after the whole decolonization.

>>492961
If the Moorish conquest had continued into Gaul, both Europe and Islam would be better-off

The liberal strain of European Islam would be a strong counterweight against radical peninsular Islam

>>492961
The Ottoman Empire should never have been destroyed

Rosa Luxembourg should have won

The first Red Scare was a mistake

>>493662
He was a Hellenic Jew who didn't speak Hebrew. He wasn't secular, but he was definitely less educated and pious than your average Orthodox person today.

>>493530
The thread is for unpopular views, not retarded views.

>>492961
The M4 Sherman was one of the best, if not the best tanks in ww2, and not just because of reliability; it was tough and deadly in tank to tank combat.

>>492961
Some of the Crusades were not defensive (unpopular in 4chan).

Some of the Crusades were at least partly defensive (unpopular irl).

It's puerile to blame the catholics or westeners for the fall of East Rome, as byzantines themselves and other orthodox peoples were the ones ultimately responsible for start the crusades, the sack of Constantinople of 1204 and the political situation that allowed the turks to enter and conquer the Balkan Peninsula.

>>493709
>Well, what constitutes genocide?
This is a good question. I think it means something like "the purposeful elimination of an ethnic, religious group, nationality etc. etc." I think genocide has relevance only in the last 200 years or so because the scale of death can be a lot larger and efficiently carried out with the rise of modern, centralized states. Nationalism can create the context for genocide because the idea of creating a homogenous, sovereign people within the confines of a border makes it imperative to eliminate, or forcibly assimilate, any minority groups.

In your example of groups invading each other, I think its too much of a general statement. We would have to investigate each historical era to see whether your statement holds up to scrutiny. But to give one example, the Ottomans did carry off slaves in their raids and invasions into central Europe, but not with the intention of eliminating particular groups. Slaves are valuable commodities, and conquered Christians even more valuable to the Ottoman state because they had to pay more taxes on account of their religion.

File: lemay.jpg (13KB, 262x320px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 262x320px

>>492967
yes

US should've listened to pic related and nuked commies before they had developed their own in order to maintain a monopoly on nukes

>>493742
One that immediately springs to mind would be the St. Bartholomew's day massacre.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massacre

>>493720
>>493720
I agree, and part of the reason the death marches existed was because of a negligence of primitive states (just look at how hard a time Europe has controlling the influx of syrians or America immigrants from anywhere) and made worse by preexisting prejudices. On the other hand a genocide would be state sanctioned killing which can be aided by popular support (as in the Armenian and Rwandan cases) for the purpose of eliminating or greatly reducing the number of a particular group.

>>493759
As far as I know, St. Bartholomew's massacre was mob violence on a huge scale and was not a departure from the ordinary in the French Wars of religion. Already over the previous decade, Protestants had been desecrating Catholic images and attacking processions. Catholics had been attacking worshipping Protestants or those burying their dead. And in actuality the 1572 massacre stopped the further massacres because it was so bloody and horrifying. You also have to remember that the Protestants were not defenceless either. The massacre only happened because Paris was very vulnerable for Protestants. In other parts of the country, Protestants lived in militarized bastions that successfully defended against Catholic attacks. Only 100 years later would Louis XIV actually crush the Protestants once and for all

>>493807
>St. Bartholomew's massacre was mob violence on a huge scale and was not a departure from the ordinary in the French Wars of religion.
Just because it wasn't out of the ordinary doesn't mean that attempting to wipe out all members of a certain cultural group isn't genocide.

>Protestants had been desecrating Catholic images and attacking processions. Catholics had been attacking worshipping Protestants or those burying their dead.
Justifying genocide doesn't make genocide not genocide.
Stalin justified his purges of cultural minorities as well.

>>493564
>republics are literally the shittiest most pleb-tier form of government

>>493827
But it was a limited genocide because it failed to eliminate Protestants in France. However, it did "solve a problem" as the poster mentioned, but only in a limited way, in that the Protestant presence was removed from Paris and many actually converted back to Catholicism. But I think this hits on another problem, because the most infamous genocides did not stop when Jews or Armenians changed their religion or language. But in the case of the French Wars of Religion, conversion could lead to redemption in the eyes of Catholics, like when the contender for the throne Henry of Navarre converted back to Catholicism to become king of France, thereby ending the Wars of Religion.

The Germans should have made an alliance with the Dutch, so they would have had an ally on the Western front in WW1.

I often wonder if the wrong side won ww1. The British and the French definitely fucked up everything with their greed.

>>493935

>Greed.
>Imposing a penalty on Germany that was less harsh than the one Germany imposed on Russia
>And which America loaned money to Germany to pay off in any case, and mostly forgave the debts.

The elderly should be killed because they are a drain on resources

A strong autocratic government with a passionate leader is preferable to democracy.

>the world would've been a better place had Russians had the opportunity to annihilate the whole of Germany at/after the end of ww2

>>493944
No, this is for unpopular opinions

Bismarck should have declared Germany a republic at his death

DANZIG WAS GERMAN
A
N
Z
I
G

W
A
S

G
E
R
M
A
N

>>493955

See >>493730

>>493948
Western civilization is superior to all other civilizations.
A nation is better off with a homogeneous population, no immigration, and protective trade.

>>493643

No you couldnt. Japan wasnt influencing mainland asia at all (with one or two exceptions). From the normans onwards Britain was part of the greater europe.

The Holocaust didn't happen.

>The world would be better place if Germany was balkanised after WW1

>>493664
>They focused mostly on their navy
>Yet it was never invaded
These two are linked together.

>>492961

Of course. Germany losing basically set up everything currently wrong with Europe.

Subutai was not considered the greatest Mongol general. He is famous in Europe because he was the one they had contact with.

Frederick the Great wasn't a very good general. His brother Henry was a lot better.

>>493580

Are you retarded? Genghis Khan was a militray commander.

History continues to repeat itself because governments care only about money but not about the social Impact that their decision causes and will cause in the future

File: Why_I_m_Antisocial.png (284KB, 765x524px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 765x524px

>>493668
Why couldn't he win

File: Liberty or Equality_Kuehnelt-Leddihn.jpg (21KB, 240x350px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 240x350px

Oh I forgot.
The French Revolution was wretched and tragic.
Fascism is preferable to communism, and capitalism.

>>493643

England was always one of the stronger European nations.

>>492961
I believe in genetic determinism.

>>494091

Is mukhali or Bayan more well known in east asia?

>>493664

That's utter bollocks lad. It was invaded by Romans, Vikings and Normans. If we're just talking about England here then omit the Romans.

England also fought in something called the Hundred Years War which was a conflict stemming from 1337 to 1453 that was ENTIRELY about gaining territory from France on the main European continent.

>>494170
>l337
>Britian wreaking scrubs with 360 no scopes hundreds of years before everyone else

>>493740

Which Crusades were not defensive?

Saying "Well the Christians started the actual Crusade so they are the aggressors" doesn't really work for me since it's ignoring the bigger picture.

>>494140
Because he changed his political bearing more often than the change of the tide.

How can you trust someone like that?

>>494178

>Waiting until 1337 to start your war so you can make this joke at the declaration.

>>494164
I think Muqali had a better reputation among the Mongols than Subutai.

>>494161

What about for Assbabies?

>>494180

>Which Crusades were not defensive?

The first one for a start. I don't recall the Fatimids ever invading Frankish or Germanic territory

>>494170
I was referring to post-100YW England lad, I should've been clearer

>>494182
Rapid change is sometimes needed, he had central policies and tried to adapt to a very sterile political field.

