Greetings from /sci/,
I would like to ask what's the point of History if nobody learns from past mistakes.
>Hitler's attack in Russia
> Despite Napoleon doing the same shit and fucking over again
>>559271
Well, Hitler was not the genious mastermind that some people seems to think.
>>559271
Hitler, while a great orator and figurehead, was no strategos.
Contrary to as some portray, Hitler made a number of major strategic blunders throughout the 2nd WW.
Also, history, despite being the greatest repository of ideas, never truly gives exact formulas as to how one should act. Just showing what exact way didn't work.
>>559271
The Nazis came damn close to winning in the USSR in '41 and '42. If Hitler hadn't insisted on telling his generals what to do they might well have won.
>nobody learns from past mistakes
[citation needed]
Because
Napoleon's army =/= Wehrmacht
Russian empire =/= the USSR
Technology and strategy in 1812 =/= technology and strategy in 1941
They were two entirely different things
Invading the USSR certainly proved to be a mistake, but oversimpligying historical events to shit like that is good for absolutely nothing other than water cooler debates talking points with retards.
>>559271
> Hitler's attack in Russia
> Despite Napoleon doing the same shit and fucking over again
Hitler's attack was a preemptive attack. The Russians were amassed in the East for an invasion of Europe.
The narrative is lost now, but the Nazis were fighting the Communists from the end of WWI until the start of WWII.
>>559271
>I would like to ask what's the point of History if nobody learns from past mistakes.
The point of history is to learn what happened in the past and how events relate to each other. The goal is to know the world.
Identifying and learning from mistakes on stupid shit that gets peddled to retards who don't understand how knowledge can be a goal in itself.
>>559271
Napoleon didn't try invading Russia with tanks and planes.
/thread
>>559271
history is for normies attempting to pass as literary intellectual, just like QM, conciousness, and space exploration is for normies attempting to pass as scientific intellectual.
>>559529
Come to /sci/ then
>>559271
>not understanding the psychology of leadership
is all of /sci/ as worthless as you?
Times changed quite a lot.
Its worth knowing history so that your nation doesnt embaress itself.
One third of americans dont know they fought the british in the revolution
History isn't about learning about mistakes as to not repeat them. It's about learning what happened in the first place. A /sci/ poster should know about the psychology of decision making, even if only to deride psychology as not a "real" science.
>>561437
>/sci/
>worthless
Haha, what are planes?
What are medicine that keep you alive?
What are computers?
>>559271
The study of history is the birth of philosophy.
You're a science geek, so let me ask you: What's the point of a scientist studying Einstein or Newton or some shit? Because you learn from doing that. You can't expect to solve the formula for interspace travel without first reading what past scientist have come up with.
In that same light, people study history so that they can learn shit like "hmm...what is the best government?" or "How should a king treat its citizens?"
And viola, that's how philosophy is born.
Remember in school when your teacher said, "there's no such thing as a stupid question"?
She was wrong. That was a mighty stupid question
>>561443
Wow, I didn't know that /sci/ invented those! :^)
Some historical events are invaluable data, such as economic application of ideologies during the cold war
Economics, a social science, is more useful than any type of science, and economics is extremely reliant on history
>"Nobody learns from past mistakes"
>gives one example
2/10
>>561451
>this entire post
My sides
Somebody cross post this thread to /sci/
>>561444
>What's the point of a scientist studying Einstein or Newton or some shit?
To see what they did right, but also what they did wrong. When someone creates a new hypothesis they do so explicitly trying to correct a mistske of someone who came prior to them. Your analogy does nothing to refute the central argument of "why study history if nobody learns from it" which is flawed on multiple levels.
>>559271
I'm more concerned with the resurgence of historical revisionism in today's "feminist" movements.
History's pupose is so academics can say "I told you so" two hundred years after the fact
>>559352
>The Russians were amassed in the East for an invasion of Europe.
The Red Army in 41 was in the process of restructuring. They were in no shape to attack. just look a Finland.
>>559271
>Napoleon was the only person to invade Russia
>mongols and poles didn't exist
When will this "invincible russian winter" meme die?
