History discussion - no, hitler has never seeked the spear of destiny - General

I took a history of mathematics course last semester and most of it was very interesting. Also Vikings (and related Dark Ages cultures) were awesome.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39519116]it was an act of aggression plain and simple. the protesters were a vocal minority that wanted independence and they declared war on the french government with their violence. Silent enim leges inter arma.[/QUOTE] What do you make of the Setif and Guelma massacres ? Even back in 1945, nationalist protests in Algeria ended up in bloodshed (there was up to 2500 casualties in Setif alone). And it started as a peaceful protest. Nationalists right after the war took advantage of a celebration of the end of the war to ask for independence, and a boy scout wielding the algerian flag got shot and killed by a cop. Then as the protest went south the army was sent and everyone died. In 2005 the massacre was described by the French ambassador in Algeria as an unforgivable tragedy. The conflict triggered a civil war within Algeria itself, but it would all have been avoided if, say, France had not been a massive dick about losing a country they took by force in the first place and granted independence to Algeria just like they did for a lot of other colonies even before. [editline]8th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;39519186]I took a history of mathematics course last semester and most of it was very interesting. Also Vikings (and related Dark Ages cultures) were awesome.[/QUOTE] Didn't vikings disappear because of sudden climate changes and their inability to cope with these ? By the way personally I prefer Celts over Vikings. It's pretty much the same thing but further south of Europe. Plus most of French culture is based around Celts, especially in Brittany where part of my family comes from.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;39519471]What do you make of the Setif and Guelma massacres ? Even back in 1945, nationalist protests in Algeria ended up in bloodshed (there was up to 2500 casualties in Setif alone). And it started as a peaceful protest. Nationalists right after the war took advantage of a celebration of the end of the war to ask for independence, and a boy scout wielding the algerian flag got shot and killed by a cop. Then as the protest went south the army was sent and everyone died. In 2005 the massacre was described by the French ambassador in Algeria as an unforgivable tragedy. The conflict triggered a civil war within Algeria itself, but it would all have been avoided if, say, France had not been a massive dick about losing a country they took by force in the first place and granted independence to Algeria just like they did for a lot of other colonies even before.[/quote] why are you blaming the french? they are the ones trying to restore law and order in their country in the face of nationalist agitators. the majority of the algerian population preferred the status quo. the reason for the massacres was to show the terrorists that there was no chance of winning against such overwhelming force so they should really just pack up and go home. it would have worked if the french administration had kept their resolv, but they ended up succumbing to whiggery like england 2 centuries before. the result of the rebellion was civil war and catastrophic economic mismanagement so I think the french were absolutely justified in trying to prevent this

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39519750]why are you blaming the french? they are the ones trying to restore law and order in their country in the face of nationalist agitators. the majority of the algerian population preferred the status quo. the reason for the massacres was to show the terrorists that there was no chance of winning against such overwhelming force so they should really just pack up and go home. it would have worked if the french administration had kept their resolv, but they ended up succumbing to whiggery like england 2 centuries before. the result of the rebellion was civil war and catastrophic economic mismanagement so I think the french were absolutely justified in trying to prevent this[/QUOTE] Their attempt at "restoring law and order in their country" ended up in the death of thousands of innocents (which is not justifiable by "being examples for terrorists"), torture and unjustified terror from the French government inflicted on everyone in the country. You just can't justify this. They had no right to own this colony and they had no right to keep it for themselves. [editline]8th February 2013[/editline] Justifying colonialism is like justifying any dictatorship killing off political opposition to ensure the regime stays in place.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;39519471]Didn't vikings disappear because of sudden climate changes and their inability to cope with these ?[/QUOTE] I think it was more their conversion to Christianity and integration with the countries they invaded, plus the rise of the Scandinavian states that ended the Viking era.

[QUOTE=scurr;39518492]I think Richard III has unfairly been given a bad name :( Silly Tudor propoganda[/QUOTE] Well Henry's claim was pretty dodgy so he had to smear poor Richard terribly in order for people to accept him as king. Regretful, as the Plantagenet's produced quite interesting Kings and leaders, but it happens.

pf, why does history class only cover the Dutch history, I want to learn American history as well.

