![dc7f7f43721f8aa78b1874a898f18adc[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/XO41Whf.jpg "dc7f7f43721f8aa78b1874a898f18adc[1]")
Would Germany have the economic resources to fight a war with Russia in the day and age?
>>1376911
No and they didn't in WW2
>>1376911
no.
Okay. Uncle Adolf has been utterly memed to death in mainstream media.
What are all the good things that he did?
>>1381812
He made sure the trains finally ran on time.
>>1381817
Nah, that was his little bro in Italy.
>>1381812
Ultimately? Built the autobahn. Killed a lot of communists.
That's it.
Could Europe have defeated an all-out Mongol invasion?
Say by Kublai Khan? Would Crusaders and knights and all that even stand a chance?
History is usually written in an incredibly Eurocentric manner so I'm curious if Europe was even that powerful in the 13th century or if it was second rate compared to east Asia (was already second rate to the Islamic world since it was beaten in the Crusades).
>>1380354
Well, the late 13th century invasions of Hungary and Poland failed pretty hard. I'm pretty sure that was only the Nogai horde, but it was still a major Mongolian effort.
So, probably. Not to mention that Mongolian unity had cracked pretty hard by the time of Kublai Khan, and without it, they aren't nearly as tough.
>>1380354
European armies stood no chance against the Mongols
>>1380354
Europe will fall
But Britain will survive
Can you give the actual reasoning and evidence of people who say the holocaust happened and those who say it didn't? Both seem to make a lot of claims but neither seem to provide much evidence.
All those dead bodies and camp prisoners weren't made up. You pretty much can't prove the holocaust didn't happen, at best you could argue that concentration camps weren't extermination camps.
>>1381917
>but neither seem to provide much evidence.
Implying
>>1381945
yes but it was the allies that killed them. all that bombing cutting supply lines and shit then they wonder why a large amount of people locked up and cut off from supplies died
I know this sounds like a /pol/-esque question of why Asians are bad at warfare, but I'm genuinely curious. The famous conflicts of the Dark Age to Renaissance era Orient are factional wars within their own territory to establish control. You see this with the Three Kingdoms and Warring States.
Meanwhile in Europe, established kingdoms routinely fought each other for various reasons and also engaged in the middle east against Islamic forces.
The reason I'm asking this is because I've been looking into historical weaponry and Asian armaments are far more static than their European counterparts -- and seem much less practical.
What gives?
>>1364883
Probably because the far East is just that: far. To get from China to another major advanced civilization you'd have to either cross massive inhospitable mountains, traverse arid deserts and massive, nomad infested steppes, or sail across large stretches of sea e.g. The Indian Ocean.
Meanwhile, for Europeans to contact middle eastern civilizations all they had to do was sail across the Mediterranean. And of course the Middle East was a gateway to India and to a lesser extent Africa.
Basically it's just geography. If the mountains west of China or the deserts to the north didn't exist, or if the Pacific Ocean was just a narrow sea with Iberia and Africa on the other side, I'm sure at least one dynasty might have tried conquering a land further away. China did conquer its neighbors on more than one occasion, and the Mongols obviously engaged in conquest. The Japanese are a modern example of eastern conquerors though in the age of aircraft carriers and jet engines geographic limits became less important, of course.
Its because Japan Korea and China saw themselfs as some meme tier civilization and everyone else is a filthy barbarian who doesn't deserve their time
Also Vietnam Conquered the Champa
>>1364883
Another factor is the fact that Chinese culture sort of discouraged the idea of independent nations. If I remember correctly, the very idea of "China" for most of history has been a vast empire ruled by an emperor ordained by heaven. This mandate of heaven is their equivalent of the divine right of kings, from which they derived the leader's right to rule. Most wars in China therefore were not fought to establish independent kingdoms, but to stake one's claim to the Mandate of Heaven - and thus make all of China accept your rule. Even outside invaders worked within this system and were eventually "Sinicized" - that is, made Chinese. The Mongols and the Yuan/Qing dynasties are the primary examples of this.
Meanwhile in the West, the idea of Rome was a bit similar. There was a great and powerful empire, and the one with the right to rule it was chosen by God. It's no coincidence that so many rulers styled themselves with variations of Caesar.. But for whatever reason, the Imperial system didn't hold up over time in the West. Perhaps the peoples were too diverse to be absorbed into a uniform empire too easily. Perhaps the great migrations aggravated that problem. I'm no expert so I don't know.
if capitalists exploit workers, why then workers don't make their own factories?
>>1385377
because they don't have the money or the education needed to make one, are you fucking stupid?
>>1385381
then why they don't start exploiting other workers rather than being exploited?
