-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

  1.   (new thread)
  2.   Help
  3. (for post and file deletion)
/hi/ - History and Culture
  • Supported file types are: JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 456 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2011-01-12 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /selfhelp/ - You're Pathetic, We're Pathetic, We Can Do This! Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Celsius ## Admin ## 09/12/28(Mon)07:43 No. 1 [Reply] Locked Stickied
1

File 12619825919.png - (268.28KB , 600x750 , 122872653197.png )

Now that this is a real board, it's time to lay down some rules:

1. Don't be a faggot

Thank you, and enjoy




Historian 15/04/17(Fri)20:37 No. 14579 [Reply]
14579

File 142929584441.jpg - (207.63KB , 791x578 , Return_of_Napoleon.jpg )

When did war stop being glorious?

In the past people joined the war with intention of gaining honor.

I reckon it was the Civil war that really ended the glory of war. I think it has something to do when warring countries ceased to respect eachother.


>>
Historian 15/04/17(Fri)22:40 No. 14580

>>14579
I don't know when it "first" ended to be glorious, but for most people, opinion changed by the end of the First World War.
The trenches and the war being a "total war" with participation not from just the professional military, but civilians as well, terrible pandemics like the Spanish flu, colonial weariness, etc; basically hammered the last nail in the coffin of romanticism. (but humans are forgetful idiots, and easily swayed)


>>
Historian 15/04/18(Sat)20:18 No. 14581

World War 1.

At the beginning of that war, everyone worth a shit rushed in to join together to fight for God & country. Once they experienced the reality of tens of thousands of people at a time getting mowed down senselessly by machinery without even having the chance to put up a fight, they realized there was no glory to be had. ...a lesson reiterated in every war since, making war much more unlikely & proportional.

The US, however, has found a way around this, even after the disasters of its war efforts in Korea, South America, and Vietnam by not requiring compulsory military service, separating the decision to go to war from the people who will actually go to war, thus ensuring a continual state of more and crazier wars until it is destroyed.


>>
Historian 15/04/20(Mon)03:11 No. 14583

war has always been glorious, and war has always been not glorious

but the really pompous shit ended around the crimean war (trench warfare important) and franco-prussian (machine gun curbstomp) war, or perhaps the american civil war (just keep firing til your dead or out of ammunition then run up and stab people) even

world war 1 was just the emo war of all time

seriously the american civil war was weird like that, they just kind of kept going at it for a lot of the battles if I recall correctly where most other battles would be shorter, they were real bloody




Historian 14/02/05(Wed)05:25 No. 14129 [Reply]
14129

File 139157435728.png - (758.13KB , 1473x1198 , scandinavi.png )

How would other countries react if Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Sweden were to all conglomerate into a single functioning unit? How pissed would Russia be? Would Germany be equally nervous?

Could this new country Scandinavia not theoretically increase positive production through unification since it provides more incentives for investing into different areas for the wealthy?

Is something like this prohibited by EU, what if they did it anyways would people start embargoing them? Would other countries/regions possibly start doing the same thing elsewhere?


39 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Historian 15/04/05(Sun)09:38 No. 14566

>>14565
7chan? No.

Everyone just sits in IRC instead of posting.


>>
Historian 15/04/15(Wed)09:33 No. 14576

>>14566
I do, because I refuse to use IRC, since it is not 1995 anymore and I don't like direct interpersonal communication.

I check in here once a month or so and see what three people have said since last time.

If this board were called Culture and History, it might get more attention, because most people are instantly put off by remembering their high school history class taught by their drooling ape of a football coach, and the thought of spending their free time on a board titled this is unthinkable.

But if it were called Culture and History, it'd probably be full of pop culture drivel that should really be on /b or /me instead.

So it remains a nice quiet, bookish corner here in the land of the 7 chins, and that's pretty nice.