>>494203
Assbabies?

>>494204

No but I do recall them oppressing Christians like every other Caliphate.

The war was against Islam as an entity not just the Fatimids.

>>493986
See >>493730

>>494204
The 1st Crusade was defensive. It was aimed at stopping the advance of Islam.

The Albigensian Crusades were not defensive.

>>494207

But m8 why that period of English history specifically?

It's obviously why Britain/England never got invaded or tried to make gains in Europe during that period of history.

>>494218
>hurr durr ur just a retard
See
>>493730

>>494223
>It was aimed at stopping the advance of Islam.
How convenient then that the crusaders carefully left that out of all their primary sources.

>>494213

Yes, Assbabies. If the exact same couple can have vastly different children depending on whether they were conceived through vaginal or anal sex, then that surely means that genetics are not the be all end all.

>>494236
www1.cbn.com/spirituallife/calling-for-the-first-crusade

>>494227
Lol, get triggered senpai

>>494218

I am not him and I don't see how you can possibly argue with what he's saying.

It is the opinion of a Realist. It is probably an idea that is impossibel to implement but that doesn't make it untrue from a theoretical point of view.

Differences create division and division can lead to conflict. The more homogenous a nation is the less likely the people are to be divided and fight one another.

Say for example you had a nation entirely made up of clones of yourself, there would never be any conflict whatsoever because every thinks, looks, acts and believes the exact same thing.

>>494254

I don't know about him, but if I had a nation entirely made up of clones of myself, it wouldn't last 5 minutes because everyone was thinking, believing, and acting on the exact same thing.

>>494242

The fuck are you on about

>>494242
It is impossible to conceive babies through anal sex, thus your question is meaningless.

If you're trying to sarcastically infer something I'm not getting it.

>>494268

Have you been living under a rock? There was that big furor a while back (in Georgia, the U.S. state, not the country) because some lady tried to flush hers down the toilet.

File: british empire.png (122KB, 4500x2234px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 4500x2234px

>>494224
Because it was their prime

>The only reason they were even remotely impressive for any period of time is the fact that they were far away from any other civilized nation.

Though the poster there exaggerates, my point was with the reply is that being an island nation really benefited both the UK and Japan.

>>494223

>It was aimed at stopping the advance of Islam

Even if that's true a "counter-offensive" - if the term is even valid considering Jerusalem had been under Islamic rule for 400 years, longer than it ever was under Christian rule - is not defensive.

I have no problem with the Crusades but I'm always irritated that when it comes to discussion any critical method or perspective that would normally be applied goes out of the window in favour of basically unfounded sectarianism

>>494274

It was their prime sure but England was always a player in Europe, unlike Japan.

I think the point the original anon was making is that Japan was weak and only survived because it didn't get involved with anyone else and was on an island.

You can't say the same for England/Britian. All they have in common is that they were both island nations.

>>494285

What the fuck is "Britian"?

>>494252
>>493730
>>>/pol/

>>494269

Sperm leaks out from the anus and into the vagina. BAM, conception through anal.

>>494276

>It had been 400 years! Come on!

Christendom was not nearly strong enough to take on the Caliphates back then. The Frankish Empire could just about surmount a defense whenever the Moors got uppity.

By the time of the First Crusade the Caliphate had weakened massively and Europe had gotten stronger. Yet still the Muslims were aggressive, still they raided Sicily, still they were present in Spain. They were still just as much of a pain in the ass as before but now Christendom could actually mount an attack against them.

So the First Crusade happened. The time it took to happen may seem odd at first glance. But look into it and realise the Muslims were impossible to take on for hundreds of years after the initial expansion took place.

File: 20121018_112009584_0.jpg (5KB, 100x125px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 100x125px

Women should be subservient to their husbands, and not apart of the primary work force

>>494285
And I've heard people saying the british empire wasn't so impressive because they conquered technologically inferior people. Japan is even further from mainland Asia than the UK, which explains even more their isolationism.

>>494292
A typo that doesn't invalidate anything he said

>>494305

That's all mostly irrelevant. The Fatimids had nothing to do with Spain or Sicily, and were allied with the Byzantines against the Seljuks when the Crusade was called.

Had Nazi Germany won WWII, Germany would have liberalized in the same manner as the Soviet Union, and Hitler would be regarded in the same way Stalin was in the 60's and 70's.

>>494347

It's only irrelevant if you ignore the fact that the Crusade was not against the Fatimids but Islam as a whole dumbass.

It didn't amtter who had Jerusalem or the Holy Land, it would have still probably gone ahead if the Seljuk held onto Jerusalem.

Islam was the enemy.

>>494358
Either that or it collapses with all the infighting

>>494358

Had Nazi Germany won WW2, Germany would have been ruling over the baking, irradiated cinder.

I doubt too many people would care at that point.

File: samurai with head.jpg (31KB, 372x700px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 372x700px

>>492961
Gunboat Diplomacy and the use of intimidation by the Western powers is what eventually drove Imperial Japan to become what it was during WW2 (Nanking stuff).

>>494153
>England was always one of the stronger European nations.
Is that why they have never won a war against another major European power without the help of a coalition?

I believe Jesus is God and He rose from the dead

>>494295
Never fucking reply to me again unless you're contributing to the thread.

>>494431
No.
>>493730

>>494362

>the Crusade was not against the Fatimids but Islam as a whole dumbass.

Except Islam was only a "whole" in Urban's imagination or rhetoric. That idea also doesn't match up with the actions of the Crusaders - if they were at war with Islam you'd think they'd have expelled Muslims from the Crusader states, tore down mosques and refused to establish relations with neighbouring Muslim states

there is literally nothing defensive about what happened in the levant in 1096. an armed migration of total foreigners into territory where they have no linguistic, ethnic or religious (how many catholics were in the levant in 1095?) connections is not a defensive measure

>>493662
>>493729
>A pharisee who studied under Gamaliel with no education and can't speak Hebrew
>A Jewish persecutor of Jewish heretics that isn't pious

>>493575
90% of my hometowns "old-city" burned down, a fuckton of people died in the flames and the architecture of post war times is shit so now that city is pretty ugly compared to the old fachwerk buildings so fuck you

>>494441

>Pharisee
>Studied under Gamaliel.
>Which is why he hung out with Sadducee Priests and did their dirty work for them
>You know, like prosecuting people without the legal authority to do so, which the High Priest most definitely did not have, and keeping him from assuming that was one of the major Pharisee goals, so it's a very odd choice indeed that Paul would simultaneously claim to be a Pharisee and continue his little persecution crusade.
>Could speak Hebrew
>But continues obvious translation errors in the Septuagint like in 1 Corinthians 15:54.

>>492961
If only Tito and the Partisans didn't liberate Istria and Northern Adriatic from Italian Fascists, I'd live in Italy now

File: 796px-Hamburg_after_the_1943_bombing.jpg (121KB, 796x599px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 796x599px

>>494467
On behalf of Curtis LeMay and Arthur Harris, I'd like to sincerely express my feelings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX7wtNOkuHo

Authoritarian governments with a single powerful leader and dirigist economy is better than the shitty democracy.

