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

i'm surprised nobody has pointed out the terrible grammar in the title yet it should be "History Discussion - No, Hitler never sought the spear of destiny" unless of course it's a reference to something else that also has terrible grammar in which case I suppose it's fine

[QUOTE=zzzz;39556416]i'm surprised nobody has pointed out the terrible grammar in the title yet it should be "History Discussion - No, Hitler never sought the spear of destiny" unless of course it's a reference to something else that also has terrible grammar in which case I suppose it's fine[/QUOTE] Well the OP is French so maybe that's it. Or he's just lazy. Whatever, it's a history thread, not an English thread.

Dann vielleicht sollten wir Deutsch sprechen?

All discussions of history must be in their relative language [editline]12th February 2013[/editline] I hope you know latin and middle english

I think we should speak only latin in this thread because we are all superior intellectually to the rest of FP and latin is obviously the language of culture and intellect [editline]12th February 2013[/editline] That being said, I am inferior because I don't know a lick of latin

[QUOTE=kamikaze470;39556316]If we're discussing the 1204 siege, there were at least 2 - 4? emperors crowned during the battle. Two of them, if memory serves me right, fled like cowards almost immediately after the other. Or are you talking about the final siege of Constantinopolis? According to a mix of chroniclers, there were at least a couple thousand of mixed ethnics, both foreign and native, that were helping to defend the city.[/QUOTE] Whoops, yeah I got them mixed up

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39556557]All discussions of history must be in their relative language [editline]12th February 2013[/editline] I hope you know latin and middle english[/QUOTE] Non, je ne pas parle non plus.

[QUOTE=zzzz;39556672]That being said, I am inferior because I don't know a lick of latin[/QUOTE] Thankfully smart people translate all the ancient texts I read, otherwise I'd be fucked. Although whenever I read Sophocles or Aeschylus I can't help feel any textual metaphor is somewhat diluted, still not enough to get me to learn Attic Greek (also I used up all my junior credits at uni so I literally can't). [editline]12th February 2013[/editline] Translations of Herodotus usually have some funny syntax as well (especially if you are reading the late 19th century attempts)

My only second language is German, and I'm quite shit at it. It's a good thing they have translations of pretty much everything lol [editline]12th February 2013[/editline] The thing that sucks about languages is that they are all obviously quite different, so, like you say, most textual metaphors or really any kind of creative syntax or rhetorical device's impact is severely lessened or missed entirely.

For example, reading the Choral breaks in [I]Antigone[/I] is as fun as hitting your head against a wall since the translation makes it so utterly dense

[QUOTE=Lonestriper;39556825]For example, reading the Choral breaks in [I]Antigone[/I] is as fun as hitting your head against a wall since the translation makes it so utterly dense[/QUOTE] Yeah, in addition, anyone who has learned a second language (which is to say pretty much anybody whose been to high school, or who is, of course, not american or australian or english or whatever on FP) knows that there are many idioms which native speakers understand, but that do not translate or make sense at all in another language, so the learner must simply take them for what they are and leave it at that without ever actually understanding them. This of course, paling in comparison to any form of rhythm or rhyming or meter used in writing, as was generally the practice long ago

The History of the Byzantines is a fascinating one, if anyone wants to know more about the 1453 siege of Constantinople, I suggest reading [I]1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West[/I] by Roger Crowley. Was a great read and he paints a great picture of the events.

have this photograph of the perimeter of lz x-ray, ia drang valley, vietnam, 1965 [img]http://sphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/735645_464177190308331_1760269662_o.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=luverofJ!93;39557618]The History of the Byzantines is a fascinating one, if anyone wants to know more about the 1453 siege of Constantinople, I suggest reading [I]1453: The Holy War for Constantinople and the Clash of Islam and the West[/I] by Roger Crowley. Was a great read and he paints a great picture of the events.[/QUOTE]1453 is probably his best work imho. His other books on Venice and the Malta siege were great too but I feel they lack the immersion that 1453 had.

Here is a good one, could the Germans have won the war, IF they had put the Sturmgewher 44 into service in 1939? I doubt it since other countries would just have captured it and created their own versions. Technology moves fastest in times of war.

How would WWII play out if the Germans and the Japanese worked better together. First concentrating on taking down the Soviet Union and then turning to Europe/The pacific.

WWII is overrated. Any time I find a history major in my field "because I like studying WWII", I think to myself, "You would probably be a music major because you enjoy Guitar Hero".