I just wanted to say that The Treaty of Versailles wasn't that bad and the problems in Germany were mainly due to it's own policies and choices. I don't like when people say the ToV was terrible and caused the rise of Hitler.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;39519786]Their attempt at "restoring law and order in their country" ended up in the death of thousands of innocents (which is not justifiable by "being examples for terrorists"), torture and unjustified terror from the French government inflicted on everyone in the country.[/quote] what do you mean? it would have worked if not for political bullshit. [quote]You just can't justify this. They had no right to own this colony and they had no right to keep it for themselves.[/quote] why? it was a part of france, end of [quote]Justifying colonialism is like justifying any dictatorship killing off political opposition to ensure the regime stays in place.[/QUOTE] if the political opposition are causing needless violence and trouble (especially when the rest of the populace has no problem with the regime) then yes it's perfectly okay to kill them off. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spectrum]singapore is a shining example of this[/url]

It sorta did contribute to Hitler's rise because he saw a Germany weakened by it.

[QUOTE=Kirbyfactor;39520390]pf, why does history class only cover the Dutch history, I want to learn American history as well.[/QUOTE] To be honest we barely covered american history at our school. When I got to university though, we started getting lessons for specifically US civilization, and we learn everything there is to know about it.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;39520692]I just wanted to say that The Treaty of Versailles wasn't that bad and the problems in Germany were mainly due to it's own policies and choices. I don't like when people say the ToV was terrible and caused the rise of Hitler.[/QUOTE] The treaty ensured Germany was in a state that was ripe to be taken over by a dictatorship. The reperations they were forced to pay were unreasonably high and the treaty made sure Germans would be angry about losing the war. The French were warned not to make the treaty so amazingly punishing as it would just lead to a angry Germany eager for revenge. When Hitler came to power all he had to do was play on the national feeling of anger after WW1 and promise them he could restore Germany to the superpower it was before WW1.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39521355]what do you mean? it would have worked if not for political bullshit. [/quote] Holding up a country as forcibly part of your own state can never work for long. [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39521355] why? it was a part of france, end of [/quote] No, it was a colony that was forcibly attached to France, a remain of the colonial empire that already crumbled before and especially after WW2. The only reason the French Government refused to let Algeria go is because Algeria as a colony was a strong image of French domination over North Africa and symbolized their power worldwide. They wanted to keep it no matter what because it essentially made them feel better about the whole surrender thing they went through 6 years before. [QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39521355] if the political opposition are causing needless violence and trouble (especially when the rest of the populace has no problem with the regime) then yes it's perfectly okay to kill them off. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spectrum]singapore is a shining example of this[/url][/QUOTE] A lot of people had problems with the regime. Massacres in various towns of Algeria did not concern only "terrorists", but also various citizens who dared show concern about the independence of their country. A peaceful protest leading in a bloodbath because one cop randomly shot a kid he didn't like is not okay, regardless of how you turn it around. Sending the army to torture random people and force them to falsely admit they are part of a widely demonized terrorist group is not okay. Neither is holding a country as a colony for so long, either. It's nothing much more than country-wide slavery and there's a reason it was pretty much abolished a while ago, and why it causes so much turmoil around Israel.

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;39521522]The treaty ensured Germany was in a state that was ripe to be taken over by a dictatorship. The reperations they were forced to pay were unreasonably high and the treaty made sure Germans would be angry about losing the war. The French were warned not to make the treaty so amazingly punishing as it would just lead to a angry Germany eager for revenge. When Hitler came to power all he had to do was play on the national feeling of anger after WW1 and promise them he could restore Germany to the superpower it was before WW1.[/QUOTE] The reparations were high, so what? What did it do to the economy that the Germans themselves had not already fucked up? Their insane idea that they could borrow during the war, thinking they would just repay their debts with their own enforced peace on the Allies, led to huge inflation. They then decided that to fund their welfare programs they would continue borrowing and not getting their debt under control. By the time of 1923 it was out of control and the Ruhr strike was the last nail in the coffin for the currency. None of this was due to reparations and even after the hyper-inflation ended this was entirely due to the Germans calling off the strike and creating a new currency. The reparations were reduced twice over the next 5 years. By 1929 Germany was hit hard by the depression but by 1932 it was already well on the road to recovery, the only reason Hitler ever got into power was because of Hindenburg, Papen and Schleicher all trying to gain more power leading to them attempting to use Hitler to achieve this. They underestimated him and Hitler destroyed democracy. None of that was due to the ToV, Nazi support was 3% before the Depression, by 1932 they had about 37% of the electorate, but that wasn't because all those Germans still felt bad about losing the war, they were scared of the communists who were also becoming more powerful, polling at 17% in 1932, they were disillusioned with the complete failure of the moderate left to rule Germany and just the fact that during economic hardship people turn to the extreme's. In 1932 the Nazi's were on the brink of completely falling apart, they were already losing support and had made no headway into government. With the economy improving they would of receded into the background once more. I fail to see what effect the Treaty had at all on internal German politic's in causing Hitler to come to power, it was a small factor to Germans but they had bigger problems that they cared more about that were not related to the Treaty.