>>493730
Views cannot be retarded, people can. And if you forbid freedom of speech to retarded people, you are a xenophobe and intolerant and RAAAAACIST (used for comical value only)

>>494480
True, look how good USA is doing with authoritarian government and single powerful leader

>>494475
>>Which is why he hung out with Sadducee Priests and did their dirty work for them
>>You know, like prosecuting people without the legal authority to do so, which the High Priest most definitely did not have, and keeping him from assuming that was one of the major Pharisee goals, so it's a very odd choice indeed that Paul would simultaneously claim to be a Pharisee and continue his little persecution crusade.
gonna need you to type that in English

It would be absurd for Paul to not speak Aramaic. It was a known trade language even for commoners, and he had a dual citizenship in Israel for goodness sake.

Also its obvious he would quote the Greek text because he was writing to Greeks.

Don't bother replying unless you post some type of source for your information. Even the most liberal Atheist NT scholar I know Richard Carrier doesn't hold the views you hold. Sounds like something straight out of a 17 year olds Instagram.

>>494515

>gonna need you to type that in English

If Acts is correct. Paul is simultaneously

1) A Pharisee
2) On first name terms with a Sadducee High Priest, and aiding said high priest in an activity that the Pharisees considered an overstretch of his authority and heretical.

It is extremely unlikely.

>It would be absurd for Paul to not speak Aramaic.

Aramaic!= Hebrew.

>Also its obvious he would quote the Greek text because he was writing to Greeks.

Have you ever read the verse I stated? He is quoting, without saying that he's pulling an OT verse, Isaiah 25:8. Except he gives the incorrect Septuagint "In victory" instead of the proper Hebrew "Forever". Implication: He either could not or did not read the Hebrew version, again, extremely unlikely in a disciple of Gamaliel.

>Don't bother replying unless you post some type of source for your information

So, argumentum ad hominem? But if you want to see someone tear Paul up one side and down the other, go look up Hyam Maccoby.

>>493505
>>493530
>>493579
>>494020
>>494161
>>494335
These are unpopular, but are coincidentally also flat-out retarded

>>494616
Your opinion about opinions is flat out retarded.

Carthage should have won
The National Assembly shouldn't have chosen the representative democracy over stochocracy

ITT: /pol/

>>494660
>>>/reddit/

>>494092
This isn't unpopular. He has always been seen as a better Warlord than General.

>>494662
kek, is that the best you could come up with.

>>494671
>says Muh /pol/
>expects anything but equal amount of discourse
What do you want, >>>/leftypol/?

>>494679
Yes.

nicene christianity is repackaged late roman paganism and has more in common with Hinduism than early Christianity and Islam is the true continuation of early Christianity

File: basic-guide-to-the-us-government-v3.jpg (334KB, 866x1443px) Image search: [Google]

334KB, 866x1443px

>>493730
Communism as a historical phenomenom means absolute control over civil society by the Communist Party (I know communist give different definitions themselves, these are irrelevant, we do not let any other group define themselves, why should we let commies have that privilege)

Gramsci defined a communist party not as a simple institution, but as the totality of the interests and activities of a radical intelligentsia.

Since the 1960s, every single aspect of civil society in the United States has come under scrutiny of such a radical intelligentsia. Those that do not fit their political interests are done away with or so demonized that no one of any political power and influence would want to associate with it anyway. Basically, life in the United States as a dissident has become undistinguishable from what is depicted in the works of Eastern bloc dissidents such as Vaclav Havel or Czeslaw Milosw.

Therefore, America is a communist country, because it is ruled by actual communists.

>>493628
Why in earth did they leave that much material behind?

>>493938
I was referring more to them carving up the middle east and backstabbing the Arabs, but I would also consider their demands on Germany outrageous.

>>493685
>The reason that other ethnic/religious groups become "problems", originates from nationalism or variations of it

That or religion

>>495028
I don't think so. Religious violence was rare during the Ottoman Empire. Jews for the most part got along fine in Eastern Europe till the late 19th century. Sectarian violence crescendoed with the 30 years war but no side actively pursued the total elimination of the other. They were more interested in political control, which would then be used to coerce their populations to accept one sect or another, e.g. counterreformation catholicism under the habsburgs, france and poland

I tend to agree/disagree with nations, cultures and systems of government mainly due to reasons of aesthetics.

File: tumblr_inline_nt51u7KKyt1rsmxdu_500.gif (191KB, 483x360px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 483x360px

Racism, sexism, and almost every other -ism are not free-standing problems, but merely the results of economic disparity.

>>493943
God I agree with this.

Also there should be a license required to breed.

>>494418
Because they always sided with the underdog.

>>495296
They are not problems at all*

>>493862
u fucking wot m8

>>494180
The Albigensian Crusade for starters.

>>494340
>the british empire wasn't so impressive because they conquered technologically inferior people
And because of that, they got a massive empire and became a world power.

Didn't matter if they fought weaklings or not. Only the results matter.

>>495365
>>495296
-ism only become relevant when you've got such numbers of intellectually broken people that you can start to categorize them by symptoms

>>494488
But depriving disabled people of the right to voice themselves in order to establish social control over them is unethical famm

>>495282
Elaborate

>>494710
>communism = authoritarian

Thats a contradiction mate. If you were educated you would know that a communist society is a society without a government.

>>495296
you might find this interesting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVh75ylAUXY

>>494762
probably gave it to militias and other paramilitary organizations only loosely affiliated with the italian government, as opposed to ones made up largely of italian nationals, so they weren't in a position to ask for it back

>>495435
-isms and -ists exist because of what prefaces them.
Minorities and women.
Eliminate minorities and remove women's "freedom".

>>495531
be careful what you wish for anon, you never know when you'll find yourself declared the enemy

>>495540
Then I have found myself in the wrong position, and hopefully will be deported.
I'm assured that I am in the correct place.

Your use of that silly jewish line of "and then they came for me" doesn't ever hold true.
It's a slippery slope fallacy.

>>495555
funfact, that quote is from a pastor

>>495566
Source?
It was popularized from what I know is Night.

>>495589
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller

Women were never oppressed, historically. Oppression being forced to work in fields/mines, being whipped if you don't work fast enough, being beaten or even killed if you talk back to your overlords.

Being patronised is not fucking oppression.

>>493681
>Japan
>Understanding naval strategy.

Tactically, they had some good moments, but this was a resource-poor island nations that still never managed to set up any sort of a convoy system for supply ships through all of WW2.

>>495531
minorities are a result of categorizing people by arbitrary things.

with nothing but post number to separate us, the anons who get doubles are still categorizable as different from the anons who do not.

>>495765
Kek.
>There is no difference between people

>>495748
that's a rather arbitrary line to draw in the sand, when you by law have less rights than others it is oppression.

File: image.jpg (36KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x450px

>>492961
Hitler did nothing wrong.

>>492967
How is this an unpopular opinion? I'd say I'd me more surprised by someone claiming that the one doing the genocide didn't have a problem with the ones xe genocides.

>>495748
>Oppression being forced to work in fields/mines, being whipped if you don't work fast enough, being beaten or even killed if you talk back to your overlords.
Yea because this never happen to women :^)

The Mongols were mostly just lucky.

>>494710
> Basically, life in the United States as a dissident has become undistinguishable from what is depicted in the works of Eastern bloc dissidents such as Vaclav Havel or Czeslaw Milosw.

Sure thing, buddy.

>>495785
even if you ignore the oppression and murder of minorities and political dissidents he was a complete fool for trying to take on the entire world alone. He could have been the German Ataturk and crushed communism together with the allies, but no, he had to go and do it wrong.

>>495785
Then why didn't he accomplish his goals?

>>495768
literally the opposite.

there are differences between all people. only a broken thing with no individuality would call itself part of something else.

