So wiki says that 17 million (7.4 -9.5 million due to military activity and war crimes) Soviet civilians perished during WWII, how did all these people die? The figure seems to be extremely considering that the Nazis didn't systematically persecute the Slavic population and that there wasn't much strategic bombing. What do you think?
>>864455
>considering that the Nazis didn't systematically persecute the Slavic population
But they did
>>864455
*extremely high
>>864464
How do you define systematic persecution? I think the term applies to the persecution of Jews were they really tried to track down every individual. There was the Hunger plan which targeted the whole population, but it was soon replaced by meager rationing.
Which peoples/cultures do most of /his/ generally admire?
Pic unrelated
No idea why I put "Pic unrelated."
Force of habit I guess.
The Armenians.
THey have had a though life...
Will human be able to make those barren land arable and fertile soon?
Let necessity and /pol/shit behind first.
We may make the green ones infertile ;^)
http://www.learner.org/interactives/collapse/mesopotamia.html
>Along with factors such as war and changes in the environment, scientists now believe irrigation techniques played an important role in Mashkan-shapir's collapse. The same process that allowed farming in this region also eventually made it impossible to farm. Irrigation has a Catch-22: if irrigation water is allowed to sit on the fields and evaporate, it leaves behind mineral salts; if attempts are made to drain off irrigation water and it flows through the soil too quickly, erosion becomes a problem. Scientists believe that Mashkan-shapir's collapse was caused in part by destruction of the fields by mineral salts. When mineral salts concentrate in the upper levels of the soil, it becomes poisonous for plants.
>In Mesopotamia, irrigation was essential for crop production. The rivers were higher than the surrounding plain because of built-up silt in the river beds, so water for irrigation flowed into the fields by gravity. Once the water was on the fields, it could not readily drain away because the fields were lower than the river. As the water evaporated, it not only left its dissolved mineral salts behind, but also drew salts upward from lower levels of the soil. Over time, the soil became toxic and would no longer support crops. By about 2300 B.C., agricultural production in Mesopotamia was reduced to a tiny fraction of what it had been. Many fields were abandoned as essentially useless. Mesopotamian cuneiform tablets tell of crop damage due to salts.
:DDDDDDDDDD
*fixed
![l_anse_aux_meadows[1].jpg_w=1240&h=540.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/5qNhy9S.jpg "l anse aux meadows[1] w=1240&h=540")
Why aren't the Vikings considered the discoverers of America? Is it because the discovery didn't have any major impact?
I think so, as well as it not really being proven that they really went over to America until rather late.
>>864182
Yup, you answered your own question.
>>864182
Ahem, Lief Ericson?
What're some good books/sites I can read if I want to learn about Nordic religion?
Georges Dumézil - Gods of the Ancient Northmen
The Poetic Edda
The Prose Edda
Redpill me on Plato - is his philosophy in any way applicable nowadays, or is it rooted to much in his time? Is he really the most important philosopher in history in your opinion?
>>863038
Yes, but you'll have to let the more theoretical works take a backseat to works that are more suggestive about policy. If you're going to read one work, make it the Laws (and then maybe follow it with the Republic). If you're looking for something with a set of particular rules to follow, Plato won't provide that to you, and that's by intention--his suggestion is that if there were such knowledge, it's entirely elusive.
>>863055
I've actually read The Republic, but I'm a complete amateur to philosophy, so I haven't got much to compare it with. I think most of the ideas in it went over my head, though I enjoyed it nevertheless. Mostly, I felt like it didn't "apply" to me and my age, as a lot of his [and Socrates', or him-through-Socrates'] philosophy is about democracy in their time and other perceptions of the world/society that are relevant to their time.
Society basically ran on philosophy derived from Plato up until Nietzsche showed up: neoplatoism, Aristotle, Christianity, Kant, even Hegel. It's still too early to say but our era of post-war USA cultural domination and globalism might have broken this pattern.
"Applicable nowadays" and "rooted to much in his time" are such plebeian and hypocritical demands, and not realistic if you're going to be doing literal interpretation.
>Is he really the most important philosopher in history in your opinion?
Well he is almost universally considered the best candidate amongst philosophers, academics and laymen.
When did you first realize that Plato was a loser and that the sophists were actually smarter than he was?
I can see it now, Plato, butthurt after losing an argument to an intellectually superior sophist, runs away to his room crying. He thinks up a metaphysical fantasy land where everything is perfect and there certainly aren't any mean sophists to bully him.
He writes obsessively, most of what we know of the sophists and Socrates come through him. Most of the sophists did not write much more than was necessary, the spoken word was considered the higher art form at the time. So now most of what we know of the Sophists comes through Plato's delusional fantasy stories where he trounces these strawmen in verbal debate.
