Did fascism's cult of the body contribute to their militarism, was it the other way around, or were the two unrelated?
In regads to WW1, why do establishment historians keep pushing the meme that "Ludendorff and the general staff essentially ran the entire country during the war" when the exact same can be said about Churchill and his war cabinet in regards to britain during WW2?
It's only natural that military leaders would make most of the domestic decisions during wartime circumstances, which holds true both for the german kaiser and the british queen
It has to do with the 'stab in the back meme'.
If Ludendorff is seen as running the country than he couldn't be stabbed in the back by the people running the country because he was running the country.
Personally I'd think if Ludendorff said he was stabbed in the back, which he did,he probably felt that way.
It would have been alot easier for him to own the decision for armistace with the established government and media on his side than to decide to surrender than make up a story about being stabbed in the back and shitting all over his own massive decision to armistance.
The bigger picture is though if Ludendorff ran the country than the entire foundation of Nazism is wrong and based on a lie that Hitler and Ludendorff made up to trick people.
Its my opinion that promoting the stab in the back as a 'myth' is more likely to be propaganda from the US used in order to keep germany stable during occupation and to kill political nationalist sentiment there.
"Ludendorff and the general staff essentially ran the entire country during the war" when the exact same can be said about Churchill and his war cabinet in regards to britain during WW2?
Because Churchill was PM, and Ludendorff was not Chancellor/Kaiser. Are you pretending to be thick or what?
Was it for the best?
Did he ever visit the Pyramids?
What is the best book on the history of philosophy available in English? Length is of no concern, but it is incredibly important to me that it gives an in-depth analysis instead of just skimming the subject.
>Amid soaring inflation, the average monthly salary across Russia shrank to 31,200 rubles ($500).
This makes me kinda sad for the people there and is also nothing you should be happy over even if you oppose them as a whole.
If their population is poor, it is desperate and angry, if it is desperate and angry its more likely to pick up rifles and risk its life against whoever gets pointed at by the kremlin.
>If their population is poor, it is desperate and angry, if it is desperate and angry its more likely to pick up rifles and risk its life against whoever gets pointed at by the kremlin.
So how Russia always been?
Nah, 10 years ago trading relations with europe were better and we liked each other more because we saw each other as being mutually beneficial.
At least I dont know about them having a greater grudge then.
Now the sanctions give them a reason to see us as withholding them income out of spite even though if we didnt do so before and the population gets hyped up for every "righteous" agressions their government carries out.
Are there any philosophy books on the question "What is consciences?" Like is this all real?r
Hume is a bit arid though, lol.
Maybe Jim Holt, on why the world exists? But not really what you're looking for I guess.
It sounds a bit too abstract my man.
Maybe Merleau-Ponty's Phenomenology of Perception, or a bit of Hegel's P. of the Spirit.
"By God, sir, I've lost my leg!"
What is your favourite period of Roman History and why?
I'm going to be a conformist and say the end of the republic, just because Caesar was such a badass motherfucker.
Second punic war is another great period.
What are the pros and cons to Fascism? And I don't mean National Socialism, I mean general Fascism.
If you have competent and reasonable people at the top you can get more shit done and better than demoracies.
If you don't, then your nation will die.
Note that facism works best with culturally and ethnically homogenous nations.
Where were you when Ted Kaczynski BTFO the media?
That motherfucker got dosed by the CIA.
Are there any good studies/ observations regarding the affects of a fallen/ defeated nation or emoire primarily focused on how it affects the people within that nation, especially in modern times? For example, looking at how the confederate's defeat is handled in the southern states or how the new generation of Russians look at the Soviet Union.
There's a great book called The Collapse of Complex Societies, by Joseph Tainter. It focuses mostly on the technical/economic aspects of civilisational collapse, but illustrates its point with plenty of historical examples that might tangentially answer your questions.
To sum it up, after the initial period of chaos and painful readjustment, things for the average Joe get surprisingly better than they were before the collapse.
I want to discuss this interesting topic with you all.
I'll now express my opinion on the topic, that is that the Etruscan culture was born in the Italian soil and originates from there, nowhere else as there is no archaeological evidence to prove it.
These are the reasons why the theory of their origin from Lydia is wrong:
1)The only argument for their Lydian origins is that many different ancient historians stated this.
Now, we know well how inaccurate most ancient historians could be, often using mythological accounts to explain the history of an enthic group or region.
The historian who started the tradition of the Lydian orgins of the Etruscan was Herodotus, whom we know for often being inaccurate and giving semi mythological accounts, such as that of the Eritrean origin of the Phoenicians or that of the Egyptian origin of the people of Cholchis (Nowadays Georgia).
2)Let's look at the archaeological evidence, not only early iron age Lydians spoke Lydian, an Indo European language, but their culture and art was very different from that of the Etruscans, Etruscan art is original to Italy and unique, being somewhat influenced by Greek art (the Kuroi mostly), also the Etruscans were much more artistically active than the Lydians, who didn't leave us any notable artistic masterpiece, in opposition to the hundreds of Etruscan frescos, statues and sarcophagi, that again, are unique to Etruria and not found in Lydia, how's that possible? Did the Etruscans suddendly chang language and started being much more artistically productive in their new lands? this makes no sense. If Lydia was their homeland one would expect to find at least some mound tombs decorated with frescos like those of Etruria, or some of the typical sarcophagi, none of that is present in Lydia.
Even the Etruscan architecture has no parallels in Lydia, the arc for instance was developed in Etruria and is a huge element of the Etruscan architecture, there are no arches in ancient Lydia.
Also what about Bronze age Lydia?
Well first of all it wasn't even called Lydia back then, nor Sardis was ever mentioned at the time by the Hittities, and we know that they were a Luwian people, so still very much Indo European, differently from the Etruscans, who spoke an isolated language, again, the Bronze age...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
15 cents of Imperial Russia (St. Petersburg) in 1900.
Condition: below average.
Mint: Saint Petersburg.
Mintage: 12,665,009 pcs.
Metal: Sterling Silver 500 samples.
Weight: 2.7 g
Diameter: 19.7 mm.
I never see modern coins so worn down, even fifty year old quarters. I know this coin is 115 years old, but it has not been in circulation that long. In fact I doubt it was in circulation after 1925 or so.
Is it that silver is just that much softer than copper alloys we use today?