>>495800
Hitler did try to limit the war if not play strategically with who he was fighting when. Britain turned down multiple peace treaties and he did make allies with Eastern European countries like Romania and Finland, both countries that bordered an expansionist Soviet Union.

>>495811
If drawing general distinctions between people of various regions of earth doesn't make sense due to variation on the individual level, then do you also believe that there was no point in doing so for the finches on the Galapagos Islands? They did vary as individuals as well.

>>495828
he fucked up long before that, the right move was to stop at Austria then join the allies when Stalin invaded Poland.

>>495836
Wouldn't major western powers, namely France, already be passive aggressive towards Germany by then. The Anchluss was in 1938 and the remilitarization of the Rhineland was in 1936. By that point France wanted to kill Germany and Britain was trying to do anything to avoid conflict.

>>495852
no, things don't really ratchet up until the sudeten crisis

prior to that there was a feeling that Hitler was simply taking back things that were rightfully german in the first place

Its kind of how people feel today about Russia taking Crimea, a mixture of concern and ambivalence. Yes they took over territory of a sovereign nation but nearly all of the people living there are Russian anyway so no one's going to go to war over it, even if there wasn't the threat of nuclear escalation.

Honestly speaking is there really a reason for Austria to exist as a nation separate from Germany? They're linguistically, culturally, and ethnically so similar.

>>495852
Well, France was wary of a rearming Germany that still had a much higher population that France making good on its leaders' talk of remaking German hegemony. The last straw was the Sudetenland and the invasion of Czechoslovakia. War was inevitable after that.

Invading Czechoslovakia was an offensive act. There was nothing preventative about annexing a nation that had already lost its forward defence line due to abandonment from the West. If Hitler and the NDSAP didn't want war, they shouldn't have annexed a nation that absolutely did not want to be annexed.

>>495830
I feel that you're arguing with someone other than me right now.

"-ist" has always been an insult. taking it on yourself is an act of defiance against its users, done after its become associated with random bullshit. if you remove the associations again it's a very valid insult against exactly the kind of people who would ever own up to it.

if you belong with something that is fine, but you need not desire it.

Nazi Germany only worked as well as it did economically because of Hjalmar Schacht and not Nazi policy

>>493685
> The reason that other ethnic/religious groups become "problems", originates from nationalism or variations of it, ideas that arose less than two centuries ago.

>less than two centuries ago

Someone's never heard of the Old Testament.

>>492967
>t.Enver pasha

>>494150
>Fascism is preferable to communism, and capitalism.
The author of your pic was a free market capitalist.

>>492961
>Genghis Khan was not the greatest Mongol general, Subetai was superior.
Is this really an unpopular view? It's well know and argued.

>>495836
Stalin was never going to invade Poland on his own. He didn't attack historically until 2 weeks after Hitler did.

>>496660
Well across people who actually know about the mongols, but most have a passing interest and believe that Genghis did most of the military work.

>>495871
>Honestly speaking is there really a reason for Austria to exist as a nation separate from Germany? They're linguistically, culturally, and ethnically so similar.
so all things similar should somehow just blob into bigger things?

>>494418
England and then the UK had a habit of trying to keep euopre in balance. Hardly any European wars were faught without some form of coalition anyway.

Dont forget the UK had the most powerful navy in the world, Until WW1 they had not lost a sea battle in over 100 years.
Also they tended to have the best trained soldiers in Europe but always a much smaller army than anyone else.

>>496653
Not exactly, and what I read doesn't dictate the ideas that I formulate.

>>493750
US leadership never were going to do that, both Winston Churchill and general Patton suggested similar ideas to no avail.

Instead the US government offered a Marshall Plan to the Soviets, which the Russians initially received with mixed reactions, but later rejected in favor of their own plan.

In the process, they threw all of Eastern Europe under the bus, which is remembered in communist bloc countries as Western Betrayal.

>>492961
That map is fucking atrocious. Can only be American desu. Those retarded borders.

File: kebab removal.jpg (111KB, 600x685px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 600x685px

>>493583

File: a jew.jpg (16KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 480x360px

>>493708

>>494082
Of course it's the fact that they lost not the fact that they attacked in the frst place. Silly French to defend themselves.

>>496701
you do realize that germany itself didn't exist until 1871 when similar things somehow blobbed into a bigger thing, right?

>>496979
maybe you should have fought back then

>>494616
only these 2 are flat-out retarded
>>494020
>>494335
The rest are at least debatable, unless you're one of those people who think that because a view hurts their feelings you should assume whoever holds it is a """bad™ person"""©™ who should be ostracized and the view should never be discussed beyond some sanitized text book description.

>>496979
>implying the Western army in Europe wouldn't have been completely fucking crushed by the Soviet rape train

They didn't exactly just have hundreds of nukes lying around

>>495789
It never happened to women as a class, is what I am obviously saying.

>>495782
firstly how do you quantify 'less rights by law'? Women might not have had the right to own property in their own name at certain points in history, but then again they would have had an exemption from all forms of conscription and military service. There is never a clear cut case of women simply having it worse in every respect.

secondly, having less rights by law is a pretty poor definition of oppression anyway. Children can't vote in elections, but no one would call them oppressed. If I chose to go and live in another country like Canada I would be unable to vote in their elections and the government would be able to deport me under certain circumstances, but despite the fact that I would have fewer rights than Canadian citizens no one would define this as oppression.

>>492961
Luxembourg is not on your map

>>493862
>system inspired by a philosopher
>pleb

Monarchy is the utter pleb system with its muh chosen by god

>>492967
Technically, yes but a horribly dumb and irrational way to do so. No one since the 1900's has effectively and ultimately dealt with their perceived problems via genocide.

File: bait never.jpg (22KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 480x480px

>>493862
>maymaying this hard

File: followyourleader.jpg (820KB, 1248x800px) Image search: [Google]

820KB, 1248x800px

>>497673
>No one since the 1900's has effectively and ultimately dealt with their perceived problems via genocide.

>>497153
Nah, only >>493505 is somewhat debatable. The others are flat-out retarded. And no, you don't have to harbour an intention to ostracize someone who says things that you consider flat-out retarded. None of the mentioned opinions 'hurt my feelings' but they are still dumb.

>>493724
The radical peninsular Islam is a result of the West thinking it can mop the floor of the desert with the Arab nations without any consequences. If the Middle East had conquered Europe and ultimately become the stronger power of the two, history would have taken an entirely different course.

>>497695
I'm sorry?

>>497733
It just is not true, and you are being ignorant of history if you think it is. There have been plenty of genocides and attempts at genocide the last 100 years.

>>497752
>effectively and ultimately

Of course. I was implying that they were not succesful attempts at dealing with the perceived problems they were meant to deal with.

>>497771
Fair enough.

>>495296
>identifying people through patterns is bad
when 99 out of 100 out of another tribe comes and fucks your shit up, you're bound to kill the next one that looks exactly like the other 99

>>499902
That doesn't make it any less of a fallacy desu.

>>495500
According to communist themselves. According to Christians, Christianity is the revealed truth necessary for salvation. We know better, we know that Christianity is a religion that arose in the Roman Empire and expanded to convert most of Europe and the Americas.

So why do we keep giving communists, and only communists, the privilege of intellectually defining themselves? Because communist intellectuals are the ruling class in the Western world, of course.

>>495955
>Someone's never heard of the Old Testament.
What does this mean? Does it explicitly say that jews are a "nation" in the language its originally written in? Anyway, nation has had different meanings throughout history, and only in the last two centuries did a linguistic community become a political force in itself.