[url]http://www.badassoftheweek.com/viriathus.html[/url] Jus' dumpin' dis shit here, homies.

[QUOTE=Thom12255;39521971]The reparations were high, so what? What did it do to the economy that the Germans themselves had not already fucked up? Their insane idea that they could borrow during the war, thinking they would just repay their debts with their own enforced peace on the Allies, led to huge inflation. They then decided that to fund their welfare programs they would continue borrowing and not getting their debt under control. By the time of 1923 it was out of control and the Ruhr strike was the last nail in the coffin for the currency. None of this was due to reparations and even after the hyper-inflation ended this was entirely due to the Germans calling off the strike and creating a new currency. The reparations were reduced twice over the next 5 years. By 1929 Germany was hit hard by the depression but by 1932 it was already well on the road to recovery, the only reason Hitler ever got into power was because of Hindenburg, Papen and Schleicher all trying to gain more power leading to them attempting to use Hitler to achieve this. They underestimated him and Hitler destroyed democracy. None of that was due to the ToV, Nazi support was 3% before the Depression, by 1932 they had about 37% of the electorate, but that wasn't because all those Germans still felt bad about losing the war, they were scared of the communists who were also becoming more powerful, polling at 17% in 1932, they were disillusioned with the complete failure of the moderate left to rule Germany and just the fact that during economic hardship people turn to the extreme's. In 1932 the Nazi's were on the brink of completely falling apart, they were already losing support and had made no headway into government. With the economy improving they would of receded into the background once more. I fail to see what effect the Treaty had at all on internal German politic's in causing Hitler to come to power, it was a small factor to Germans but they had bigger problems that they cared more about that were not related to the Treaty.[/QUOTE] The treaty also put full blame on Germany for WW1. Which Hitler then used that in his speeches to gain more followers. You're right when you say that Germany had fucked up policies, but the treaty it really gave Hitler ammunition for his speeches.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;39518322]But we do have proof of his existence in the form of several texts. Because you and a couple historians consider these inexact or not enough doesn't mean everyone does. Not to mention there is no way Christianity would have reached such a huge state as a religion if it had no one to start it with. Do you really think people would have followed a new religion at the risk of being killed by the current regime if it wasn't for a charismatic guy pushing them to do so by his presence and actions ? Even cults at our time work around one person in the form of the guru. You can't base a religion on absolute thin air it has some truth to it (even though it's been obviously very romanticized).[/QUOTE] Except that there is good reason to view them with more suspicion than just 'inexactness'. If they're written generations after he supposedly died, no records of him exist when he was alive (despite the large following he supposedly had, at a time when records would have been kept), then there's a good reason to question whether he existed at all. If it turns out he was some minor priest out in the desert somewhere who happened to be executed, surely that turns the entire basis of the Christian religion to shambles, no?

