Did the commies and anarchists on here enjoy this?
>>1252345
Everyone did. We had a grand time laughing at it on /int/
>>1252351
This. Even fascists and reactionaries enjoyed it, because it basically proved their point.
>>1252345
Such scum. We should imprison them on the Falklands, or maybe just drop them off at Argentina. Both like to attack things that aren't theirs.
I just saw something on Facebook that made me a bit confused, /his/ can you help me understand it? I saw a post slandering politicians and in the comment section there was a feeble attempt from one side that tried to present itself as an actual argument. What really got me about this was that they said and I quote, "We are headed to a true civil war where blood will run in the streets over bullshit arguments like where this could be heading." By saying that we're heading to a "true civil war" are you saying the one that happened two whole centuries ago didn't matter? I mean, why say that at all if there was a true civil war that happened where actual people died and suffered as a result? Did you not pay attention in U.S. history when you were school, did you not care, why say something like that if you went through a public education system that required students to learn about american history and events of the past in our nation that include such topics? It doesn't make sense, unless you somehow forgot that such a thing happened, you weren't paying attention to what you typed as you were fighting the democractic party because we aren't a democracy, you really believe that Trump will save us from this "impending societal destruction" that either Hillary or Snaders will cause, or if you wanted to deny the events of the past. Just super saiyan.
Who knows what goes on in the head of some average bozo, as if everyone on Facebook has some real, legitimate point? I will tell you this, the USA is fine as it is and if some stupid redneck revolution starts, or dindu or whoever else, I'll be on the side happily restoring order, so intelligent people can make appropriate decisions and changes while cooler heads prevail. You don't fix shit by killing people. You fix shit by talking things over and dealing with the results.
Shit, if that's all it takes, then might as well do something about it when possible.
>>1252332
The US civil war had standing armies and only two of them
Many other civil wars have multiple factions and more irregulars hiding in mountains and forests than actual soldiers in uniforms
so I recently watched a documentary about WW1 and I realized the germans were basically alone against every major nation, they killed like 2 million russians in the east while fighting the brits and the french in the west, then they managed to stir up a revolution in russia to concentrate their forces in the west and would have won the war if the americans hadn't joined. how did they do it? are they really the master race or something?
Nah, they wuz just big country n shieet
>Eternal kraut fucked up everything
No one is surprised
>>1252323
I remember this kid in middle school who randomly sperged out and managed to trip up another boy and from then on reckoned he was a hardcore gangster or something, but from then on everyone was wary of him so next time he tried it he ended up on the floor with grazed hands going "you fucking asshole" over and over. Whenever I read about Germany and Austria in ww1 for some reason I am reminded of him.
A history of the color black
How come that so many religions (at least the monotheistic religions) are so fond of the color black?
While today (only today?) it's seen as a color that is appropriate for funerals or for "goths"?
>>1251913
It's unassuming, plain and humble. For similar reasons Abrahamic religions (particularly Muslims) are also quite fond of white, because they're the two plainest colours possible.
It's a morning color, it's worn by monks in Orthodoxy because it represents that are dead to the world, they have crucified themselves to it for Christ. Becoming a monk is a kind of martyrdom.
>>1251929
*mourning
Historic photos
Handsome Russian wrestler
On a whim, I started sifting through the Wikipedia article on Erwin Rommel. This of course alerted me to the existence of the 'Rommel myth', something I was unaware of.
Was Rommel really as much of a magnificent bastard as he's made out to be, or was he just overrated for propaganda purposes? Additionally, does anyone know some good books or articles on Rommel?
>>1251735
Did he win in North Africa? If no then no he is just a meme. If yes you need to back to kiddie school.
>>1251750
Nah, you're just retarded.
How do I philosophically deal with tfw no gf?
>>1251609
Read the Metaphysics of Love by Schopenhauer. It's pretty dated but a lot of the ideas are still interesting and his central idea is still applicable (that "love" is a primal instinct that stems from the preservation of the species)
Disregard females, acquire currency.
Read some of these
>mfw my professor says the romans were white
>>1251603
everybody in europe was black
white people are a social construct
Hol up
>Charlemagne
>not black
There are literally photographs of him!
this question is stupid, so I will phrase it better,
The Roman Empire ruled from Rome compared to the Eastern Roman Empire ruled from Constantinople. Who was better?
You're right, that is a stupid question. Quot homines, tot sententiae.
>>1251417
constructive criticism is appreciated
>>1251404
Basically your asking classical Rome vs Late Antiquity ERE.
I would much rather live during Pax Romans, back when the Empire was unchallenged and highly urbanized.
>"You are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
- YHWH
>>1251400
No surprise that the Jew Saul-Paul (the actual founder of Christianity) didn't want the goyim to think like that and instead preached that masochist, self-destructive and cucked "Love thy enemies and turn the other cheek" BS to them.
Old covenant was carnal, new covenant is spiritual. Hence cleanliness is not longer clinical, but spiritual, and initiation is no longer carnal, but spiritual.
Well, you can't get fair than that, can you? Out of all the things God's supposed to have said this is probably one of the more reasonable ones tbqh.
So what IS the actual argument against infinite regress? Is there any? It seems like the idea of a prime mover is even more absurd, and only given preference because of Christianity.