File: 1.png (11KB, 438x308px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 438x308px

>>500334
>Because communist intellectuals are the ruling class in the Western world, of course.

Ah, yes. Of course.

File: WAR_21.jpg (628KB, 1643x1240px) Image search: [Google]

628KB, 1643x1240px

>>494467
Well you deserved it faggot german

I wish all of your shitty city burned to the ground

File: image.png (1MB, 1240x869px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1240x869px

>>494467
No one is going to feel sorry for you while the events of WWII remain in living memory. You deserved every horror visited upon you.

>>497153
This is debatable
>>494335

This is just flat out retarded
>>494020

Go away white knight cuck

File: 1451421668800.jpg (19KB, 257x276px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 257x276px

>>492961
>Naziboo
>giving a shit about Subatai

Calling ancient Greece western civilization is as dumb as calling Christian kingdoms Asian civilization

>>493704
The lands they lost were not inhabited primarily by Turks and there were still significant non-Turkish populations in Anatolia. Sevres was a fair and realistic deal and the world would've been a better place with it, to be honest.

>>493721
As much as I'm going to sound like "muh constantinople" i have to agree that after the dissolution of the empire, Thrace ( don't know the modern name for the area) should have been given to greece as reparations. Possibly modern greece would be in a better state with direct presence in the bosphorus but idk.

>>493732

The Firefly was a beast, as were the later US models. The Sherman had poor results early on because they were mostly crewed by green troops thrown into battle against Germans with years of experience in armored warfare.

>>494180
you really know nothing about the crusaders

anyway, for starters see the Baltic crusades and the 4th Crusade

>>500456
Ok, maybe to speak of them as THE ruling class is an exaggeration, but the fact is that communist intellectuals hold the most important institutions in the Western world: the universities and school system. Everyone goes through them, and the ideas that take hold of universities will ALWAYS trickle down into mainstream society sooner or later.

So in the end, who rules the universities, even though they may not rule the present, will certainly rule the future.

>>501042
25 year rule my /pol/tarded friend

>>501166
Both me and Obama are more than 25 years old

>>493827

>I don't know what the word genocide means

>>494436
>no religious connections

that area was mostly Christian before the Arabs decided to ethnically cleanse the entire Middle East.

>>500601
>society that founded the basis for most western ways of thinking and interpreting the world
>somehow not western civilisation
Whether it's through politics, history, mathematics, theatre, or philosophy the ancient Greeks set the groundwork for what we continue and value to this day in the west. How could they not be considered a part of western civilisation? Unless you follow the postmodern trend of believing that current events have no relation to the past. History in an ongoing flow of economic, sociological, political, and military influences not a chain of unrelated events.

>>501060
And the Sherman was not initially for fighting other tanks, it was designed as an infantry support vehicle. Tank destroyers like the M-36 were made to kill armor.

>>493530
Hey there, Moldbug!

>>501230
Arabization =/= Ethnic Cleansing

There are plenty of original Mesopotamians in their former world. However, many believe themselves to be Arab.It was essentially an anschluss.

>>494404
>unpopular

>>495296
You know what makes you say that? The principle of natural selection.

Monarchical and imperial regimes have two modes: extremely successful or outright disgrace. As disgrace they simply wither away without leaving much of a mark, leaving only the successful ones behind as examples of the 'success' of the model.
This while republics usually aggregate around the middle and manage to hold on together despite not achieving greatness usually.

>>493530
I shoulda figured ol' moldy lurked /his/. How's the formalism treating ya?

Not a single person was gassed at Treblinka.
The evidence for mass gassings at Auschwitz is flimsy at best, and doesn't stand up to traditional historical scrutiny. It's unlikely to have happened.

>>495785
Come the fuck on, Hitller was a military idiot who let his romanticism get in the way of realist military action. Noo, the Wehrmacht's panzers can't take out most of Britian's forces stranded at Dunkirk, because gotta show off that Luftwaffe! Oh wait, aerial bombs don't work on sandy beaches, oops guess we just let Britain rescue their entire fighting force we coulda easily taken out! What's that, we're about to invade Russia but some completely irrelevant uprisings started in Italy's Yugoslavia? Can't make he Axis look bad, better delay our invasion to put those down, it's not like there's any winter we're racing against right? Haha! We're almost at Moscow! But wait, we better pause our whole fucking invasion on this front to take down St. Petersburg first, because that's where the revolution started, and I'm sure that moral blow will hurt more than taking their fucking capital. The war was Hitler's to lose and he lost it because he was the worst thing to happen to the German war machine in its history, he took every irreversible victory they could have achieved and dashed it away because of his precious feefees.

File: 03_panzer_iv_g_in_greece_by_wolfenkrieger-d4tnpsr.jpg (53KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 800x533px

>>501477
Not even remotely true. Tanks are all purpose vehicles and one of those purposes is... fighting other tanks.

While Tank Destroyers were a thing, they were used in a defensive role due to the fact that if they were caught in the open and unprepared, they were at an extreme disadvantage. As such, they were used exclusively in an ambush role. The M4 Shermans that rolled off of the transports in Africa were more than suitable to kill anything but a Tiger in theatre at the time. Later models of the Sherman just upscaled to Counter the Pz IV and the Panther.

>>493732
It is the epitome of "Low tech but rugged". The T85, Pz IV and Sherman are all roughly equivalent systems.

>Sherman: Easily repairable in the field, 80% crew survival rate.
>T85: Great gun, Optimized for fighting in all environments
>Pz IV: Amazing optics, bleeding edge tech, Killer main gun.

However, I have to give it to the Sherman because of soft factors like visibility, ease of maintenance and crew survivablility. Assuming that 80% rate holds true, a destroyed platoon of Five Shermans can be reconstituted and put back into the field in four tanks once they get back to the rear.

This is the true lesson of WWII: Wars are won by the boring shit.

>>495296
You're a misterable, bisexual, tree-hugging, pinko, dicksuck hippy who hates modernity and I'll tell you why: Economic inequality is the byproduct of advanced economies. As the the means of production become more efficient, overhead decreases and profits increase.

Go look at the most equal societies on the planet. They're places like Bangladesh and the Sudan.

>>501395
>Whether it's through politics, history, mathematics, theatre, or philosophy the ancient Greeks set the groundwork for what we continue and value to this day in the west.

Since when? The Renaissance? Have you forgotten the thousand years prior to then?

Certainly Greece has had its influence, but the only sense in which it is foundational is in that a very specific interpretation of them in a very different time inspired a formative moment in Western Civilization. But truly it was injected rather than built upon.

Any hint of Greece prior to the Renaissance was whatever had been passed through Rome.

>>493545
Which cultures did they destroy?

>>493875
How about no? If the Netherlands got defeated in ww1 where would Wilhelm go to drink coffee after he lost his throne?

>>493862
The term plebeian did originate in the Roman Republic

>>501598
Like calling Christian kingdoms Asian civilization

>>493564
There was always this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Senate

File: 1448180072555.png (144KB, 946x472px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 946x472px

>germans should have been forced to pay for all the shit they did during ww2 even if that choked the shit ouf of them also europe needs them to be separated by a wall to prevent their bloodthirsthy warmongering homicidal/suicidal urges
>if europe still exists is because of the french frogs - they've been europe's tampon for longer than they should
>although most history is loosely based on historical events - the usa takes this at a whole new level by having so much made up and romanticized bullshit as official - also, history=/=stories despite of what hollywood tells
>robespierre did nothing wrong

>>501696
t. Jacques

>>501698
actually it's alberto barbosa

>>501598
>Crap! He caught me! I'd better use a whole bunch of words as the noble octopus clouds the waters with ink!

