Has a Democratic nation ever started a war and formally declared war first upon another nation as the aggressor in human history and is it plausible/feasible past the Early Modern Era?
>>339464
Plenty of dictators were democratically elected.
Does that count?
Ok. You want to know if the rules PDS made for HOI4 is true to history or not?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
Yeah, the second Iraq war
Can someone explain the Society of St. Pius X?
Are they Catholic or a schism?
Are their sacraments recognized by the Catholic Church?
Why are they so mad at the Vatican?
>>339381
They're basically french fash.
The Church wishes them to reenter communion. From their perspective the Church is heretical.
They are outside of communion but from December are being given a year to conduct confessions.
Because they're french Fash.
>>339533
>Fash
Fit and sexy hot?
>>339381
Basically:
>you have to do what the church says or you are a heretic!
>if the church says something I don't like then it's heresy!
So what kind of tomb curses have historical figures had in the past /his/? Or who's tombs have been believed to have been cursed?
I know Tutankhamun's the dapper go to guy when it comes to tomb curses.
Pic related. Soviets BTFO.
>>339338
Casimir IV of Poland may be a case of an actual "curse". Many people died after opening his sarcophagus. It turned out to be a form of extremely lethal fungus.
Pic related.
>>339365
Forgot the pic.
>>339338
Not so much cursed, as feared booby trapped and mercury poisoned, Qin Shi Huang's tomb has never been opened.
Is /his/ the right place to talk about weapons in? Why did the best sword stop being used after the seventeenth century? Pic related.
>Is /his/ the right place to talk about weapons in?
>Is /pol/ the right place to talk about origami in?
>>>/k/
>>339221
Fuck off I like /k/ (despite the last couple years of constant shitposts making it hard) but historical arms and armor threads there never go well, /his/ actually somewhat knows what they're talking about.
>>339212
They stopped using the rapier really around the mid 1700's due to changing fashion and sabres proving more useful with changing martial scenarios.
>>339221
No its fine to talk about swords here, their manufactoring was a factor in geopolitics. Try to be less of a kek
If Hitler hadn't been a thing who would have been history's greatest villain to whom everyone else thereafter would be literally and figuratively compared?
Napoleon? Genghis Khan?
Bob.
Everyone fucking hates Bob.
>>339128
Probably Stalin, his rise to power was already inevitable before Hitler's was, and he was pretty brutal.
Maybe some other commie that came up after Stalin died or something though, who knows?
I don't even understand why Hitler got so villainized when Stalin and Mao were demonstratably worse. Is it just because he lost the war?
If you look at all the other parts of western europe that Rome occupied they all speak romance languages? Why in britain did the native celtic and invading germanic languages survived? Why is it i'm not typing this in some sort of welsh/anglo-saxon influenced romance language?
>>339115
You could argue that Occitain was fairly romantic, Frankish was germanic. The Anglo-Saxons were germanic. Only Italian was really a latin language. (Spanish being copycats and French being keked Franks)
>>339115
english is not germanic, first latin influence and then french influence made the language ~90% romance
>>339115
The best explanation is that the Romans just straight up left Britain and allowed it to fend for itself.
The movements of germanic and other peoples into the rest of the Roman Empire was a pretty gradual process, the barbarians that were settled inside the borders were slowly absorbed into Roman society and then took over, whereas as much as we know about post Roman Britain (which is almost fucking nothing), the invading barbarians just wholesale replaced the existing ruling class, which may or may not have LEFT beforehand anyway.
Nationalism. Where did it come from, where is it now, and where is it going? It seems kind of outdated to me. The nation-state should give way to international states for the sake of global cooperation. It's basically a condition of globalism and globalization, isn't it?
>outdated
Actually it's fairly recent still. 19th century.
>>339121
That's still pretty old. Women still couldn't vote back then.
>>339112
It could be argued that the very concept of a nation state emerged with the beginning of modern globalization, as an ideology to better express your own economic interest versus newfound economic rivals.
Was he really the driving force behind the terror, or did the committee just use him as a scapegoat?
>>338998
Yes, he was a scapegoat.
This is a known fact.
"lf the attribute of popular government in peace is virtue, the attribute of popular government in revolution is at one and the same time virtue and terror, virtue without which terror is fatal, terror without which virtue is impotent. The terror is nothing but justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is thus an emanation of virtue."
Speech to the National Convention, (5 February 1794),
JUST
So was this guy just trying to justify the Prussian State?
>>338835
States have no reason to exist desu
>>338841
this!!
>>338835
that's also what I thought studying him in high school.
Why is this whole population and historical genetics thing so controversial?
It looks like its holding great potential to better understand history, but instead what do we see?
Hordes of self-titled experts that produce batshit ideas, wishful thinking everywhere, people that associate haplogroups (whatever those are) with ethnic groups, and generally everyones just trying to use it to strengthen their own pet theories or historical-nationalistic delusions.
I don't understand much of it but I keep seeing these topics recur and got this impression. Also I really don't understand these different kind of dnas and dna parts and methods and what does each indicate, which I suppose adds confusion in others too.
>>340753
Pathetic.
What are you even trying to say?
>>338756
Because humans are incapable of looking at such an issue without causing widespread conflict or civil unrest. People would take it very personally and reject it outright. That and such strain of study (which pre-dates WW2) has been poisoned utterly by Nazism. Thus it is silenced
Weren't the Holocaust and the Armenian genocide basically just consequences of attempts to define what it meant to 'be' German or 'be' Turkish? How does that not make nationalism indefensible?
