What is the /his/ approved three Kingdom faction?
They were the only one who had the chance to really unify China without killing 70% of the population. The nation as a whole would have been way, way better off if he had won at the Red Cliffs.
Post your favourite propaganda posters /his/.
Why didn't America annex Japan after nuking them twice? International community? American policías? Worthless land?
What do you think has prevented southamerican republics from being worldwide relevant throughout their whole existence?
bad economic policies
very strict hierarchical social castes based on race (european, mestizo, native...)
And in the case of Brazil: slavery and the fact that they ended up ruled by very unstable governments after they god rid of their emperor, which was actually quite an outstanding individual.
Did the Nazis stand a chance to win WW2?
>tfw babtized protestant
>tfw I agree with the (Russian-) Orthodox Church on almost everything
>tfw there's no Orthodox church near me and moving isn't an option right now
What do? Should I just convert to Catholicism and enter the Orthodox Church once I am able to move near one? There are some major things I disagree with in Catholicism (the infallibility of the Pope, for example) but it seems like the next best thing.
What are some other major differences (exept...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Orthodox church in Russia is pretty much owned by Putin, and by agreeing with them you agree with Russian policies then why not learn Russian and travel there?
Catholic popes are shills too, most of time.
You think long and hard about it, and stop yourself before you become another Orthodox tripfag
Ontological arguments are defined as those made from logic alone with no reference to observation. But no logical deduction can tell you anything that is not already embedded in its premises. All logic does is draw the conclusions that follow from those premises and check for any inconsistencies. Only by observation can we demonstrate whether the premises accurately describe or reflect the real world. Therefore, all ontological arguments are pointless.
If I were to assume a worldview of secular humanism, nobody would be able to deny it, given that I add that rejecting such a worldview makes you unreasonable, religious or discriminatory.
if however, the existence of such a worldview were affirmed throughout media, taught as sacred truth on the internet and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to accept it would become a mark of eccentricity and backwardness.
Is it ever appropriate to kill someone outside of self defense?
Are people who kill knowledgable of the fact that who they kill are human beings with lives and aspirations?
Why do we still war if the people in charge of doing so are aware of the fact they they are sending people to end people at the risk of death?
I'd say that most people don't care,
I personally don't give two shits about any wars or casualties (as long as I can't see them to be fair).
I'd also say most people probably feel that the ends justify the means, and that is all the justification they need.
We all have a great deal of empathy, but some are better at ignoring it then others.
What are some of the most powerful historical, no nation-bound organizations that exist today, except the Church and some great mafia organizations?
Were there any cases in history that such organizations wielded the power to rival that of nations? (again, except the Church) Could some of the modern companies/banks take enough power over the crucial aspects of a society to control it?
>Holy Roman EMPIRE
>First German EMPIRE
Why do Anglos do this?
The best part about that is that "Drittes Reich" is a unofficial propaganda term much like "Tausendjähriges Reich" (one thousand years empire), the correct term would be "Deutsches Reich" or simply German Empire
It's entirely the anglo's fault for not having concrete equivalents for "Reich" and "Kaiserreich"
Can we have a thread about post-colonial Africa? It's both fascinating and often looked over apart from the big events like Rwanda '94 and Apartheid (even then, the end of it is often glossed over).
Rhodesia tolerated, but I'd really prefer to hear about other places. We always have a Memedesia thread going.
I've been trying to find more on this but haven't had any success. Like it says in the pic, the west is really uninterested in African politics unless it goes into the "starving African children" narrative.
OP here, gonna bump with a documentary.
Not really post-colonial, but it is about a bit of decolonisation that isn't really covered, even in Rhodesia threads, which is the creation and disbanding of the Central African Federation.
What does /his/ think of The Man in the High Castle?
I haven't seen any of it, but the jist of it seems to be "plucky American underdogs being oppressed by mean old foreigner Nazis".
It strikes me this is kinda disingenuous, I really don't think America in the 30s/40s/50s would have had to have been forced to accept Nazism if the racism, anti-Communism and anti-Semitic/rich aspects were played up.
Nazis in most, if not all alternate history fiction are cartoonesque, comic book villains devoid of any human qualities who talk about gassing Jews and Hitler saluting every 5 minutes. There's even a trope describing this shit: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThoseWackyNazis
And note, this is NOT a nazi apologist post. I feel very little sympathy towards them, but they weren't all Lex Luthors on steroids.
I mean, the things the FBI were doing under Hoover, Patton wanting to join up with the remnants of the SS to wipe out the USSR, widespread acceptance of the superiority of the white race, McCarthy.
No, I understand. There's a tendency to "other" Hitler and the Nazis as just being "crazy" or "monsters", and I think that's a very dangerous thing to do since it denies the possibility that a human, just like you and I could be capable of what they did.
That said, really...
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Why do Americans consistently frame their enemies as unthinking, single minded fanatics with no common sense or instinct of self-preservation?
This stretches all the way from the Nazis through the Soviets, Korea, Vietnam, Soviets and up to the War on Terror today.
Since deliberately misunderstanding your enemy like this surely leads to strategic errors and missed opportunities, what is the advantage of framing you enemy in this way?
>Why do Americans consistently frame their enemies as unthinking, single minded fanatics with no common sense or instinct of self-preservation?
>Frames Americans as unthinking and single minded
How we portray our enemies is different than how we actually fight them. That's why we'll call them retarded goat fuckers but sit down with different small tribes to try to understand what they want out of a ruling government and how we can help them achieve their goals and ours.
What is the narrative of the current age?
Are you ready for the post-meme age?
Why did Ireland never cohere into a single nation state before the Norman conquest?
They all considered themselves to be part of the same ethno-cultural group, contrasting themselves with the Sassnach (Anglo-Saxons) and the Lochlannaigh (Vikings). They also had the same laws and religion.
In most of Europe, groups like this tend to end up forming a single political entity. This never happened in Gaelic Ireland. Why?
>Why did Italy never cohere into a single nation state before the Risorgimento?
>They all considered themselves to be part of the same ethno-cultural group, contrasting themselves franks, and the germans. They also had the same laws and religion (for the most part).
>In most of Europe, groups like this tend to end up forming a single political entity. This never happened in pre italian italy. Why?
Dont know. But shit happens
Because feudal power struggle between individual lords? Uniting ethnic groups into single national units wasn't really a thing before 19th century and when it happened, it usually happened by the sword.