>>500439
You're responding in the context of your original post. In the Old Testament, the Israelites are ordered to destroy various Caananite tribes. The implication being that cultural entities have tried to extirpate other cultural entities (thereby committing genocide) long before 'nationalism' was promulgated in the time frame you describe.

>>500439
>calling all Israelites "Jews"

WHY DO PEOPLE DO THIS

>>501733
Probably because they were paleo-judaic peoples.

>>497771
A peruvian president order that all terrorist be killed in his country, it was something like isis rising up and ready to revolt in peru and he order the police/military to knock on doors and kill thm, hes in jail now but god dmn it he saved tht country and fixed the problem just look at peru now

File: jooze.png (95KB, 1663x830px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 1663x830px

>>501737

>>493685
As long as you don't push the utopian crap of society "before nationalism" you're right. Cities and entire societies we're still segregated, there were clear hierarchies/privileges/oppression and so on.

Also one should add that the problem wasn't some Nazi-esque perceived superiority, but the risk of breakaway states in places dominated by non-dominant nations.

>>494467
I can understand your feels geman bro
Thank you guys for not raising my city in WWI, but Leaven had it coming those fucking reatards whit their "university"

>>494467
Lel this isn't your safe zone faggot

>>495785
he didn't catch them all
so he clearly isn't a good ash

File: bait pol.png (47KB, 625x613px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 625x613px

>>501755
Oh, Hello >>>/pol/

In the real world, all the evidence points to a religion followed by the people of Israel that went through a development from sorcerous practices, to monolatry (We have one god but other people have their gods) to the judaism that we know today. It was a contiguous set of beliefs that evolved over time and though it was regional and linked to one ethnic group, other ethnicities could take up that religion. Your trash-tier inforgraphic Conflates ethnicity with religion.

>>501621
Sweden or Switzerland

>>501772
>>493685
>>501727
Actually it's pretty simple.

>tribalism exists, mostly among nomadic groups
>as societies start to settle down, tribalism is slowly vanishing
>by the middle ages, most of Europe already lives in multi-ethnic feudal kingdoms and the still tribal societies get slowly incorporated into feudal structure
>enter late 18th / early 19th century
>nationalists "reinvent" tribalism and create the idea of a nation state either based on status quo country borders (everyone living in France is French) or the other way around with language (everyone speaking German should live in a German state)

And we're stuck with the 19th century ideology to this day. The thing is, there's nothing scientific about this. 19th century people believed that languages necessarily correlate with your ancestry, they didn't understand DNA yet and didn't go around testing every German speaker to assess whether he's actually descended from ancient Germanic tribes.

File: 1420965912985.gif (2MB, 447x260px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 447x260px

>>494545

>If Acts is correct. Paul is simultaneously

>1) A Pharisee
>2) On first name terms with a Sadducee High Priest, and aiding said high priest in an activity that the Pharisees considered an overstretch of his authority and heretical.

Yes. And both of these Religious Sects (within Judaism) CO-EXISTED in the same time period for over 100 years. Both the Saducees and Pharisees would not desire a THIRD group (Christianity) to upset the religious/political balance of the entire country. Paul (who was a Pharisee) would receive the authority not only from the High Priest, but also the entire Sanhedrin (which contained BOTH groups) to destablize the new religion.

>Aramaic!= Hebrew

Aramaic is part of the North-West Semetic branch of the Afro-Asiatic Family of Languages; which is closely related to Hebrew and Canaanite. Essentially, you're argument is purely based on dialect, rather than, a distinct language group (i.e the difference between a Indo-European Languages to Afro-Asiatic Languages) in grammar and syntax. Also, speaking in the 'Hebraic-Dialect' was common for students (like Paul) of the Law/Torah in Synagogues.

>Except he gives the incorrect Septuagint

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

>The Septuagint (from the Latin septuaginta, "seventy") is a translation of the Hebrew Bible and some related texts into Koine Greek.
>HEBREW Bible Translated into Greek

>>494475

>obvious translation errors in the Septuagint like in 1 Corinthians 15:54.
>1 Corinthians
>Corinth was a Greek Colony
>Paul using the Septuagint (Hebrew Texts Transliterated into GREEK) to communicate with Greeks was wrong

You're missing the entire context (and objective) of why the Apostle Paul wrote to the GREEK Congregations in Corinth, Ephesus, Galatia, Philippi and Thessalonica; which was to state to the GREEKS, the Divine Role, that Jesus Christ had in alleviating the sins of mankind and used the Septuagint Translation of the Old Testament to justify that claim.

>>501781
>muh /pol/

Please stop.

>Your trash-tier inforgraphic Conflates ethnicity with religion.

I literally just created that little graphic in Paint to illustrate what I'm talking about. Entire biblical narrative is driven by ancestry (people who descend from Shem are Semites, people who descend from Eber are Hebrews, from Israel are Israelites, from Yehuda (Judah) are Yehudim (Jews) etc. For example Samaritans claim descent from Joseph and call themselves Bene Yisrael, but they don't call themselves Yehudim.

So saying shit like "Abraham was a Jew" is not only incorrect, it's downright anachronistic and essentially claiming that Abraham was a descendant of his great-grandson.

>>501804
>So saying shit like "Abraham was a Jew" is not only incorrect, it's downright anachronistic and essentially claiming that Abraham was a descendant of his great-grandson.

While this is true. But you are still essentially arguing a distinction without a difference. The term israelite is used academically to denote the people living in Israel/Judeah/Whatever.

>>501755
>>501804

Friendly reminder that the Old Testament is mythical crap and that saying shit like "Abraham actually existed" is not only incorrect, it is downright silly.

>>501810


Saying Israelites were "Paleo-Judaic" is like saying the ancient Indo-Europeans were "paleo-English" is all I'm saying.

>>501811
Welcome to Classics and the Medieval period. There's a whole load of crap that is dodgy at best but it's all the record that we have to go on and the best that we can do is compare it to other evidence (Linguistic, genetic, archaeological etc.)

>>501818
Not even remotely. There was a tremendous amount of cultural evolution but it occured within the same cultural context. A better analogy would be to say that the Frisians were the paleo-english. It wasn't like one group was supplanted and replaced by another.

>>501819

It has been compared to the achaeological record and been determined to be complete nonsense. It has no use as a source of history at all.

>>501792
>by the middle ages, most of Europe already lives in multi-ethnic feudal kingdoms and the still tribal societies get slowly incorporated into feudal structure
Except they really didn't. They lived in mono-ethnic kingdoms with local mono-ethnic administrations that just happened to be subjugated to the same dynasty. My case in point is the Austrian Hapsburg territories, although the Three Kingdoms of the British Isles may also be suitable.

>>501841
Apparently you've never heard of high medieval France.

>>492961

Paris should've been razed in 1789.

>>493530

Hey there Mold-

oh dammit.

>>501581

My favourite bit is how he justified holding on to Stalingrad (instead of, you know, leaving it be and cutting off the southern supply route in a point that would be less of a quagmire to fight in) was that it was a "worldview fortress".

>>501826

Yes it does?

I am far from an expert on this so I'll pretend to believe for a moment your statement that it is of absolutely no use in connection to archeology but it is obviously still a historical source when it comes to Jewish culture, religious history, etc, especially when text studies are applied. You're talking like successfully refuting Biblical literalism is the same as proving that it has no relevance whatsoever. Whether or not that's true, this isn't a correct argument.