>>
Historian 15/04/15(Wed)21:57 No. 14578

come to think of it, isn't russia just one big northern country, wouldn't conglomerated "nolandmarkden" be completely banal and icy with nothing to show for it? like nunavut? would anything happen? I think they might start an ethnic conflict over all the differences to be honest, their differences tend to be pretty strict from what I got despite being somewhat easy going with each other, kind of the way canadians and americans are different

>>14576

I was going to troll you by posting a song to the theme of ghostbusters about mythbusters and about how to de-bookify nerdiness in the vein of annoying pop culture with a picture of 9/11 with the planes and buildings switched with the caption "I reject your reality and substitute my own" but then I realized mythbusters works as a title for ghostbusters almost since all the paranormal stuff are derived from mythology

to be fair though it's not 2005 either, everyone knows FB is where the hip and with it are, and tumblr/twiturd - what if THOSE were conglomerated into a single functioning unit!

if you had to, which sites would be best represented by norway, finland, denmark and sweden, what would happen if those were conglomerated? (just to avoid getting too off topic)




Historian 14/03/08(Sat)00:01 No. 14199 [Reply]
14199

File 13942332636.jpg - (665.95KB , 1600x1703 , africa-physical.jpg )

What would Africa be like today if they never have had contact with outside civilizations?


10 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Historian 15/04/08(Wed)09:58 No. 14571

scarcity of resources in production alongside the costs of switching production and centralization of knowledge with limitations of switching production due to costs means that earlier on in a society specialization is important

in the modern world specialization is due to the complexity of things moreso although the same dynamic does appear, the emphasis is more on complexity of that line of skills than the costs associated with picking up new tasks

the improvements in manufacturing and so on have created an environment where making steel for instance or any other given baseline material are way easier so that access to them is better

what this means pre-internet is that materials were easy but recipes were harder to get to, libraries and education helped with that, and with the internet now you can access ways of production as well as post-industrial access to materials

examples are blacksmithing versus auto-technician, the blacksmith is able to do a variety of things, but so are hobbyist blacksmiths, which would not exactly be a thing except for the rich in history

africa is large enough and diverse enough, with probhitive landways and relatively hostile environments so that differences in cultures due to lack of common contact would remain a bit more than europe and the relative ease of "lazier life" or rather more accurately tribal life would de-emphasize advancements a bit, but without imperial colonialism it would've been a bit more of an equalized society than it is today

I'm willing to bet the different areas civilizations grew up in pre-modernity contribued vastly to the diversity of technological tendencies, all of these tendencies lend themselves to modernity

any area limited to just itself would've been rather poor and backwards, as it stands however africa would be about where medieval/renaissance europe is if it weren't for european colonialism if it had the good luck of not being massively exploited, or maybe 1950's technology with better infrastructure, it's hard to tell really since technological innovation brought from foreigners can be used by a society but the exploitation cannot, by the local population as a whole
Message too long. Click here to view the full text.


>>
Historian 15/04/15(Wed)09:17 No. 14574
14574

File 142908223375.png - (465.25KB , 3424x1614 , Empires of Earth.png )

>>14199
The most populous continent on the face of the earth.

Breeding like negroes, + no exporting millions of its people to damn near every corner of the globe, multiplied by the millennia it'd been doing that... = holy fuck, the overpopulation boggles the mind.

Also, that would imply homosapiens which hail from the great rift plains never interbreed with neanderthalensis or denisovan man, which means, no white people, & no asians, which means...

the entire world just sits around banging on skin drums and dancing all day. Oh sure, it sounds nice, but who would build the machine guns and the bombs and neutron bombs and bioweapons? Neanderthals, that's who. If Africans never made contact with outside civilizations, we would all be dead.


>>
Historian 15/04/15(Wed)09:24 No. 14575

>>14574
>2,500,000 BC

lol I just noticed this. Whomever made that empire map, has a pretty hilariously out of whack idea of how long different races of homosapiens have been distinct and living in those regions. Unless that map was made before the era of genetics I suppose... But I mean, wow.




Historian 14/01/29(Wed)04:43 No. 14113 [Reply]
14113

File 139096699667.jpg - (32.95KB , 620x360 , fractalssanser.jpg )

at what point in history did you like the united states the most?

any particular reason for your answer?