[QUOTE=Winters;39510893]His existence is entirely debatable.[/QUOTE] But what did Jesus have to say in his will, or wherever? I mean, basically anyone can be born as a Jesus, appearances and such aside, you would just have to have the same type ideology as him, or the supposedly same ideology, whatever it is (or was.) [editline]12th February 2013[/editline] Also, as for the if Nazis had won after unconsciously realizing that they had wiped out all other humans from the world, all the white people celebrating it in a big white dining hall raising the glass in the glory of Hitler, the passage of time would have slowed down and all their heads exploded.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39561221]WWII is overrated. Any time I find a history major in my field "because I like studying WWII", I think to myself, "You would probably be a music major because you enjoy Guitar Hero".[/QUOTE] I'm sorry but that is a really ignorant thing to say. Yes I will agree that there are people who claim to know a lot about WWII and just shit talk everything about it. But there are quite a few people out there who actually study it. My interest sparked in it when I was 8 years old, and I have been devoutly interested in it ever since. Again I wouldn't claim to know everything there is to know about it, but I do know a fair share purely from my own interest and research in it. So when it is brought up for debate or discussion, I don't think its over rated, often some good fact based discussions can be had with it. And if done properly they frequently are quite fun.

-snipthat-

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39561686]Wow that's pretty ignorant. You would rather brush off the deaths of 50 million people and the reasons behind it? You're sad.[/QUOTE] Funny way of assuming something beyond what he actually said. Try reading that again. [QUOTE=urundeadmom;39561614]I'm sorry but that is a really ignorant thing to say. Yes I will agree that there are people who claim to know a lot about WWII and just shit talk everything about it. But there are quite a few people out there who actually study it.[/QUOTE] Obviously there are numerous people who care about and are devoted to the study of WWII and I don't think he was making a jab at any of the distinguished scholars who research it, neither was I for agreeing with him. And certainly I've met a number of talented WWII historians, although these have typically been people who deal more widely with the 20th century or long 19th century. I think there has to be more breadth than just studying the single event as a whole because there is so much of significance related to it outside of the war itself, that some students tend to ignore. The point he said was that it was overrated, and I would agree based on how much material published it has, scholars who study it, and even media attention (especially by comparison with WWI, keeping in the same century). It is a very easy topic to jump into which isn't exactly lacking of sources and as far as I know does not have many completely fresh and unknown nuances.

I would agree with the fact that WWI is much more interesting, especially how the 'blame' (if you'd call it that) is passed around constantly between who honestly caused the buildup to it, not the exact start.

I prefer studying Germany in the inter-war years rather than while it was at war. Same with the build-up to WW1, I've never found anything about the war itself appealing.

Sorry I didn't know this thread was for history hipsters only.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39561221]WWII is overrated. Any time I find a history major in my field "because I like studying WWII", I think to myself, "You would probably be a music major because you enjoy Guitar Hero".[/QUOTE] I don't believe any aspects of history are overrated. There's a certain intricacy to WWII in particular: the technological developments and the the social developments specifically.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39561831]I would agree with the fact that WWI is much more interesting, especially how the 'blame' (if you'd call it that) is passed around constantly between who honestly caused the buildup to it, not the exact start.[/QUOTE] Yeah I know what you mean, Unlike WWII with a definite cause for its start. WWI could be blamed on numerous things, although people have different beliefs with the causes. It could have been the assassination of the archduke by the black hand, could have been the arms and naval race between the UK and Germany, could have also been Russia mobilizing its troops and provoking Germany. Or just as likely the ultimatum by Austria Hungary. However from a historical standpoint it is only "fair" to believe that it was a combination of these things, because with all the factors its difficult to pin one specific one on the start, yes some had more weight but only one cannot be the sole cause.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39561221]WWII is overrated. Any time I find a history major in my field "because I like studying WWII", I think to myself, "You would probably be a music major because you enjoy Guitar Hero".[/QUOTE] Well it is the turning point of modern history. It's really the one war that pushed everything into modernity, and it changed culture so drastically in every places of the world that it cannot be neglected. In my opinion it's the most important event of the past thousand years. Even on a purely military level it's an interesting era. WWII is arguably the first war that was more focused on attacking civilians than attacking soldiers. The line between life and war has been drastically blurred, and we went from very contained fields of battle to an utter chaos that spread on an entire continent. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no military casualties, they were attacks designed to destroy the moral of the population. You can argue the goal was the same with for instance pearl harbor or the constant bombings of London.

[QUOTE=Ganerumo;39564088]WWII is arguably the first war that was more focused on attacking civilians than attacking soldiers[/QUOTE] The Black Prince and Henry V in the Hundred Years War beg to differ. Plus hundreds of other examples but the Black Prince was the first to come to mind. Many Roman wars ended with some genocide or wide-scale civilian death.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39561221]WWII is overrated. Any time I find a history major in my field "because I like studying WWII", I think to myself, "You would probably be a music major because you enjoy Guitar Hero".[/QUOTE] What? I know everything about WWII! I study it every day and enjoy the-..... Oh, who am I fucking kidding? [sp]I just know the names of tanks and a couple fun-facts about Hitler :v:[/sp]

Is it true to say that Western World basically allowed and even promoted Hitler's growth during 1930-1940? Considering policy of Appeasement, inability to promote Versailles Treaty, Munich Agreement?