>>501841
>They lived in mono-ethnic kingdoms
Hungary? HRE? France? Byzantine empire? Monoethnic? Are you for real?

Hitler did nothing wrong

>>501853
I have, obviously, but I'm curious what you mean.

>>501877

Well hold on here. I'm not sure if you are the same anon but the person I was responding to was posting Abraham's family tree from the bible as evidence of the ethnic origins of the Jews.

Clearly the bible is evidence of the religious and cultural beliefs of the Jews but that is an entirely different issue, you can't just conflate the two and suddenly drop the bible in as a source of literal history based on that.

>>501841
>They lived in mono-ethnic kingdoms with local mono-ethnic administrations
>My case in point is the Austrian Hapsburg territories
9000 nigga wats

>>501913
The French language as we know it today was basically a best-practices standardization created in the 19th century.

In the medieval period, you had Normans who spoke a norse influenced french language, Brittany that spoke a p-celtic language and maintained that culture, various flavors of french such as those found in Aquitaine and near to France and Germany, all with their own language and cultural identity.

There is a reason that France periodically shat out and reabsorbed tiny kingdoms. It was not even remotely mono-ethnic based just upon the fact that kings were kings of people and not kings of countries and quite a few people's found themselves under the purview of the Salian Franks.

Hell, when they carved Gaul off of the WRE for themselves, they looked at the Romans, Gallo-Romans and Gauls already living there and basically said "You fuckers are all Franks now."

>>501884
Bohemia, Austria, Poland, Lithuania, Denmark, Sweden, Flanders, the Netherlands, Scotland, Ireland, England. Which Hungary are you referring to? Pre-Mohacs? Monoethnic is a poor word choice to describe the HRE, but it was a vehicle for German national sentiment.

File: NATO.png (63KB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 2000x1500px

>>501696
>>germans should have been forced to pay for all the shit they did during ww2 even if that choked the shit ouf of them also europe needs them to be separated by a wall to prevent their bloodthirsthy warmongering homicidal/suicidal urges
>we should punish the germans when we will need them for WWIII with the Soviets
yeah.... nah

>>501943
France is anomalous in that it successfully assimilated its subjugated cultures. Great Britain failed to do so (Ireland, soon Scotland), and Spain may break up eventually. I should've listed political units of the scale of Brittany, Toulouse, Normandy, etc., instead of just 'kingdoms'.

>>501967
Hungary at any point was at least tri-ethnic (Magyar, Slavic and German).

>>502028
Neither did Germany. To this day, you can still find people who think of themselves as Suebis, Saxons, Prussians and Bavarians. Even when it existed in a unified state such as modern Germany or the HRE.

There were very few mono-ethnic kingdoms because those kingdoms were lashed together by Feudal obligations based upon who it was advantageous to swear your allegiance to depending on a number of factors.

So, in the Hundred Years War, you have Welsh troops going up against ones from Brittany even though they're more culturally similar to each other than they are to the parent kingdoms or Enlgland and France were to each other.

>>502069

>So, in the Hundred Years War, you have Welsh troops going up against ones from Brittany even though they're more culturally similar to each other than they are to the parent kingdoms or Enlgland and France were to each other.
And you had the Captal of Buch fighting for English, while the Count of Foix did so for the French, yet, they were cousins and went crusading together agaisnt the Baltics, and when back in France they found the chaos of the Jaquerie they saved some bitches together, cause they were friends.

>>493955
WAS
A
S

>>502069
At lower levels in the political structure, you do get more homogeneity, and in some cases you definitely see a national consciousness long before the 19th century. Bohemia in the 15th-17th centuries is my favorite example of this national consciousness, although the Dutch and Swiss might be more canonical.

>>501967
>England
Really now

>>502231
England, being the Freak of all Freaks, early bloomer among nations could be said to have developed national consciousness in the wake of the hundred years war.

Wat Tyler's rebellion was a patriotic appeal to the King.

>>501797

>both the Saducees and Pharisees would not desire a THIRD group (Christianity) to upset the religious/political balance of the entire country.

[citation needed] Especially since the Christians in this time frame was a tiny, tiny group (Acts gives 120 families, although they're only counting their brand of Christianity, not other groups who took part of Jesus's message and went in another direction like the Ebionites or others of their ilk), the Sadducees, on the other hand, have actual power, are collaborating with Rome, and can actaully hurt them.

>Paul (who was a Pharisee) would receive the authority not only from the High Priest, but also the entire Sanhedrin (which contained BOTH groups) to destablize the new religion.

Except, if you read Acts, 9:1-2 this is not what happens. He goes to the High Priest, singular, and gets this "authority", when Pharisees, like Gamaliel himself, are against the whole notion. (5:34)

1/2

>>501797

>Aramaic is part of the North-West Semetic branch of the Afro-Asiatic Family of Languages; which is closely related to Hebrew and Canaanite.

And Italian is an Indo-European language of the Romance Branch, it is closely related to Spanish. Let's grab a random Mexican guy with no experience studying or speaking Italian and see if he can understand Mandragola in the original.

>HEBREW Bible Translated into Greek

Yes, and like most translations, it contains various errors from the original material, inevitable I suppose when you bring something from a Semetic language to an Indo-European one. Paul's choices in word use indicate he is not familiar with the Hebrew version, which is incredibly odd for a Pharisee, given that they were the cultural gatekeepers of their time and the ones who wanted to stick to the "good old ways"

>Paul using the Septuagint (Hebrew Texts Transliterated into GREEK) to communicate with Greeks was wrong

Strawman. Paul never says he is quoting the LXX. He presents it entirely as his own words. Which means that hwe could have just as easily said "forever" as "in victory" He did not. Simplest explanation is that he didn't actually know what לנצח meant in that context, which speaks to his lack of language skills. Why does he lack said language skills if he's really a student of Gamaliel?

I think United States legitimately wants their opponent to prosper after they crushed them
I'm talking both WWII and modern time

>>502288
Well of course they do. Above all, the U.S. wants things quiet in the international scene. Prosperous states don't have usually go invading their neighbors.

Nixon was a great president.

>>501696
>this commie faggot
>actually talking shit about the infinitely more successful USA
>whose principles have actually conquered the world without the ideological necessity of terror unlike le protomarixst fagéts
views that shit are unpopular for good reasons
stop posting m80

>>494418
>this meme again
>what is the balance of power

>>494340
>>495389
they were still fighting their technological equals in Europe for those lands in America, Asia and Africa

It's just a butthurt meme from other Euros that Britain beat them in forging an empire

File: 01.jpg (143KB, 630x739px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 630x739px

>>502269

>Paul never says he is quoting the LXX. He presents it entirely as his own words.

I was debating the viewpoint posted at >>494475 >>494545 where he repeatedly refers to it as a "mistranslation" from the Septuagint, but it's possible that Paul did quote from it, considering the time-frame of it's composure:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

>The title (Greek: Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήkοντα, lit. "The Translation of the Seventy") and its Roman numeral acronym LXX refer to the legendary seventy Jewish scholars who solely translated the Five Books of Moses into Koine Greek as early as the 3rd century BCE.[4][5] Separated from the Hebrew canon of the Jewish Bible in Rabbinic Judaism, translations of the Torah into Koine Greek

>Let's grab a random Mexican guy with no experience studying or speaking Italian and see if he can understand Mandragola in the original.

False Equivalence. We're talking about someone that was well-versed in the Torah/Law; the Apostle Paul would know how to, if he's able to refer to particular texts in the OT, as he did across the Epistles (e.g Hebrews Chapters 3-10 Tabernacle & Utensil Dimensions quoted from Exodus).