Now, our degenerate education system treats the sophists as comedy acts, with the noble and triumphant Plato banishing sophistry to the history books with his schizoid dream world philosophy. High school and undergraduate college students are taught, through this blunt interpretation of the sophists, that men such as Protagoras and Gorgias are merely quack practitioners of a refuted art. Unless one takes high level philosophy classes, they will never come to understand the truth that the sophists were among the wisest men to grace the Hellenic world.
>>862799
Nietzsche believed the sophists were more legit philosophers than Socrates and his ilk.
He saw Socrates, but not Plato, as being a force of ressentment against the society of his time, that is why he walked around and tried to discredit everyone: in the trial against Socrates there are representatives from the artists, the statesmen, and the philosophers. Socrate's philosophy basically consisted of saying 2 things.
1. Nothing is subjetive
2. Nobody actually knows what the truth of anything is and his society is built on a series of falsities. All the supposed experts are dummies and everything discovered so far has been meaningless.
Plato was influenced by Socrates and tried to resolve these with his Form metaphysics. The reason no one knows anything yet truth isn't subjective is because truth exists outside of our realm. Nietzsche believed Plato was corrupted by the mad man Socrates. You can sort of see the result of Socrates corruption more so in Diogenes who's philosophy is basically "fuck the world"
>>862799
He writes obsessively, most of what we know of the sophists and Socrates come through him. Most of the sophists did not write much more than was necessary, the spoken word was considered the higher art form at the time.
Dude, the sophists wrote a shit ton of manuals and treatises on rhetoric, truth, etymology, and lots else, besides writing plenty of speeches for others to recite. The way they made money was to write for others. What's your evidence for any of this?
>>862799
Damn straight. I always used to think like that. Plato's works always seemed cringeworthy to me. In particular the obvious straw man dialogues. The sophists on the other hand make sense and actually said some worthwhile things instead of making up bullshit. In my opinion Plato fundamentally ruined the development of western philosophy.
should one watch zeitgeist?
or is it a shitty conspiracist movie?
It's incredibly shitty, but I find the ideas that they badly attempt to explore interesting.
>the connections between various religions
>technocracy
>post-scarcity economics
etc.
>>862466
This basically, it sows the seeds of interest in these topics but little else.
I have a 25 year old friend who still mentions Zeitgeist, I would have thought he would have found better material by now.
>>862449
incredibly shit.
>Western " Generals"
>Eastern "Warlords"
>Europe = Kings
>Asian South Africa = Emperors
>Africa, Australia, North America = Chiefs
>Ireland, Scotland, Wales = Chieftains
>greentext """threads"""
>"""high level""" """discourse"""
This guy.
>>862248
A shame what Stalin did to him after the war. He obviously was intimidated by his greatness.
Whoever had the best logistical apparatus.
I know this isn't /lit/ but do you have any books on war / strategy you could recommend.
I read a bit of sun tzu, On killing, and I am about to read kill chain next.
>>861870
On War - Clausewitz
War and Peace might interest you.
>>861880
thnx sir.
How can metaphysics and ethics be anything other than unfalsifiable garbage? I know that unfalsifiability as a worthwhile criterion is unfalsifiable, but isn't that just a fucking given due to the munchhausen trilemma?
I'm serious guys, why the fuck should I take metaphysics or ethics seriously?
Does philosophy just suffer from the fact that as soon as it finds answers, the answers go from being philosophy to being common sense?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma
Is there one guy posting all of these threads?
>>861273
Or trolls recycling pasta.
>>861296
Fuck Yes!
Does /his/ agree?
imagine how did it have to feel being in unit 731 cell waiting to have both legs chopped next morning
Knees weak, arms are heavy
Mom's spaghetti
>>860132
Get out Reddit
>>860115
>raping women to impregnate them and then infecting them and cutting them open just to see what the diseases did to pregnant women
Holy shit.
Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: 'Do not march on Moscow'...
Rule 2 is: 'Do not go fighting with your land armies in China'
- general Bernard Law Montgomery.
What would /his/ add?
What does /his/ agree/disagree with in this?
>Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: 'Do not march on Moscow'..
>>>/reddit/
>rule 1
>don't lose
Logistics, logistics, logistics
Prussia was best.
>Potatoes
>King Fritz wrote gay porn
>Fabulous war uniforms
Discuss.
Whose idea was it to give a bunch of people as aggressive and friendly as a bunch of tribal new Guineans their own superstate?
>>859680
Prussia's.
>>859667
10/10 flag tbf