23 posts and 4 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Historian 15/03/16(Mon)05:44 No. 14540
14540

File 142648106936.jpg - (79.91KB , 617x720 , 1424153587814.jpg )

the future, because it never exists and neither should or does the USA

I used to make piles of dirt as a little kid so I could make cahokia too


>>
Historian 15/03/28(Sat)08:20 No. 14563

>>14561
the USA only bombs 5 countries at the same time to preserve the peace in Europe, they're far enough away for no one to be able to do anything about it. If they didn't one of the European powers would have to which would lead to chaos in Europe.


>>
Historian 15/04/15(Wed)09:03 No. 14573
14573

File 142908141778.jpg - (0.98MB , 2592x1936 , Drifter.jpg )

The 1100's, before it was USA, when nearly all the independent sovereign nations thought they'd give their tribalism and fighting a rest, and united to form the largest empire in the word at the time. Connecting trade routes from the copper mining & metalwork in the north along Lake Superior, the seafood resources all the way down florida, the clay work from the west, the boatbuilding and woodwork from the northeast, the artistry and craftsmanship from every region, and exploded in power and wealth and mercantilism, saw it quickly destabilize, until the increasingly impoverished and powerless masses learned the valuable lesson that maintaining centralized power over the entire continent of 200 million people is guaranteed to end in corruption and doom, because there are too many different varied environments that give way to too many ways of life and and too many different cultures that arise from them, and forcing a culture mashup of all of them was the death of what made their cultures unique and interesting and effective. It was better being smaller, independent nations, with their own constitutions and agreements and treaties between them, enabling migrating with the seasons through each others territories, far better in every way to sedentary urban life and hordes of do-nothing unproductive mouths to feed. So they broke down the walls the wealthy ruling class had erected to keep them out, chopped their heads off, burned the civilization to the ground, and went their separate ways, back to their independent nations.

Whether you think of it as a failure or a victory is entirely subjective, but either way, that's my favorite point in US history. Because admit it or not, it is the history of this place, and it is still relevant as hell.

Fast forward 600 years, and Europeans escape Europe, to build... the same thing here. And ever since, our ultimate root problem is the dysfunction of independent states trying to be "laboratories of democracy" doing whatever batshit crazy crap they want, combined with an overarching single central all-powerful federal government that moves too slowly to keep up with the times and no longer reflects the will of the people, legitimately corrupt, becoming more and more of a hinderance and less and less useful and relevant as time goes by, while its 300 million subjects find themselves stuck in sedentary lives, convinced it's as great as it gets, while getting lazy, fat, diseased, poisoned, poorer, powerless, miserable and angry about everything.

Shit is downright poetic.




Historian 14/11/11(Tue)09:03 No. 14463 [Reply]
14463

File 141569302939.jpg - (474.12KB , 858x1139 , 1415245660292.jpg )

Rough idea just coming together here, but at least half the people who live in the USA want to live in another USA. ...a USA without most of the US government. ...if the Native American reservation lands are technically Sovereign Nations unto themselves, but reside within the borders of the US... they get the security of the USA by default, but...

and they were to say "heyyy, huge corporate & biotech & energy companies, all the shit the squeamish US Gov doesn't want you to do, Stem Cell research, Cloning, Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor, etc... We're gonna designate this area over here, where you can do it all, & if your corporate headquarters & employees want to relocate here, we're simply going to extend everyone a 4% flat tax to you and your employees, and you can tell the US Gov and the IRS and SEC and their costly bureaucracy to go get stuffed.

The US Government would be woefully unable to compete with what a Tribe could offer. Those lands would quickly become the most valuable lands in the world, still owned by the tribes, because of the legal protections the tribes provide, and even on such a looow tax rate, those tribes would ensure the companies remain happy, and grow wealthy enough to not need the unreliable pittance from the US Gov, begin to acquire more of their own lands back, and finally prosper as the cool landlords of the worlds most desirable, powerful nations, probably the best role anyone could ever hope for, could stop relying on & self destructing from the casino racket, could afford to develop modern cities reflecting their own culture (instead of all the displaced european replica cities we're used to), the world would get the science it wants, etc etc etc.

If we willed our lands to Native Tribes, we'd be willing it away from the shitty US Government...

...I can't believe I'm thinking what the native americans need are giant corporations, but fuck there's a way to build an alternate USA.