>it contains various errors from the original material
>he didn't actually know what לנצח meant in that context
>which speaks to his lack of language skills

Since, an "enlightened" individual as yourself would know, Semitic Languages (unlike Indo-European Languages) are a consonantal-based language with implied vowels; the vowels would determine the final understanding of the word in question and its context (meaning it can imply many definitions). Which it does, since 'victories are immortalized':

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?strongs=H5331&t=KJV

>He presents it entirely as his own words.
>his own words

He's directing quoting from Hosea 13:14 and Isaiah 25:8.

>>492967

I'm inclined to agree since I'm Swedish. We have that problem here.

>>502510

> but it's possible that Paul did quote from it, considering the time-frame of it's composure:


Yes, it is in fact almost certain Paul was drawing from the Septuagint. But if Paul is a Pharisee, WHY IS HE? The Septuagint was what the Hellenic Greeks like Philo used, the Pharisees thought it was a terrible disaster that it was even composed. If Paul is indeed a Pharisee prior to his Christainization, how come he displays no familiarity with Pharisee readings of the texts he's qutoing?

>False Equivalence. We're talking about someone that was well-versed in the Torah/Law; the Apostle Paul would know how to, if he's able to refer to particular texts in the OT, as he did across the Epistles

Arguing from your conclusion. If you're trying to determine whether or not Paul is actually well versed in the Torah, you can't use the conclusion that he is to guide your readings. And someone who is "Well versed" probably wouldn't make some of the other mistakes that he makes along the Epistles, (e.g. equivalencing the Paschal and sin offerings, or his mental fart in Romans where he loses track of whether it's the widow or the dead husband who is free from the Law)

>Since, an "enlightened" individual as yourself would know, Semitic Languages (unlike Indo-European Languages) are a consonantal-based language with implied vowels;

And as someone who has looked over the Qumrani scrolls, and is familiar with the various lines of tradition in terms of understanding Isaiah, one has to ask why the "Pharisee" Paul displays non-usage of Pharisee readings, and in fact betrays no familiarity with them.

>He's directing quoting from Hosea 13:14 and Isaiah 25:8.

But he's not saying he is, he just presents it.

>>497605
Not all monarchies do Divine Rule. Monarchies are shit though. Elective/Constitutional Monarchy is probably the greatest of the types.

>>502069
Nah m8. I'm German.

People may refer to their region before the country, but this is normal in somewhat larger countries, and considering Germany unified very late and dialects are still existent. It's mostly just for shits and giggles. Only retards would seriously mean "I'm Saxon and NOT GERMAN, RAWRRR!!!"

Bavarians, maybe, but again that's just an arrogant niveau riche thing. 100 years ago, most Bavarians were dumb poor farmers. All the Catholic regions loved to hate the Prussians as well. THEN immediately after the NS years nationalism became a dirty word.

I wouldn't say it's a failure of state building or whatever.

>>502069
It's not unusual for people to primarily identify with their local region when talking to countrymen or dealing with other domestic issues. Just because you're Bavarian that doesn't mean you cannot also identify as German at the same time, just like someone with strong Texan roots will refer to themselves as Texan in the presence of Californians and New Yorkers but still think of himself as American when dealing with other people.

>>493530
Can't deny the fact that many of our presidents were(current and previous deffinitely). It's caused most of our domestic issues.

>>493643
Except the fact that they pull all the strings of the world.

File: 1422418030471.gif (3MB, 400x225px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x225px

>>502265

>Especially since the Christians in this time frame was a tiny, tiny group (Acts gives 120 families, although they're only counting their brand of Christianity, not other groups who took part of Jesus's message and went in another direction like the Ebionites or others of their ilk), the Sadducees, on the other hand, have actual power, are collaborating with Rome, and can actaully hurt them.

At Acts 2:41, it states (before Paul converted) that the Apostle Peter convinced 3000 individuals (who were from across Judea, Mesopotamia, Elam, Asia, Egypt and Libya) to join Christianity in Jerusalem at the Festival of Pentecost; it increased further to 5000 (Acts 4:4). That's a exponential rate of conversion over a short time-period, and, it would concern the established Religious/Political authority of the Saducees and Pharisees, which, attempted to restrict the proselytization of Christianity in Judea (Acts 4:18). Because if Christianity gained too much popular support from the people over-time, it would cause the Romans to shift in favour of the new faction.

>Except, if you read Acts, 9:1-2 this is not what happens. He goes to the High Priest, singular, and gets this "authority", when Pharisees, like Gamaliel himself, are against the whole notion. (5:34)

Gamaliel was the ONLY Pharisee to state within the Sanhedrin to allow the Christians to proselytize; the others in this Council whole-heartedly opposed the Ministry (Acts 5:40). It also mentions in Acts 9:1 that Paul/Saul was breathing threat and murder (implying he killed other Christians BEFORE, e.g Acts 8:1) he went to the High Priest, who was the HIGHEST authority within the Jewish System to persecute the Christian Congregations in Damascus (Acts 9:2); demonstrating his will to act against the Christians despite previous tutelage under Gamaliel (Philipians 3:4-6). The Apostle Paul even causes the Pharisees and Saducees in the Sanhedrin to clash with other (Acts 23:6-8).

File: 02.jpg (150KB, 594x952px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 594x952px

>>502557

>Yes, it is in fact almost certain Paul was drawing from the Septuagint. But if Paul is a Pharisee, WHY IS HE? The Septuagint was what the Hellenic Greeks like Philo used, the Pharisees thought it was a terrible disaster that it was even composed. If Paul is indeed a Pharisee prior to his Christainization, how come he displays no familiarity with Pharisee readings of the texts he's qutoing?

He was using a pre-existing Greek Translation for convenience (since producing a new Transliteration/Interpretation of the OT from Hebrew to Greek would take time and money).

>Arguing from your conclusion. If you're trying to determine whether or not Paul is actually well versed in the Torah, you can't use the conclusion that he is to guide your readings. And someone who is "Well versed" probably wouldn't make some of the other mistakes that he makes along the Epistles, (e.g. equivalencing the Paschal and sin offerings)

He formed a link between the Passover and Sin Offerings in a 'illustrative context', since both required the 12 Tribes to become purified for their role as a Holy Nation (Exodus 19:4) and in that same line of thought, the Christian Congregation (Hebrews 3).

>And as someone who has looked over the Qumrani scrolls, and is familiar with the various lines of tradition in terms of understanding Isaiah, one has to ask why the "Pharisee" Paul displays non-usage of Pharisee readings, and in fact betrays no familiarity with them.

Simply, the Apostle Paul (who was a Christian at the time he wrote the Letters to the Corinthians) detached himself from Rabbinic/Talmudic School's Teachings and focused on how the OT correlates with the Messiah, using the base statements of the Prophets, Psalms, Torah to show how they were fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

>But he's not saying he is, he just presents it.

Which is what a quotation is by definition!

>>494418
Name one time a European power won without a coalition.

>>502868
France

>>494616
>>497153

this one >>494020 is retarded

>>494335
this one, at least the first part holds a candle being very confucianism based.

>>505082
The reason I say not apart of the primary work force is it over saturates the market with low skill service occupancy workers that try to occupy non-service jobs as well.
Lowering wages.

>>494404
underrated truth

but the nanking stuff was just how they fought wars tho

>>505102
if women know their roles and place they wouldn't try to oversatuate en mass