>>1251336
Infinite regress breaks logic, and we generally try to make our arguments logical
>>1251358
You are confusing "Makes sense" with "illogical". There is nothing illogical about an infinite chain. The Unmoved mover argument on the other hand is illogical because it postulates that nothing can exist without being created, and then postulates something that has no creator. Logically speaking the unmoved mover cannot exist, and thus the universe cannot exist.
An infinite regress does not "Make sense" but the alternative is a logical absurdity.
>>1251358
It doesn't breaks logic more than prime cause or say logical circle. What you prefer is completely arbitrary choice to be honest.
Why is this man so useless?
because he died
>>1251009
He was given an Italian army to work with.
>>1251009
He was less social and "populist" than the Germans (while they were talking about income inequality and had programs like KDF that organized vacations for low-income workers, etc.), Italian Fascism was much more based on the idea that income inequality and related things are actually a good thing. Mussolini himself said that inequality shouldn't decrease but, quite the opposite, it should actually increase.
And while the Germans had rather scientific views on race (or at least a scientific approach to race, of couse science wasn't as advanced as it was today, they were still talking about "blood" while we today would say "genes", etc.), the Italians had an esoteric and romanticist view on race: Mussolini wasn't as antisemitic and actually allowed many Jews to work with him.
![2000px-India_China_Locator.svg[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/RP4qFUG.png "2000px-India China Locator.svg[1]")
Which one has had more impact on the history of mankind? Culture and history of which one do you personally find more interesting and why?
>>1250796
China.
Technology > spirituality.
>Street shitters vs Fetus eaters
What a hard choice
>>1250796
china probably
personally I don't give a shit about either of them
What was the reason for Italy's very poor performance in WW2?
Clearly there must be some factors behind it. Incompetent leadership? Disorganization? Technological delays?
>>1250768
>Incompetent leadership? Disorganization?
nailed it, entire officer core all the way up the ladder was incompetent, to make up for it the enlisted soldiers werent motivated to fight
>>1250768
All of the above, in addition to massive logistical issues in almost all categories of supply.
>spaghetti rations
>>1250768
Pretty much "All of the above".
Italy was a colossal clusterfuck on almost every level imaginable. It starts, at least IMO, because of the relative weakness of the Fascist party in Italy as opposed to some other Fascist parties throughout Europe. Hitler could afford to just mass execute people without any risk of internal repercussions. Mussolini couldn't, not without risking his government being dissolved, which it eventually would be following Operation Husky.
So he did what a lot of people in weak political positions did, he played balancing games. People got appointed to government ministries on the basis of whose interests they represented, not on the basis of "can they do the fucking job?"
And when you have a bunch of people like this running the government, the military and social administration suffers for it too. Everyone remembers what a clusterfuck the Italian invasion of Greece was. What most people don't remember is that they pulled some 40% of their troops out of Albania on the eve of the invasion, because they realized suddenly that they didn't have enough people back home to bring in the harvest, and food prices going up would mean regime instability..... but of course it would also be bad for the regime if this invasion that was in the works for a few months would be suddenly canceled, so ahead they go despite the fact that you just sent almost half your troops away.
Talk to me about the North African Campaign
>How did it start?
>What was the end game?
>How did it end?
I know a pretty decent amount about the Eastern Front, but the African campaign has always seemed boring in comparison.
It can be summed up just like the Greece campaign.
Italy fucks everything up and Germany has to bail them out
The African campaign was a no win scenario for the axis. They would have loved to take the Suez, but without naval superiority or really naval presence in a significant way at all their logistics would always be strained.
Rommel did better than most could be expected to in his situation, hence why Africa and his action in France made him so famous, to the eternal buttdevastation of some. That isn't to say he didn't make mistakes but there's a good reason the guy's do famous.
>>1250662
>How did it start?
Italy entered the war. At that point, Italian Libya and British Egypt were right next to each other, and Mussolini thought he could get an easy win by just rolling across the border and squashing a force he outnumbered heavily, at least on paper.
>What was the end game?
I'm assuming that by this you mean that what were the various plans people had in place:
Italy, at least at the outset, was looking to conquer Egypt. That turned out to be a pipe dream, and from the end of the Compass counteroffensive, their goal was simply to hold onto Libya as long as possible.
Britain's goals were to create a front that they could fight on on terms of relative advantage, and ideally conquer/liberate North Africa from the Italians, and use it as a launchpad for further assaults, as well as to exert control directly over the Mediterranean.
Germany got involved in early 1941. Their goal was initially to prevent a collapse of Italian forces in Libya. In fact, the General Staff's goals stayed at that for pretty much the duration of North Africa as a theater. Rommel had different ideas though, and he wanted to drive the British into the sea.
>How did it end?
Eventually, the British gained the upper hand in the Egypt/Libya section, and the Americans landed in Vichy French North Africa on the other end. They squeezed the Germans and Italians back all the way to Tunisia. (Originally a Vichy French possession, but the Germans just grabbed it when it became strategically useful). They hold out for a little while in a succession of fortifications around Mareth and Tunis itself, but just get smothered by superior forces, culminating in a huge capture of forces at Tunis, something like 300,000 soldiers.
