History topics you're tired of hearing about.
I'll start with one I'm sure would be common:
>WW2
>tfw dad is way into ww2 but i've read about it so much that i've burnt out of it and now read about other time periods.
I'm sorry dad ;_;
>>338216
>family knows i like history
>get a massive ww2 history book by Hastings or Beevor every year
>way more into classical history
>>338192
>Communists
Just stop, /his/, you've been babbling about them since the board was born
>why Communism no work?
>no Communist state was true Communism by my personal definition
>actual people who grew up behind the iron curtain saying how much they hated it
>capitalism r bad
>why Communism no work?
There, I've outlined the entirety of Commie threads, now we don't need them anymore.
>>338264
>tfw cold war is my favorite era but I am still researching it
>tfw can only shitpost in cold war threads while they are overrun by leftypol
>>338309
But they don't discuss the Cold War, they just discuss Communism and how it only failed because every single Communist country in the world wasn't their specific version of Communism that would have totally worked but by some magical mystery hasn't been implemented.
WWII is so deep though, anon. Yes, Normandy and Stalingrad are way overdone, but what about the Siege of Budapest? The Burma Campaign? There's lots of interesting stories we'll never hear of simply because of the scale of the conflict.
>>338334
This
There is just so much shit happening at 6 years of time.
>>338522
What the fuck is that
>>338192
The Holocaust
Not even /pol/
I mean at least cover the fact the Nazis tried to have certain non-Jews ethnically cleaned
>>338192
On that note, I'm sick of hearing about the holocaust
>>339291
mt. Vesuvius erupting in March 1944
I'm tired of not hearing anything about Jews before or after the Holocaust. Jewish history is literally something only Jews learn.
>>339334
arent we all my friend
>>338309
"The Cold War" is a western bourgeois projection onto the reformist peaceful coexistence attitude of the soviet nomenklatura.
Read more Central and Eastern European accounts.
>>339484
I would love to. Please link them.
The term is a pragmatic reference to the proxy wars between 1945-1991, or from 1917 if you wanna dig deeper.
>>338334
>muh battles
Literally worthless crap, histoire événementielle a shit
Cold War, American Revolution, Roman Republic, Ancient Greece
>>339517
Start by understanding what the Soviet Union actually was. Pirani, Fitzpatrick, Andrle. Then try some Bill Lomax on Hungary along with Ðilas on Stalin and Yugoslavia and class society. Try reading Nagy's "New Course" and understand that this was a controversial and underground document.
In the period of peaceful coexistence, internal relationships define the actually existing socialist societies' positions, instead of the external relationships that the US account of the Cold War presents.
>>339484
I'm Eastern / Central Euro and I have no earthly clue what you're getting at.
>>339617
Wow, an appeal to personal experience. That's one thing I'm tired of hearing about on /his/.
>>339562
>In the period of peaceful coexistence, internal relationships define the actually existing socialist societies' positions
Any other examples besides GDR 1953, Polamd and Hungary 1956 or Czechoslovakia 1968? They seem like exceptions, rather than the rule
>>339484
Holy shit, you've really eaten up that INTERCOM propaganda, haven't you?
>>339628
Sorry if I came about as hostile, I'm legit curious about what you're talking about since that's something that was never brought up in my country of origin, like at all. Especially when you bring up "western propaganda" which isn't something I was exactly affected by when I was growing up.
>>339340
Couldn't help yourself could you?
>>339646
Not that guy, but if you are younger than 35 years old, you've probably been educated according to Western historical accounts (not necessarily propaganda)
>>339653
Well I can assure you I wasn't.
Also the term "cold war" was very much a thing in my country and was frequently used in the media and books, the only thing they were at odds with the west was who started it ("NATO was an aggression pact, they were the ones to mine up the Western German border", etc).
>>339632
History isn't just a history of crisis. Miklos Haratszi's Worker in a Worker's state is worth while, it is an industrial sociology of Hungary in the 1960s.
Outside of these moments of crisis (forgot Yugoslav 49 / Rajk purges) these societies were focused inwards. Even the Vietnamese Workers Party didn't believe it was engaged in an international situation with the Americans, it held to a line of self-interest.
>>339646
At a fundamental level the soviet-style parties didn't view themselves as engaged in an international contest based on warfare. The international position was as opportunistic as in the 1920s and 1930s, but the focus of attention even more was on "socialism in one country."
It is primarily American narratives that posit international contest in this period.
>>339680
Well if that's true then it's sure as fuck not how they were presenting the whole shit to the public.
>>338192
Your posts.
>>339680
>It is primarily American narratives that posit international contest in this period.
What about Cuba and their troops sent to Africa?
NK and isolation?
China and the Third World theory?
Military coups in Latin America based on anticommunism?
>>339746
>China and the Third World theory?
Because China was clearly revisionist, am I rite?
>>339680
Arent we 100% sure that the cold war was international? The kgb not being in south america is the only thing thats really up for debate.
>>339680
>Even the Vietnamese Workers Party didn't believe it was engaged in an international situation with the Americans, it held to a line of self-interest.
And then they invaded Cambodia to further Soviet interest. Yep clearly just focused on their country lol.
>>339820
How is that different to the Cheka's international sections in 1924?
>>339813
Didn't imply that
>Canadians "burning" Washington
They didn't do it, I don't know how this misconception spread like wildfire
>>339844
The argument was that revisionist actually existing socialism was inwards focused.
Islamic Golden Age
Not so much the subject itself in depth, but superficial mention of it as some sort of PC battle cry. Just a quick decleration that Baghdad was the greatest city ever created by man and you should all bow down and thank Islam for its gracious existence and nothing more. Enough. I get it, you're very progressive and proud of yourself.
or the destruction of the Library of Alexandria. Not really our greatest loss
>>339868
This is the first time you mention revisionism. Stop moving the goal posts lad, your point was that mainly Americans considered the period as based on international contest
>>338192
It's not so much the subject itself, but every "Was Jesus real" thread inevitably devolves into shitflinging about who counts as a credible historian, and it's just stupid.
>>339859
The best part is they weren't even Canadians but Brits, Canada let alone the Canadian nation didn't even exist yet.
WW2 obviously.
At this point I just automatically hide any thread that mentions it, switch the TV channel when there's something about it. I'm so bored with it it somehow makes me nauseous.
Rome. It's always fucking Rome for me.
>hurr durr why did Rome fall? Was it degeneracy? was it Christianity?
>>339869
Islamic Golden Age wasnt even really about Islam. Any large and wealthy city will have great minds flock to it. People were realtively tolerant, so all kinds of cultures and religions gathered there. When many powerful and/or smart people come together in one place, progress tends to happen.
Rome
Reading about ancient Rome is what got me interested in history in the first place, but I'm so tired of everybody using is as an example and thinking they're smart for doing so
>the United States is falling apart, just like Rome
>all this degeneracy is going to be the end of us, just like Rome
>Rome is a good example of how empires fall apart. The United States is following in its footsteps
PICK A DIFFERENT GODDAMN EXAMPLE
>>340044
But that doesn't even make sense. The U.S. doesn't have multiple competing private militaries that drag it into endemic civil war. We don't have rampant infectious disease, and we don't have vulnerable and tenuous links to water sources.
>>340044
Yeah, that comparison sounds good on the surface. But the only things Rome and the US have in common is that they are/were great empires, and that Rome is something of a distant ancestor to the US.
People notice how empires tend to wax and wane. Then they compare the US to Rome in that regard. That's a pretty big leap of logic right there. Yes, maybe the US will wane. Maybe it will be within our lifetime. Maybe it's already happening. But how the fuck do any of the details compare to Rome?
