Why didn't the US nuke the Soviets between V-J Day and the time the Soviets got the bomb?
Also, thoughts on Julius and Ethel Rosenberg?
Why would you nuke someone that is not your enemy?
Why would you nuke someone that has been your ally in a war that you had just won?
Not an expert but I beleive the technology was not ver advanced. You needed air-superiority to drop a bomb. Something the U.S would have lost quickly. Western europe would also be completly invaded in a matter of weeks. Also the country was war -weary. So betraying a back then ally would have been a bad move. All in all this was poor idea.
>>411651
Because randomly killing millions of people for no reason is somewhat frowned upon?
Post famous historical figures that were gay.
I'll start. From 'The Twelve Caesars' by Suetonius:
>"Caesar first saw military service in Asia. where he went as an aide-de-camp to Marcus Thermus, the Praetorian governor of the province. When Thermus sent Caesar to raise a fleet in Bithynia, he wasted so much time at King Nocomedes' court that a homosexual relationship between them was suspected, and suspicion gave place to scandal when, soon after his return to headquarters, he revisited Bithynia, ostensibly collecting a debt incurred there by one of his freedmen. However, Caesar's reputation improved later in the campaign, when Thermus awarded him the civic crown at the storming of Mytilene."
>>411480
Everyone. Every important person in history was secretly gay.
And black too. Secretly gay and black.
That doesn't make the Queen of Bithynia gay, anon. He had a family.
That isn't proof of anything at all.
Who's is the best naval commander and why Michiel de Ruyter?
>not Yi Sun-sin
>Raid on the Medway
Horatio Nelson
why are the Germans considered the bad guys of ww1?
they didn't start the war and the entente empires weren't any better than the germans
>>411071
Because they disregarded Belgium's neutrality and because they lost.
because it was through their direct actions and aggressive behavior that the war had escalated into a massive conflict
actions such as encouraging austria to proceed with a much desired military action in the balkans
such as invading neutral belgium and committing atrocities there
such as waging a war of aggression
such as attacking france
such as setting their sights on a confrontation with russia already a few years prior and doing the above and below to make it happen
such as submitting russia to an extremely harsh peace treaty
such as isolating france diplomatically and in turn literally causing their own "need" to strike both west and east
>>411071
I'm pretty sure only butthurt Frenchies consider them the bad guys these days.
How would history play out if Muhammad never existed? Would the Roman Empire ever reestablish itself in the west?
It's entirely possible, but that always depends on the emperors. With Egypt and the fertile crescent in their hands, they'd have the funds to expand back into France and Spain eventually.
It'd certainly change things massively in the Balkans and Middle East though. They'd likely remain Christian to this day, and without the Arabs bringing a swift end to them, they'd have the resources to continue to dominate everything south of the Danube. They'd be in better shape to fight the Bulgars and Slavic invaders, perhaps incorporate them into the empire fully, and then we wouldn't have all of the stupid bullshit like Serbia's pan-Slavic movement sparking WWI and not Muslims in Europe.
>>411088
>the balkans
The balkans are and have been mostly christian m80 troughout history.
Otherwise a pretty good post.
>>410962
I have some bad news for you; Turks will still come.
It was internal population pressure that threw them out in waves from the Steppes to begin with.
Maybe this time, as Buddhist, Tengrists, and Nestorian Christians.
Has philosophy ever actually solved anything? It's been asking the same questions since its inception.
Has there ever been a philosophical answer that wasn't later superseded by science?
Who says philosophy should solve anything?
The quietist idea, for one, proposes that philosophy should be primarily taken as remedial and therapeutic.
>>410740
Stuff within it's own field?
Yes. All the time. The one that comes most to mind is that it's wildly accepted that Compatibalists have "won" the discussion on free will.
You can never "solve" something objectivally and trufully with philosophy. It is all speculation and thought games, made from many different perspectives with differing opinions.
Why haven't you read Yang Zhu (aka Yung Chu) aka The Spookbuster of the East?