>>559271
>why did Napoleon invade a nation which was already all but at war with him, totally readied to invade his allies in Warsaw, refused the Continental System, and whose trade was permitting Britain to not have to make peace with France
>why did Hitler attack a large but militarily and industrially weakened nation with vast amounts of vital resources which Germany was coming in short supply of, and which was also preparing its military for a potential invasion of Europe
You fuckers who keep coming here are making me really hate your board
>>561595
Not that anon, but...
The Red Army certainly was increasing in size, and the attack on Finland was using the Soviets more outdated equipment. Had the war kept going, Finland would have been overwhelmed and defeated, much like it what happened after the Germans left Russia.
>>561469
Because you're obviously biased as fuck and created a shitty thread to troll.
Take this post
>>561443
Do you think the Wright Brothers invented planes from their own imagination? No, they studied past designs and built from there.
Do you not think the first programmers studied calculus and other calculations from hundreds of years before?
It wasn't "Le Epic Science God" that touched their minds with his epic science finger. They studied notes and built their own shit
>>559271
What's the point of science if a vast portion of the world is scientifically illiterate?
See how dumb your question is?
>>561768
It's safe to say the Soviets would have attacked, but no earlier than 43. Hitler would have fared much better if he didn't target entire ethnic groups, and instead go with a south american style purge of all leftist elements in German society, and present Nazi Germany as a western friendly bulwark against communism.
>>561774
>people accepted the successes of x but edenied the failures of
X
>therefore they should accept the failures of y
???
>>559271
>I would like to ask what's the point of History if nobody learns from past mistakes.
I would like to ask what the point of string theory is if it doesn't produce predictions which can be compared to empirical reality?
One group in history learns from past mistakes.
>>561774
Assuming planes exist before them
>What past designs?
>>561877
String theory is a meme, if you were on /sci/ long enough you'll know
>>562100
String theory isn't science, which is precisely why I used it. Do you have a literacy problem? If you read English long enough, you'll know how to identify someone being an arch cunt.
>>562112
Nice b8
>>561443
/sci/ is shit. There are still people there that thinks QM is inconsistent with any form of determinism.
>>559271
Stalin had already prepared the biggest in army in the history of the world, including several tens of thousands of tanks. Hitler's attack was a preventive strike - you can read in Goebbel's diaries.
>>562056
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_flying_machines#Heavier_than_air:_Sustained_flight
and birds
>>559319
>he thinks an 80% horse drawn army in the middle of the russian rasputitsa who was suffering from massive fuel shortages could hold out against millions of men with a far more present air force and american aid
wew
>>562290
They could have taken Moscow before the US even got involved.
>>559271
>>Hitler's attack in Russia
>> Despite Napoleon doing the same shit and fucking over again
But on the other hand, how many people considered invading Russia but didn't?
>>562295
good luck holding onto moscow with your horse-drawn army, extremely thin supply lines, tanks without fuel, and a barely effective air force
>>559271
That is the point of history, but unfortunately not everyone (such as Hitler) gets it
>>562300
Holding Moscow against what?
A centralised state that has collapsed because you have taken its capital?
>>562312
>state that has collapsed because you have taken its capital
topkek
>>562312
why would the soviet union collapse if moscow was taken by a force suffering from severe logistical problems that could be easily destroyed in a counterattack? the bureaucracy would just move to the east of the urals
Because it's enjoyable pleb
>>559271
Ironically, there is only 1 actual lesson to be explicitly learnt from history:
DON'T INVADE RUSSIA IN THE WINTER
>>562317
So leave all the oil fields to the Germans?
What are they going to counter-attack with? Horse drawn carts and bottles of vodka?
>>562317
>the bureaucracy would just move to the east of the urals
They did that historically.
>>562349
how would the germans be in any position to attack the caucus and eastern russia, where the majority of the oil fields were
>What are they going to counter-attack with?
a much larger and better supplied air force and tanks that aren't starving for fuel
>>562349
>So leave all the oil fields to the Germans?
The… "Moscow"… oilfields.
>>562349
> Horse drawn carts
Worked for the Germans, lel.
>>562373
>You've already made the Russians abandon their capital and strategically retreat, snatching the oilfields in your wake should be easy.