>>338740
I basically agree with you but you but you have to understand that it was less of an attempt to "define" what it means to be either and more as a last resort to keep a nation on the verge of collapse together by removing the supposed element which was tainting it. In both situations neither was the actual problem so the society collapsed anyway thanks to fairly stupid and impotent leadership, but my main point is that since the leadership was bewildered, and in Hitlers case grew out of a Germany which had already collapsed once thus making the Nazis false messiahs, they picked a bogeyman and disposed of it.
Thus Nationalism itself doesn't necessarily remain indefensible because of the two genocides you reference because they were done less out of attempts to define the Nations people and more as a way to save them and it is the fact that violence against the minority peoples of a Nation becomes totally justified that Nationalism is, for me, indefensible
Hope this helped OP sorry for being so long windedness. Also be ready for the buttmad /pol/ lurkers to show up in full force at the sight of you merely questioning nationalism's merit.
Nationalism manifests in different ways. Some are good, some are bad.
Hitler wasn't the figurehead of nationalism, he didn't get to decide what nationalism is about.
In truth, most heavily nationalistic people have been escaping oppression instead of oppressing
>>338740
Fuck off back to tumblr
So, let's get this straight once and for all....
Was the American Civil War fought over slavery or over the federal government's right to interfere in state matters?
I personally support the "state's rights" position since Lincoln clearly stated on several occasions that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave he would do it. Also, he avoided freeing the slaves in Union-allied states.
>>338665
Lincoln fought against state rights, the south fought to preserve and spread (that last part is often overlooked and proves that the south didn't give a fuck about states rights) slavery.
>>338686
>the south didn't give a fuck about states rights
Absolute bullshit. The South, and for that matter the North as well, valued state's rights extremely high. Everyone in that time period did. The North just didn't care as much because slavery was not important to them.
The South fought to "spread" slavery only in the sense that they believed that the new territories deserved the right to vote on whether or not they were a slave state. The federal government had been pushing laws that prevented certain territories from becoming slave states while allowing others to. Most politicians from the South simply wanted to allow them to vote on it.
These laws were put in place because the North was well aware of the fact that many settlers in the West might have been supportive of slavery.
>>338665
>Was the American Civil War fought over slavery or over the federal government's right to interfere in state matters?
yes
Sure, they're never really defeated on the battlefield due to overwelming $$$. But time after time after time, the yanks pack their shit in and effectively "lose" their original struggle by omission. It keeps happening time after time after time
Is this a deep rooted cultural thing? Just a meme? Sensationalist media? Do they really "lose" at all?
Because they fight bad wars with shit win conditions.
>>338581
The same way that every material power loses asymmetric wars. You get a calculation that the strategic aims envisioned aren't worth the amount of blood and treasure being spent to secure it.
The U.S. is still overwhelmingly the dominant military power in today's age. There's really very little that can conceivably destroy the U.S., short of Russia going crazy and launching all of their nukes for no real reason. So it's hard to justify considerable military expenses for stuff when no "real" threat exists.
It's a lot easier to justify "We need to fight to save our homeland", or "we need to fight to save our good ally" as opposed to "we need to fight because maybe, someday, if we lose here, it will start a domino effect to create more hostile states in the region which might or might not have the capacity to challenge us sometime way down the line."
As well ask why the French lost in Algeria, Caesar lost in Britain, or the Spanish lost in the Netherlands.
>>338581
>But time after time after time, the yanks pack their shit in and effectively "lose" their original struggle by omission
this has LITERALLY only happened in Vietnam, and even then, not really.
Did you guys know about this?
>On September 14, 1954, at 9.33 am, a 40-kiloton nuclear bomb was blown up as part of the training at the Totsky facility in the Orenburg region of the Soviet Union.
>In the 1950s, the government was seriously preparing for World War III. After tests in the US, Soviet officials thought it was essential to have “the bomb” in the Soviet Union. They chose the steppes of Orenburg due to their close resemblance to the landscapes of the Western Europe.
>The explosion occurred at an altitude of 380 yards. Out of the 45,000 soldiers who participated in the training, only 2,000 people have survived to the present day, and more than half of them remained handicapped or terminally ill for the rest of their lives.
>Neither the local population nor the soldiers themselves were informed about what the real purpose of the training was and what kind of bomb was being tested.
>The nuclear explosion was followed by a massive military training session, with people staying in the open air, unprotected from the radioactive emission, and with jets flying straight through the “mushroom cloud”. The number of bombs and mines exploded at the site that day exceeded those during the Berlin military operation in the WWII.
>Back then, it was primarily the blast wave that the command deemed to be the greatest danger, never minding the much more dreadful and long-lasting impact the fallout from the blast had on the participating troops.
>All of the participants of the training signed a 25-year-long gag order, and all the materials were classified as strictly confidential and were only disclosed after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the same time the surviving participants of the tragedy were finally allowed to talk. Dying from cancer, early heart attacks and strokes, they couldn’t even reveal to their doctors what they had been a part of.
This is just fucked up. Sending 40000 people to their death as a test.
A documentary about the incident:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk_nVyhL1MI
ITT: Historical Figures with cool nicknames
I'll start Charles "The Hammer"
Septimius Severus
I don't even know what it means, but it sounds cool
>>338405
William the Bastard
>>338435
It's a spell from harry potter