>Life is full of suffering, and its chief purpose is pleasure. There is no god and no after-life; men are the helpless puppets of the blind natural forces that made them, and that gave them their unchosen ancestry and their inalienable character. The wise man will accept this fate without complaint, but will not be fooled by all the nonsense of Confucius and Mozi about inherent virtue, universal love, and a good name: morality is a deception practised upon the simple by the clever; universal love, and a good name: morality is a deception practised upon the simple by the clever; universal love is the delusion of children, who do not know the universal enmity that forms the law of life; and a good name is a posthumous bauble which the fools who paid so dearly for it cannot enjoy. In life the good suffer like the bad, and the wicked seem to enjoy themselves more keenly than the good
>>410694
Is this man like the Diogenes of Oriental Philosophy?
That probably isn't a good translation
fiftykeks.jpg
Is ebonics a legitimate language or just an excuse for bad english?
>>410629
It's a dialect, so an excuse for bad English. Doesn't really matter since American English is shitty English to begin with.
>>410629
You can't even fucking capitalize and you want to talk about "bad english"? Read Guy Deutscher's the Unfolding of Language and never ask this question again. Seriously it's a good book and it answers your question.
>>410634
>min ansíen hwonne
Was the American abandonment of the South Vietnamese government a criminal act?
>>410511
No
>>410511
It was certainly a shitty move, I don't think it was illegal.
Fucking anti-war hippies should've been deported to north vietnam when the war ended.
>>410539
No. American support of south vietnamese government was a criminal act.
My favorite mythological hero is Gilgamesh, since he persevered and pushed himself the fact that the Akkadian afterlife is terrible.
Who's yours?
>>410507
I'm not sure if he counts as a hero but I always liked the trickery of Sisyphus. Even though he may have gone too far by his end he was enjoyable
Atalanta by far. She was just a raging badass who got kicked down way to often and then just pulled herself up by her bootstraps.
>>410507
Jesus
What would you have done to win this battle against the Turks?
Surrender myself to the turk and embrace islam
>>410313
this 2bh fām
Did Islamic armies ever have Pikemen?
Don't think so.
>>410248
i've never seen any sources for it but its odd that such a integral infantry strategy was never utilized by such a large part of the world
>>410205
Sure they did.
That's like asking if the Africans ever used bows.
How did Americans get so fat /his/? When did it begin?
Are there any other instances in history where a population became extremely fat?
The closest I can think of are the babies in the Netherlands born after the second world war, who were so deprived in the womb that the way their bodies treated food changed, and many grew up to be very obese.
If you look at the obseity rates in England or any other successful country in Europe they arn't much better than America. Certain states in America are actually leaner than the average country in Europe.
So it's not an American thing it's a developed-country thing. The reason for it is because we have a very fucked up sense of nutrition. For instance we are told that bread, rice, pasta, and grains are what the majority of your calories should come from when that stuff is basically as bad for you as pure sugar. Than we told that butter, egg, greasy meat oil, and fats are bad for you when it should be core of your diet.
>>410071
Fuck off Mr. Paleo
>>410031
Drugs for fattening cows has vicarious effects in the people.
Were the Spanish Muslims mainly white or Berber?
I'm reading Don Quixote, some of Sancho's dialogue implies the old-Christians and Moriscos were the same race
pic unrelated
Race is a social construct. Back when Don Quijote was written it was probably
>are you tan, dark haired and hairy
>then you are mediterranean race
They probably didn't have the idea of White race. That seems to originate from the U.S when they were trying to decide which Europeans they liked and which ones they didn't. I don't mean white as in European I mean white as in the stupid discussions on various forums with bait titles like
> Why are (insert European nationality) considered white?
>>409823
>Arabs
>Visigoths
Come on dude, there's clearly a difference.
>>409823
Because Saracen is an American term?
Which of these theories is more plausible? Would Jesus be white by our standards today?
>>409692
Why does that picture only shows Levantines who are descendants of ""whites"" also?
No, Jesus was in no way a white. He was a Sami, simple as that.
>>409692
Depends on what you consider white
>>409692
Well, by old 19th Century racial theories, Middle-Eastern Semites were Caucasian and therefore technically white. But most people don't consider them white, so he wouldn't be by our standards today; he'd be brown.