Fuck off Gröfaz https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Moscow,+Russia/Baku,+Azerbaijan/
>>562373
>You've already made the Russians abandon their capital and strategically retreat, snatching the oilfields in your wake should be easy.
>We've already extended our supply lines and extended our frontage farther than ever
>Extending our supply lines further than ever before in a new direction, and expanding our frontage farther then ever in a new direction, should be even easier now!
>>562373
>In 1941? Got any figures for that?
By October 1 1941 the Soviet and German air forces had almost exactly the same fighting strength. The Soviets had around 330 more aircraft but they weren't able to be serviced at the time. The Soviet Union's extremely dedicated war production, lack of good airfields and critically low fuel supplies for the Germans, and American aid would mean that the Soviets would be far superior in the air in the long run, and that's what matters because the Wehrmacht is nothing like the 100mph mechanized death machine it's sometimes made out to be.
>You've already made the Russians abandon their capital and strategically retreat, snatching the oilfields in your wake should be easy.
Those oilfields are hundreds of miles from Moscow. Stretching your supply lines which are already at the breaking point even further and leaving them vulnerable isn't a very good idea.
>>562347
Poland says hello
>>562349
>Horse drawn carts
guess who used those
>>559308
World War 2 was lost thanks to Hitler's mistakes first and foremost.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwHgXKW-H6U
>>559271
Half of Hitler's war was a big fuck you to the rapid spread of Bolshevism. The other half was retaking what he considered rightful German lands that were taken after ww1.
If you're trying to stop the red terror, and the USSR is stacking troops and armor along the borders of Europe, and there's rumors the Communists are going to sweep through all of Europe, what do you do? It's a tough call, and the Hitler-Mannerheim conversation shows just how difficult it was.
The commies actually did take Europe using the war as an excuse. Something history seems to ignore, they stayed in those territories and occupied them long after the war. If it wasn't for the US and NATO establishing an iron curtain, they would have surely taken all of Europe. Communism was a thinly veiled globalist ideology, they used equality and workers rights as a guise then instituted totalitarianism after the revolution. This happened over and over, in Russia, half of Europe, much if Asia & South America. I don't see why historically the US gets so much hate when the commies would have taken virtually everything of importance had they not been stood up to. Hitler would have stood up to them in the same way.
>>562425
Since history tends to write things out.. and in.. I have sources.
>documentary with former Nazi soldiers, no mention of going to war because of hatred of Jews, lots of mention of going to war due to the rapid spread of Marxism (red terror)
https://youtu.be/LQdDnbXXn20
>Hitler-Mannerheim interview, attacking USSR was a difficult decision and clearly rules out the "insanity" claim
https://youtu.be/NVqxoA52kjI
There's no reason to ask why Hitler attacked the USSR, the whole war was against the spread of radical Marxism. The Jews got caught up in it because the instigators of the German revolution of 1918 (also written out if history) were all Jewish and Jews were seen as anti-german.
>>561819
I don't think that was ever possible. Weimar Germany was, essentially, an externally-imposed liberal democracy which displaced an earlier illiberal state. The vacancy of strong political power gave rise to the Nazis. Hitler himself was an upstart who opportunistically utilized the SA, which Rohm had ambitions to use as the sole German army, totally eliminating the current standing army in favor of a national socialist militia
A mass fervor was necessary for Hitler to take power, and possibly inevitable considering the resolution to WWI. He himself was the initiator and leader of a mildly violent revolution, he was no Pinochet or Franco.
>>559271
What's the point of medicine if nobody learns from research?
Hitler wasn't a historian; he was a painter and an accomplished ranter. Hell, Wakefield and Duesberg WERE (and in Duesberg's case, *STILL ARE* last I checked) scientists and their respective dumbass theories have actually killed people.
>>562425
Something else history tends to ignore - Mad Adolf explicitly stated that, in his opinion, it would be better were Europe to fall to Bolshevism than to liberalism. Obviously, he wanted that huge field of (forcibly depopulated) farmland to the east for Germany - but his second choice was to give it to the commies, as he did once by intent (tell me, would they have been emboldened to sweep west had the National Socialist state promised to protect Poland?) and again in his failure.
>>559271
How about we listen to Hitler himself in regards to his motives for attacking Russia?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8raDPASvq0