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;39521355] why? it was a part of france, end of [/QUOTE] no it wasnt. it was a colony of france which meant these people were essentially second class citizens to the french and simply exploited for economic gain. the people of africa had(and have) every right to rebel against their colonial slavemasters.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39522947]Except that there is good reason to view them with more suspicion than just 'inexactness'. If they're written generations after he supposedly died, no records of him exist when he was alive (despite the large following he supposedly had, at a time when records would have been kept), then there's a good reason to question whether he existed at all. If it turns out he was some minor priest out in the desert somewhere who happened to be executed, surely that turns the entire basis of the Christian religion to shambles, no?[/QUOTE] Reading through some of the sources on [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus"]Wikipedia's page[/URL] on the historicity of Jesus, I am inclined to believe that the man existed. Details of his life I would certainly dispute, and I am sure many things were embellished and altered through the thousands of translations and edits of the Bible, and of course any non-Christian scholar would definitely say that none of his alleged miracles took place, but I am willing to concede that they were at least basing their writings around a real man. However it's fairly obvious that they liberally borrowed from many popular religions in the area and attributed many popular ideas to their own subject of worship, as the details of the lives of characters such as Jesus and Horus, among many others, are much too similar. There really were very few original ideas written about Jesus, because it lent their story a lot more credibility when trying to compete with the other religions and to convert worshippers. Edit: I really am only willing to concede that Jesus existed because it's still easy enough to disprove his divinity whether he existed or not. I do think it's odd that most sources for claiming his existence (even those non-Christian sources cited by that wiki page) were only written more than a generation after Jesus died.

i love history. especially european history. the reformation and the rise of protestantism, the renaissance, the scientific revolution, colonial expansion, dynastic warfare, the enlightenment, the french revolution, napoleonic europe, the industrial revolution, the rise of commercialism, capitalism, socialism, communism, conservatism, liberalism, nationalism all as strong political forces, the revolutions of 1848, actually pretty much all of 19th century politics, world war 1, interbellum attempts at recovery, the rise of the soviet union, the depression, the weimar and hitlers rise to power, world war 2, the cold war, the fall of the soviet union.... speaking in broad terms of course, but it's all so, so incredibly fascinating. [editline]9th February 2013[/editline] granted i'm also only speaking in terms of early modern europe onward

You know you didn't have to list them all [editline]9th February 2013[/editline] or everything that happened from the 1500s onwards

yeah but i thought i would anyway because it could lead to discussion. this is a history discussion thread after all

[QUOTE=zzzz;39525312]i love history. especially european history. the reformation and the rise of protestantism, the renaissance, the scientific revolution, colonial expansion, dynastic warfare, the enlightenment, the french revolution, napoleonic europe, the industrial revolution, the rise of commercialism, capitalism, socialism, communism, conservatism, liberalism, nationalism all as strong political forces, the revolutions of 1848, actually pretty much all of 19th century politics, world war 1, interbellum attempts at recovery, the rise of the soviet union, the depression, the weimar and hitlers rise to power, world war 2, the cold war, the fall of the soviet union.... speaking in broad terms of course, but it's all so, so incredibly fascinating. [editline]9th February 2013[/editline] granted i'm also only speaking in terms of early modern europe onward[/QUOTE] Your thesis is too broad and verbose, you should be more specific. C+

Just make a bold claim about the French revolution and the ensuring debate will cycle through everything you listed pretty much. or talk about art history, the best history

[QUOTE=lil_n00blett;39525176]Reading through some of the sources on [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus"]Wikipedia's page[/URL] on the historicity of Jesus, I am inclined to believe that the man existed. Details of his life I would certainly dispute, and I am sure many things were embellished and altered through the thousands of translations and edits of the Bible, and of course any non-Christian scholar would definitely say that none of his alleged miracles took place, but I am willing to concede that they were at least basing their writings around a real man. However it's fairly obvious that they liberally borrowed from many popular religions in the area and attributed many popular ideas to their own subject of worship, as the details of the lives of characters such as Jesus and Horus, among many others, are much too similar. There really were very few original ideas written about Jesus, because it lent their story a lot more credibility when trying to compete with the other religions and to convert worshippers. Edit: I really am only willing to concede that Jesus existed because it's still easy enough to disprove his divinity whether he existed or not. I do think it's odd that most sources for claiming his existence (even those non-Christian sources cited by that wiki page) were only written more than a generation after Jesus died.[/QUOTE] But surely we can at least conclude that, even if there was a man like that, he certainly wasn't the biblical 'Jesus' by any stretch of imagination. At best he was a conduit that people long after his death attributed works and teachings (some perhaps even true) to, and that followers of the religion bought into as a matter of course. Of course it wouldn't hurt if this constructed personality was virtuous or 'good' in cases where it suited religious figures' purposes, but that's a separate matter.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39525479]But surely we can at least conclude that, even if there was a man like that, he certainly wasn't the biblical 'Jesus' by any stretch of imagination. At best he was a conduit that people long after his death attributed works and teachings (some perhaps even true) to, and that followers of the religion bought into as a matter of course. Of course it wouldn't hurt if this constructed personality was virtuous or 'good' in cases where it suited religious figures' purposes, but that's a separate matter.[/QUOTE] Well, yes, we can, as I said "I am sure many things were embellished and altered through the thousands of translations and edits of the Bible, and of course any non-Christian scholar would definitely say that none of his alleged miracles took place," and also that "it's fairly obvious that [early Christian writers] liberally borrowed from many popular religions in the area and attributed many popular ideas to their own subject of worship [Jesus]." In a thread about history, though, the discussion of whether Jesus the man existed or not doesn't exactly matter, because Jesus the [I]character[/I] certainly did and had a profound impact on the course of history.