>>1385377
They do and usually fail, because some workers are simply more intelligent than others
Just what are materialists saying, really? That all of this is just matter? Okay, sure, but subjectivity is obviously real, it's obviously not JUST physical bits and pieces bumping around, they obviously contribute to a mental component even if we don't posit a "soul".
Are physicalists this fucking dumb? Either they're denying consciousness exists, or they're accepting the material has a mental, subjective aspect as well.
The mental component is "just" physical, yes. Magic is not real.
All matter is only a temporary formation of particles. All conditional things are subject to change so when the physical body dies, the energy (which can be scientifically calculated) must go somewhere and or change into something new.
A dead body has no life, so where foes the energy that keeps it alive go? It cannot just disappear into nothing because matter is not created or destroyed
>>1380601
The "mental" component is 100% physically unnecessary, and yet it remains.
>ITT: We worship the Roman Empire.
Give reasons why the Roman Empire was the greatest ancient civilization
From 800 BC to 1 AD the western world experienced massive geographical expansion. In the 8th century BC italy was just a bunch of villages around the mediterranean sea with a population of a few hundred thousands, by the 1st century the Western World covered 5 million square kilometers, had thousands of cities, including some of several hundred thousand inhabitants and massive social and economic change. Living standards improved for a population that reached at least 60 million upwards to 100 million people. In terms of population and territory the western world expanded by a factor of 100 times over these 800 years.
Rome 1 AD had 1 million inhabitants, in 1500 AD, it had 200,000 inhabitants.
>>1377245
>Give reasons why the Roman Empire was the greatest ancient civilization
>Massive slave empire with the worst political culture ever.
>Republic collapses due to selfish elites.
>Empire deteriorates because politicians and generals valued their ambition more than stability.
>Gets fucked hard by Huns, Germans, and Arabs.
>Cute boys
>Not enough Terracotta soldiers
>9/10
>>1377245
It was slightly inferior to china in every way
How much more advanced would we be if we never had the dark ages?
>>1374153
Screw the dank ages, imagine what it would be like if Maldek hadn't blown itself up
>>1374153
what i've always wondered when seeing those graphics, it's how the fuck do you quantitavely measure "scientific advancement"
>>1374153
What is this cancerous graph? How does one measure scientific advancement
I fucking hate this guy. Is there someone who proves him wrong?
>Inb4 Marx
He's almost as bad as Stirner and his argumentations against him are fucking stupid
>>1371635
Stay mad, leftist cuck. Stirner ftw.
Why do you hate him? Why do you want to prove him wrong?
Father Seraphim Rose
Is there a more historically influential group of people than the Jews?
>>1378201
black people: they were egyptians, romans, greeks, vikings, chinese, samurai, and holy roman emperors
>>1378217
Don't forget they were also French revolutionaries, Atlantians, the true artists of the Renaissance, the original Jews and the first people to have a space program.
First and foremost, though, they were kangz.
>>1378231
and beethoven, don't forget beethoven and shakespeare
Did the Bolsheviks think they were doing good?
>>1382011
The ones that didn't were usually shot dead.
>>1382011
Morality was of no relevance. They were simply the harbingers of historical necessity.
>From my point of view, the goyim are evil
No but seriously, they fucking slaughtered the czar and his whole family including all the children. Of course they knew they were fucking evil
Watch The Chekist, great movie
>>1382045
Kys revleft
ask me literally any question about the first world war
>>1380234
Why did they wear the masks?
>>1380234
What do you think of Lisle Rose's "Suicide cruise to support the Schlieffen Plan" idea?
>>1380237
Because it would hurt if they took them off too soon.
>be me
>in history class
>today we will be talking about the Punic wars
>awwyiss.jpg
>class goes on
>we talk about Scipio Africanus
>class is shown picture of bust
>bust is black
>tfw 95% of class thinks Africanus was added because of his skin colour
>go home and load my super soaker
Well the romans was black..
>>1371587
Beat your teacher
>>1371604
actually no
Is it morally OK to sexually explore yourself as long as you don't endanger yourself or others(STDs)? I am not sure on this one, what does /his/ think?
Pic unrelated
It is morally mandatory.
is it morally ok to do something that isn't a danger to yourself or others?
well gee i don't know, but i suppose you'd have to start by showing how any sort of exploration isnt dangerous.
>>1384009
No, it is not. Sexuality is the root of all evil. You should strive for higher goals in life, and not lower yourself to the level of a female. Only females are epitomally anti-intellectual, the embodiment of purely sexual materialism, the rejection of culture, the denial of everything mental we evolved which separates men from animals. As a man you should always be aware that you are a human being, better than an animal.