7 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Historian 15/02/27(Fri)00:36 No. 14525

OP have you ever been to a reservation? Native Americans are dead. What little "culture" they had has festered into posion. There are still some rich land owners but the majority are poor and not just poor, soul crushingly poor.


>>
Historian 15/02/27(Fri)08:37 No. 14526

Interesting notion, but it will never happen. The concept shares the same failing as the 'sovereign citizen' movement; while I agree with the sentiments expressed, I am not so eager to be shot in the head by our bloodthirsty and paranoid Geheime Staatzpolizei.

While it is cold comfort, take solace from the fact that the Federal Government will be abolished within a half century and we will all be under Sharia law, unless our inept political leadership get their thumbs out and DO something, and that does not seem very likely to me at all.

Allahu Akbar, y'all


>>
Historian 15/02/27(Fri)21:57 No. 14527

>>14526
>we will all be under Sharia law
Step back from the computer and stop drinking the kool-aid son.




Irredentism Historian 15/03/12(Thu)21:54 No. 14534 [Reply]
14534

File 142619366210.jpg - (27.39KB , 340x349 , european_union.jpg )

What would the best possible union be, /hi/?

http://strawpoll.me/3854422


6 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Historian 15/03/20(Fri)11:16 No. 14547

>>14546
oh come on, that's what made it so lovely!


>>
Historian 15/03/25(Wed)07:53 No. 14552

>>14537
Ahhh to still live in the 1990s.


>>
Historian 15/03/29(Sun)09:50 No. 14564

India, Sri Lanka, Madagascar

Hail the Jungle Nation of Hunger




Historian 14/03/25(Tue)05:57 No. 14218 [Reply]
14218

File 139572344064.jpg - (41.35KB , 450x290 , 004-0207071013-nazi.jpg )

Hello everyone. I've been wondering, how did the German and Western Allied troops treat one another? More importantly, how did they treat the civilians during their respective occupations of Western Europe? Of course there were crimes committed in relatively small numbers, but on the whole. Where there any major events that showed camaraderie between the troops or civilians?


8 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Historian 14/05/20(Tue)19:01 No. 14308

>>14294
>Manstein was correct; he just happened to be on the losing side, and the winners get to write the history books.

I guess that's why Stalin's purges ended up cutting down on the number of Jews in the Soviet government to the point of shit of firing most of the Jews in the foreign service so that Hitler won't have an excuse to not negotiate Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?


>>
Historian 14/06/09(Mon)15:45 No. 14320

>>14218
Western Allies were treated fairly well by the Nazi's and vice versa. Food was in short supply in Nazi camps towards the end of the war, but not through malice of the Nazi's. Both sides took a dim view of escapee's, with the Nazi's being more unpleasant to those they caught again.

An exception were British Commando's, who trolled Hitler to the point he ordered them not to be taken prisoner. Though this was ignored by a fair chunk of the Wehrmacht.

You were fucked if you were captured on the Eastern Front though.


>>
Historian 15/03/26(Thu)12:23 No. 14553

if I remember correctly once the nazis started killing off comissars due to their role as a matter of principle the war turned even uglier than usual in wars with russia because one of the wole points of the war was extermination and complete subjugation of the slavs as a race due to lebensraum

when you consider that by the end of the war the germans were doing defense in depth with mobility tactics and the russians responded with katsuya spam that annihalated entire areas as a response to defensive positions there was kind of no reason to treat prisoners that well since it was a war of counter-annihilation

as it turns out most of the soviet soldier survivors of concentration camps were sent to gulags due to their own role as "shameful surrenderers" that put a stain on soviet honour or whatever as well, so it says something about the eastern front that the end of nazism took on a form best represented by end of evangelion and the elimination of NERV




The Marine Corps is for Faggots The Muslim Bomber 15/03/24(Tue)04:47 No. 14548 [Reply]
14548

File 142716885573.jpg - (42.33KB , 560x414 , tumblr_mkm7w097rO1rcb0d2o2_1280(1).jpg )

The Marine Corps and it's supporters can go kill themselves in a bowl of their own shit. It fucking sucks that abortion wasn't done on these Faggots who joined the shitty ass Marine Blow Job Corps for Faggots


>>
Historian 15/03/24(Tue)06:40 No. 14549

/rnb/


>>
Historian 15/03/27(Fri)06:20 No. 14554

Ah, a thread started by a fantasy creature! Let's see; it's not an elf, a dwarf, a fairy, a leprechaun, a satyr, or a dryad...the only thing we know about it is that it lives under bridges and gets its butt kicked by big, ill tempered billy-goats.

