Controversial History Hot Takes

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

On the point of "historians celebrate conquerors", I will ask if it is actually possible to determine if any ruler from many centuries past was a genuine peacemonger. We know of those who didn't fight a lot of wars, but were they passionately anti-war, or just disinterested or incapable?

On the rulers who didn't fight and instead built a lot (although building and warring are entirely compatible), can we say their building was altruistic? Maybe for Khufu of the Great Pyramid of Giza, we could say that any excessive labor he pushed his people into was intended for their salvation via the pharaoh's salvation in the afterlife. But what of... let's say Versailles, setting aside Louis XIV's war record for the moment, if a modern government built something similar, would we deem it a massive waste of taxpayers' money? Admittedly, L14 is an Early Modern ruler, so we know well his mindset on constructing it, but let Versailles stand in this example for all the glorious palaces that have been built for millennia. War is a waste of lives and money, but constructions that benefit the masses not at all at their expense are still what we'd now consider bad.

The rulers of San Marino seem to be very decidedly anti war at least. They were involved in one minor conflict a thousand years after the founding of their nation and haven't changed their borders since, despite hostile forces moving into their land and even outright offers of free territory from Napoleon.

As for public sentiment for lavish building projects, we do hold the Olympics every four years and I think it's firmly established that is a money sink for most countries that host it. And half the time the stadiums that are built end up being used for very little afterwards. Aside from that, the use of money for monuments and the like isn't all that common in the "west" (hot take, the "west" is the one of the worst names for anything ever). But it still goes on in Asia a fair bit. India made the largest statue in the world recently.

And I don't know the full details of it, the wikipedia page is pretty scarce on information, though it does mention controversies. Still it seems to be making a fair bit in tourist revenue. And I for one can say I think it looks freaking cool and would like to visit it some day. It's like something from Lord of the Rings. So I am broadly in favor of nations wasting money on massive art works, so long as the nation isn't destitute in other areas (which eh, India sort of is, especially now three years on getting his pretty hard with Corona, whoops).

Anyway yeah, massive construction projects do still happen in the modern day, it's just mostly in Asia. So if you want to gauge contemporary reactions that might be similar to such ancient projects, that's what you have to read up on.

 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Jotari

[AnonymousSpeed]

10 hours ago, Jotari said:

It's more Americans of Irish descent with a vested interest in the conflict rather than a general sentiment of Americans, but places like New York and Boston have a large enough Irish-American population for that to actually carry some sway internationally. And well, outright monetary funding of terrorism too.

Oh yeah, we're really good at doing that too. I still think the Middle East is a hellhole because of underlying attitudes but giving them guns certainly didn't help.

Rest assured though Jotari, I won't remember Clinton for a sex scandal. I'll remember him for setting up the housing crisis.

7 hours ago, Jotari said:

I guess what I really mean is that I expect him and others of his ilk to be viewed much more clinically in the future, and that's just sort of weird to think about, even though ideally it's what we should strive for when talking about history.

Time heals all wounds, hindsight is 20/20, and other such sayings. Hitler is in a unique position in that he's sort of been set up as the definitive example of evil. If you really want to insult a guy, you compare him to Hitler in some way. Within 20 years of his death, Hitler supplanted the previous example of evil and then some. That example was the Pharaoh from Exodus, a literal Biblical figure whose reputation endured for thousands of years. That said, how many people, even among Biblicists, really get all that hot under the collar about Pharaoh? If someone came out as a Pharaoh supporter, you'd deem him a loon and move on.

Anyway, yeah. Clinical is better, but much harder. It's hard to make an assessment of something until decades later both for reasons of emotional involvement and because of uncertain results. I mean, I think Nixon opening diplomatic relations with China was an awful idea, but maybe things will turn around in the future. I doubt it, but even then, how would I have known how it would turn out at the time?

5 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

I will ask if it is actually possible to determine if any ruler from many centuries past was a genuine peacemonger. We know of those who didn't fight a lot of wars, but were they passionately anti-war, or just disinterested or incapable?

Sounds like a whataboutism to me.

5 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

But what of... let's say Versailles, setting aside Louis XIV's war record for the moment, if a modern government built something similar, would we deem it a massive waste of taxpayers' money?

Yes, 100% and without a moment's hesitation.

4 hours ago, Jotari said:

As for public sentiment for lavish building projects, we do hold the Olympics every four years and I think it's firmly established that is a money sink for most countries that host it. And half the time the stadiums that are built end up being used for very little afterwards.

Indeed, the Olympics are also a waste of money and I think the United States should refuse to partake in them.