[QUOTE=Frayyyy;39525355]Your thesis is too broad and verbose, you should be more specific. C+[/QUOTE] i think, had i been more specific, it would have been much more verbose and could have the capability to stretch tens or even hundreds of pages rather than a single short paragraph [editline]9th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Lonestriper;39525464]Just make a bold claim about the French revolution and the ensuring debate will cycle through everything you listed pretty much. [/QUOTE] i can't even think of a bold claim about the revolution to make [editline]9th February 2013[/editline] i like the french revolution as a discussion topic though, i think we should roll with that

[QUOTE=zzzz;39525635] i can't even think of a bold claim about the revolution to make [/QUOTE] the french people were spoiled and the revolution set europe back by 40 years in terms of freedom. let the debate commence. :v:

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39517649] Some actually have done things similar. Look at the decolonization of Africa, or when the aftermath of World War one.[/QUOTE] we seem to be beyond this however i'm still going to offer this much: i think the difference lies within the fact that there is probably no way we can prove whether or not the "creation" (or existence) of jesus was an intentional exploit intended to do [I]everything[/I] that happened as a result. i think one would find it very difficult to justify the paradigm that all of the christian religious conquest stemmed from the intentions formed by the "creation" (or existence) of jesus. political and military exploits on the other hand, such as the ones you mentioned, are pretty straightforward.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39525670]the french people were spoiled and the revolution set europe back by 40 years in terms of freedom. let the debate commence. :v:[/QUOTE] i don't particularly disagree with that at all. the revolution began with hopes of a society wherein enlightened beliefs would proliferate, but that quickly degenerated due to the radical nature of the jacobins. robespierre's leadership didn't help at all, especially toward the end of his reign.... the committee on public safety assumed practically dictatorial power over france, not to mention the whole thousands of people being executed kind of thing going on. Plus the levee en masse didn't really depict the greatest representation of the rights of people and whatnot, but i suppose you could justify it by pointing out that, otherwise, france would have been defeated by austria and prussia, so whatever. anyway the cult of the supreme being was also a shitty idea and i'm not sure why robespierre thought it was a good idea to tamper with the faith of his people. regardless, the directory didn't really see much improvement because the goals the sans-culottes strove for earlier in the revolution were nullified by the fact that the franchise was limited only to property owners. then you have napoleon who assumed [I]literally[/I] dictatorial power over france, and during his reign, over most of the rest of europe. the civil code of 1804's proliferation all throughout europe was certainly a result of that, and many aspects are still preserved in modern law if i recall correctly, but you can't exactly say that the rights of the people were represented well in napoleonic code... he wasn't exactly the enlightened despot that he claimed to be, what with secret police and censorship and restriction of the rights of women and whatnot. and then france goes full circle and its monarchy is restored. though it was a government more semblant of republicanism, it certainly was not likely what the leaders of the revolution had initially strove for. i suppose its effects on the rest of europe aren't to be ignored... and it did likely greatly solidify french national identity... but i mean come the fuck on even by the revolutions of 1848 france is still struggling with its dumb monarchy and dictator, ironically napoleon's nephew. plus, in spite of its lack of success, the whole proceedings of napolen led to the age of metternich, based on the ideas of classical conservatism. let's support the ottoman empire in principle in their war preventing greek independence, good idea. i dont think the french revolution accomplished much in terms of its initial goals and it definitely doesnt appear to be the triumph of enlightenment philosophy that i believe it was intended to be. but hey, i'm no expert and i'm sure my argument is highly flawed, if not entirely fallacious at some points. if anybody is a real expert, by all means please retort and prove my stupidity.