Semper Fi.




Hitler did nothing wrong? Historian 14/11/08(Sat)06:59 No. 14456 [Reply]
14456

File 141542635955.jpg - (68.39KB , 394x464 , Happy Hitler.jpg )

My purpose in posting this is not to incite a drama filled thread - what I'm looking for are people who can confidently denounce the claim that the Holocaust did not happen.

It's political suicide to see Hitler and the Nazi party as anything but evil, so I'm hoping someone can help out.
Embedded is a youtube link to a 6:30 hour long documentary entitled 'Hitler: the Greatest Story Never Told'. It's banned in a substantial number of countries, so VPNs at the ready if you want to watch it.
It lists many atrocities committed by allies during WWII, the ethnic cleansing of the German people following it, and shows research into the 'death camps' that Soviets liberated, this and more suggests the Holocaust story was a fabrication by the allied powers to support the existence of the state of Israel and justify WWII itself. My problem is that is rings of truth. After a read through of anti-denialist material I'm not happy that this event occurred as claimed in our popular history.


7 posts and 1 image omitted. Click Reply to view.
>>
Historian 14/12/08(Mon)21:16 No. 14481

>>14471
It should be obvious to anyone but the most delusional quack that the holocaust happened on some level. Even the Naz themselves kept records of the entire development, from their increasingly desperate birth-defect measures to mental patients to euthanasia to incinerators to war to work camps to POW's, etc. All well justified at the time and thoroughly internally documented.

However, none of the numbers of dead add up properly, and once you see the history behind these numbers, it creates a very real sliver of doubt. As well, England took Germanys own propaganda efforts and ran with them for their own purposes, as well as turning the apathetic public opinion in the US to their advantage. This is also well documented and unfortunately casts a reasonable pall of suspicion over all the media on both sides of that time. Then, there seems to be far, faaar greater reverence paid to the relatively fewer Jews that died than all the tens of millions of others that were killed in that conflict, which creates an aire of resentment toward them, notably the Slavs and Russians. Absent are the stories of the many, many millions of Germans who were not on board whatsoever with the crazymaking and at the greatest risk of all, actually resisted from inside and lost, including most of my family and most of their friends and neighbors. Not a fucking peep about them. Just Jews Jews Jews, all day every day. Not Poland being stomped into the ground with a fresh German Military, or France suffering the same, after having just previously inviting loads of german farmers to settle on their borders, who simply let the german army waltz right in and mow everyone down, not the firebombing of london or berlin, or the insanity of nuking two enormous densely populated cities... no, that's all cool.

What do you need to know about WWII kids? Hitler persecuted the Jews, and now, everyone owes them everything, forever. Class dismissed!

See how that might lead to suspicion and resentment?

How far people choose to run with their disgust is entirely subjective, but the whole thing is seriously a mess. Most historians with any ethics shift uncomfortably and avoid citing any numbers in that war because to willfully choose a number when you know you don't have real numbers and never will, and there's no way to know the real numbers even if they were staring you in the face, is to knowingly misrepresent the actual lives ruined and the entire nature of the conflict itself.

The "holo" in the word "Holocaust" implies a die-off of humans, and should not be reserved for a single event, and certainly not a single subset of people in a single event. If there were a die-off in human history worthy of the term "holocaust", it should be Genghis Kahns reign, still the greatest slaughte Message too long. Click here to view the full text.


>>
Historian 14/12/11(Thu)04:57 No. 14483

>>14481
go home sargon you're drunk


>>
Historian 14/12/16(Tue)11:42 No. 14485

I urge you to take a look at the list of sources that documentary provides. It's a bit disturbing when a documentary purporting to have the truth, despite having access to a dearth of German primary documents capture after the war, barely references any of them, choosing rather to reference mostly websites and hardly a book.

I recommend you read Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich for a well researched account of the war.




Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason