[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Settings Mobile Home
/his/ - History & Humanities

4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]

[Advertise on 4chan]

[Catalog] [Archive]

Why is World War 2 considered to start with the invasion of Poland?
Shouldn't the start of the war be the start of the Sino-Japanese war in 1937?
After all the Sino-Japanese war is considered to be part of WW2, it is the opening of the pacific theatre, the casualities form a large part of the WW2 total and it lasted for the duration of the war.
107 replies and 6 images omitted. Click here to view.
No? And the US began soft diplomatic pressure as early as 1915.
>being fought between imperial powers with possessions on multiple continents.
Haeckel's usage of the term was that it involved most great powers as combatants, and would function as a vortex drawing more countries in as direct participants, with even the neutrals "directly or indirectly be[ing] made to suffer". Had the UK/France not declared on Germany, but war broke out in 1940 over Benelux or something, the German-Polish War would've been considered a precursor conflict rather than part of the war itself. As it was, within the month, all the European great powers save Italy were conducting military operations, and even the European neutrals were mobilizing hundreds of thousands of men. It immediately forced changes in US government policy, and caused the downfall of the Japanese cabinet and a reformation of Japanese policy vis-a-vis the USSR. Italy would join the ongoing conflict the next year.
>You had all of that and more transpiring in China,
That was arguing that even the Phoney War was actual great power conflict. Which isn't to say that sustained intense combat inherently means a world war.
>What did the "central government" of Japan do when this kind of insubordination happened?
Japanese politics was difficult. The central government wasn't in a position to exercise authority over the army, or to find common ground with the ROC for ending the conflict.
of course not, the sino jap war is a bunch of gooks killing each other on a very large scale but only once the major euro empires go at it does over half the fucking world get dragged in by proxy
This is pretty much cope, moishe. In fact, airplane engines were banmed from being sold to japan, by 1939. Other important things like other airplane parts and tools were banned from being sold to them as well.

I’m not sure why you’re gping with “no actually JAPAN os the golem” when we are talking about the worlds most ultimate and well known golem, the US.
>the meth cope

File: Adolf-Hitler-1933.jpg (326 KB, 1218x1600)
326 KB
326 KB JPG
Was Hitler the least accomplished ww2 leader? Churchill was a war hero and Stalin was an important member of the Bolshevik party while Hitler lived as a hooby and then a simple private before entering politics. He was literally the kind of carer politician so many hate today
52 replies and 3 images omitted. Click here to view.
>During World War I, approximately 218,000 EKIs, 5,196,000 EKIIs and 13,000 non-combatant EKIIs were awarded.[8] Exact numbers of awards are not known, since the Prussian military archives were destroyed during World War II. The multitude of awards reduced the status and reputation of the decoration.

Over 5 million iron cross were awareded, and you're saying im wrong?
He got the EKI though, which was a rarity for an enlisted man
I didnt mention Hitler. I said it depend on which iron cross when the anon said an iron cross was a big deal in ww1.
in WWI officers up to the rank of Colonel saw as much action as the lower enlisted ranks. Churchill was in the trenches with the rest of them, lmao.
>w-well I didn’t mean THING i actually meant OTHER thing, hah! A-and actually YOU leant other thing instead of first thing!
What did he mean by this?

like it was just a big retarded boat,
why the fuck they build it anyway??

He supported the Bavarian Red Army immediately after the end of World War 1. It was years after that he distanced himself from this and developed his own socialist ideology
36 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
You know more about it than me, but I still believe that it was the idea of "borders", such as land borders, racial divides, politocal divides, merit based delineations, etc, that caused the problem. If his final solution included everyone, he would have succeeded, but he was selfish, and thought that he could exclude large portions of the world from salvation.

This is why I say that his, "nationalism" defeated him.
Nationalism created Hitler, without Prussian nationalism there would have been no horse to climb on to to go to war. It's precisely prussian nationalism that made them a target of the soviets and miscellaneous communist gremlins

You could loop all the way back and say that germany creating nationalism caused the world wars, or go even further back and say napoleon invading germany caused them to create nationalism. Or go even further back and blame the failed french revolution

Or you can accept that the default factory setting of a non-tribal european civilization is a fascist state that stomps on throats
File: PoorFool.jpg (51 KB, 494x500)
51 KB
you're thinking of Mosley
Hitler was a blade runner then an artist and hobo
All fascism is born out of the Left.

File: IMG_0265.jpg (202 KB, 750x1121)
202 KB
202 KB JPG
What some fun examples of this?
12 replies and 8 images omitted. Click here to view.
Is that video any good?
Ayo dis nigga dripped up with da rizz fr fr on G
Still no bitches

File: 1691944445456735.jpg (96 KB, 633x820)
96 KB
If you look at material in the 1930s and 1940s, there was always a lot of nostalgia or lampooning of this time.
What can /his/ tell me about it?
73 replies and 9 images omitted. Click here to view.
That period was the peak of western civilization.

Also there were the mystery airship sightings.

Weimar mentality.
It was Weimar that elected Adolf Hitler
And then one day, for no reason at all...
Hitler wasn't elected.

File: file.jpg (97 KB, 740x330)
97 KB
How do I gain an interest in studying medieval European history?
25 replies and 7 images omitted. Click here to view.
it just gets more downhill by the early modern period
what a cringeworthily american post
learn about certain leaders such as william the conqueror, this was so kino when saxons got cucked, also it gives you a glimpse into the origin of the modern english language
Immersion in fiction may help. Various books or games if you simply lack inspiration, that will allow you to start asking the questions that interest you.

I don't consider myself a medievalist but I feel in love with the Arthurian Romances very much by chance, and think of them in the same regard as the Iliad, Ovid, Norse sagas, etc. I didn't care much about the era but then became interested in why technology changed so much, all sorts of questions about metallurgy and construction came after, and music even more so as this was more the true genesis of music history, as the church began to codify sacred music. Now I am a genuine wellspring of mostly useless and partially understood medieval history. You too can be like me just give it time lad.
Don't know, can't relate. I've been fascinated since I was old enough to read. The first book I ever read was a children's book about the crusades.

File: 1663993258174498.gif (1.62 MB, 315x240)
1.62 MB
1.62 MB GIF
if I eat a lobster for dinner, what maxim am I actually acting under?
If the maxim is that everybody should eat this specific lobster, obviously it could not be universal law since that would not be enough to feed everyone.
If the universalized maxim is that everybody eat lobster for dinner every day, obviously that can't happen either since lobsters would go extinct
If it is only that everyone eat dinner and the lobster is unrelated to the maxim, that is fine being universalized.
You can very easily justify or condemn any conceivable action simply by making the maxim more vague or more specific.
>he doesn't know about limitless abiogenic lobster formation
didn't pasteur deboonk that?

File: tU8wz8DL_400x400.jpg (25 KB, 400x400)
25 KB
For a man to come to a Muslim and even pose questions like

>"Where's the proof Muhammad even existed mate let alone travelled on a flying donkey? What about Jesus, where's the proof he did any fucking miracles?, Abraham, where's the proof, do you know what i mean?"

For someone to say these things, he may as well have just said that he had seen a platoon of aliens walking along the sidewalk. That's how unbelievable it is to a Muslim to see someone merely raising these questions as something to be pondered over in the first place.

For Muslims, there is no argument to be had on core foundational belief in God, the Prophets and Messengers, or the books of God. Muslims assume that most people are like Christians and Jews, believers in God who just have some disagreements about theology. For someone to come along and question the existence of God himself and the stories of Jesus, Noah, Muhammad, Moses, David, etc., or any of these kinds of "holy figures," Muslims assume that person must be literally insane, and Muslims will accordingly view that atheist as a literal mental patient who is mentally handicapped.

It's always funny that atheists describe religious people as "low IQ," and yet Muslims themselves see atheists not only as low IQ but as some kind of demented species who are probably infected by Satan or just flat out insane.
103 replies omitted. Click here to view.
mmmmm... nuh uh
If creationists are this shit at debate then it's no wonder Christianity is dying out in the West
>I believe the analogy I used was to imagine three unrelated families, that together experience some catastrophic event which together places a similar scar on their cheeks. Now suppose that for any reason, this scar is hereditary. If you were to come along long after the fact and disregard the original cataclysm, you may be led to the conclusion that these unrelated groups are actually directly descended from each other. But that conclusion would be false because it was founded on false assumptions.
The problem here is that we know the mechanism through which the "scar" embeds itself in the genome and we know that the location where it's transcribed is stochastic. There are also shared mutations within these ERVs across species, and the more we expect two species to be related, the more mutations are shared. Furthermore, the ERVs that we expect to be the most ancestral because of their ubiquity are the most mutated.
Last but not least, the distribution of both he mutations and the ERVs themselves across species actually fits phylogenetic trees.
None of this is addressed by saying "hurr durr they just look similar".
He honestly thinks "what if the explanation is actually something I can't articulate but which is analogous to a scenario with fantasy elements I imagined" is a good point.
File: abrahamism.png (89 KB, 590x385)
89 KB
>abrahamoid child rapists circle jerk each other over their blind adherence to jewish fairytales

>analytic languages
>agglutinative languages
>fusional languages
6 replies and 1 image omitted. Click here to view.
File: tsalaki.png (89 KB, 1913x851)
89 KB
Here's the whole sheet. I just started it so it's a little barebones at the moment.
>fusional above agglutinative
coping slavoids detected
>analytic languages = agglutinative languages = fusional languages
I just love languages.
physically no doubt, perv
>my primitive brain needs words glued together because it can't into infections
t. (you)

Why do people think witch trials and superstition was commonplace in the middle ages even though it entirely happened in the renaissance?
7 replies omitted. Click here to view.
Superstition is common in all periods anon, also witch trials weren't only in the renaissance, but to answer your question it's because people assume scientific advancement would naturally reduce belief in witches, ergo witch trials must have been more common in the earlier periods of Christianity.
Witch trials weren't superstition, they were justice.
Victorian historical revisionism
>Superstition is common in all periods anon
yes, but the middle ages had different kinds of superstitions
also the people were much more religious in the middle ages
believing in the idea of witches with magic would've been seen as pagan and superstitious to the religious
the only "magic" they believed in was holy miracles and the acts of demons
these things don't necisarily apply everywhere of course, but you dont see things in manuscripts of people talking about superstitious beliefs like you do in the books of the renaissance
I don't know about which region you are talking about, but at least in Scandinavia it was quite the opposite. Medieval period was rich with all kinds of pagan happening alongside the christian faith. Then came the lutherianism and religion turned into this stereotypic image of grey people listening to the priest preaching some moral shit and praising the state.

File: iu[1].jpg (173 KB, 1024x1001)
173 KB
173 KB JPG
>There are no civilians in Dresden.
Was he wrong? Anyone still in the cities at that point was working in war industry supplying the front lines.
113 replies and 6 images omitted. Click here to view.
> the UK terrorbombing Germany?
yes dear old adolf did nothing wrong
Dont add to gun stats, do a flip
So you weren't living in Germany during the war, is that right?
What are you even saying?
The Nuremberg trials were a farce. Nothing more than victor's """justice"""

File: IMG_7505.jpg (233 KB, 600x969)
233 KB
233 KB JPG
What happened to the head of the Gestapo. Heinrich Muller after the fall of Berlin?

He is the only high ranking Nazi that was never captured or killed, no definitive answer to what happened to him has been found

I personally believe he did not kill himself or die in 1945. Rather that he survived. In one of two ways

First of all

>Heinrich Muller was NOT an ideological Nazi, he was very invested in his work as an intelligence officer, and only became an NSDAP member after Hitler basically forced him to in exchange for letting him become the head of their intelligence agency, the Gestapo)
>Muller was last seen the day after hitlers suicide in the fuhrer bunker, where he told Hitlers pilot "We know the Russian methods exactly. I haven't the faintest intention of being taken prisoner by the Russians". From that day onwards, no trace of Müller has ever been found. this was widely interpreted as him saying he’d kill himself but I disagree, if it was then I hunk he was sowing the seeds of this idea by even telling a guy he 100% knew would be interrogated by Russians/Americans
19 replies and 3 images omitted. Click here to view.
I just assumed he got acked by artillery or shot in the midst of the chaos by trigger happy soviet grunts.
This is certainly a possibility, but the Soviets were quite determined in inspecting bodies to figure out who was who. So unless he was pretty far from the bunker and also not wearing his uniform with identification then they’d know it was him regardless. If he was like that then he was trying to escape
Muller had a wife and daughter... At least do the basic research.
I think you are overestimating post-war anglo-american disdain towards (ex-)nazis. Read up on the Gehlen Organization. Sure Müller was much higher up than most, but still I don't think it's unthinkable that he would defect to the US.
What is a “czechoslovak”? That’s like saying “americanadian”. Which was it? Or were they just kikes as always

What made the plains Indians such natural horsemen? They only got the horse as a result of Columbian exchange, which was fairly recent in history
21 replies omitted. Click here to view.
Seconding this recommendation, fantastic overview of the Comanche
how come arabs can so skillfully drive land rovers when historically they did not have land rovers?
>figure out horseback nomadic pastoralism
>figure out
what do you mean figure it out?? THe horses eat grass and you ride the horse around to find grass
File: guy on a buf.jpg (95 KB, 942x714)
95 KB
the real question is why were they not competent enough to domesticate the buffalo into a fucking beast of a war machine. THey could have been strapped up by the time of european colonization if they had been a little more resourceful.
For the same reason Steppe people were good horsemen. It was a necessity and became ingrained in their way of life.

File: 1707510850633697.jpg (346 KB, 1080x931)
346 KB
346 KB JPG
So we all agree the Spartans were cringy larpers right?
31 replies and 2 images omitted. Click here to view.
Cletus is literally a Greek name

makes ya think
proving my point, eh?
yeah, I just thought it was funny to bring up

Spartans are literally Jews according to the Bible.

[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.