Sure, that statue is pretty dope and Taj Mahal generates a lot of tourist revenue these days, but the former is still a huge opportunity cost and the latter is an exception which didn't yield returns until centuries later. Whenever the government builds a new stadium, it ends up being a rotting steel cage.

4 hours ago, Jotari said:

So I am broadly in favor of nations wasting money on massive art works, so long as the nation isn't destitute in other areas

 

I support not wasting cash on massive art works in general, but you know, I really only care that much for my country. Other countries are allowed to be wrong if they want, they just need to keep away from my money.

4 hours ago, Jotari said:

Anyway yeah, massive construction projects do still happen in the modern day, it's just mostly in Asia. So if you want to gauge contemporary reactions that might be similar to such ancient projects, that's what you have to read up on.

Perhaps, although you also have to consider cultural differences in those countries.

[Jotari]

8 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Indeed, the Olympics are also a waste of money and I think the United States should refuse to partake in them.

Actually in researching my statement after making it I discovered that it's not just most countries, but literally all countries have lost money from it with the exception of the USA, specifically the Olympics held in LA which made a profit due to having all the infrastructure already (why LA happened to have that but the likes of London and Sydney did't I'm not so sure about).

Edited June 24, 2021 by Jotari

[Interdimensional Observer]

19 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Sounds like a whataboutism to me.

I'm not justifying warmongering. You're talking to the person who rarely plays Domination in Civilization because I feel guilty giving in to humanity's destructive side. I'd like to celebrate humanity's diplomatic achievements and efforts to avert war throughout the millennia of civilization, but how easy is it to find those if they did exist? Humans have surely always had a sincerely peaceful nature, but how often and when did it enter the international political arena, what forms did it take? 

-The Internet hopefully ought to have a bunch of academic works on the matter for sale, although I haven't checked.

 

4 hours ago, Jotari said:

Anyway yeah, massive construction projects do still happen in the modern day, it's just mostly in Asia.

Considering China tries to keep its people entranced in the cult of the ideological state, and India is in a perpetual war of nationalism with Pakistan and Bangladesh, I think I can see some possible reasons for this. 

Edited June 24, 2021 by Interdimensional Observer

[AnonymousSpeed]

1 minute ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

I'd like to celebrate humanity's diplomatic achievements and efforts to avert war throughout the millennia of civilization, but how easy is it to find those if they did exist?

Hey, if you really need a peaceful, kind, loving person to serve as an example to people, one which inspires hope and can be admired for immeasurable achievements achieved without warmongering, I think I have just the guy. Jesus.

1 minute ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Humans have surely always had a sincerely peaceful nature

This is patently false.

1 minute ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Humans have surely always had a sincerely peaceful nature, but how often and when did it enter the political arena, what forms did it take?

Well, for some American history examples (if, for some reason, Jesus isn't good enough for you), check out the Doves or the Anti-Imperialist League. William Jennings Bryan and Andrew Carnegie were both members of the latter.

[Jotari]

8 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

I'm not justifying warmongering. You're talking to the person who rarely plays Domination in Civilization because I feel guilty giving in to humanity's destructive side. I'd like to celebrate humanity's diplomatic achievements and efforts to avert war throughout the millennia of civilization, but how easy is it to find those if they did exist? Humans have surely always had a sincerely peaceful nature, but how often and when did it enter the political arena, what forms did it take? 

-The Internet hopefully ought to have a bunch of academic works on the matter for sale, although I haven't checked.

 

Considering China tries to keep its people entranced in the cult of the ideological state, and India is in a perpetual war of nationalism with Pakistan and Bangladesh, I think I can see some possible reasons for this. 

There are some big honking mosques in the middle east too, so yeah, there's almost always reasons for this stuff. And actually now that I consider it, I've been to Brunei and they build the largest private residence in the world in the form of the Sultan's Palace. They already had a perfectly good palace that's still standing now too, they just wanted another one. And unlike my other cited examples, this one is an actual private residence that the public can't enter except on special feast days. So it's almost a 1:1 comparison to Versailles. And while I'm not all that well up on Bruneian politics, I get the impression the public weren't too upset about the whole thing. They're a rather well off country that are proud of their oil baron monarch.

3 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Hey, if you really need a peaceful, kind, loving person to serve as an example to people, one which inspires hope and can be admired for immeasurable achievements achieved without warmongering, I think I have just the guy. Jesus.

If we're going to go there then I think we could say a lot of the same things about Buddha too. Though neither were particularly political leaders.

Edited June 24, 2021 by Jotari

[AnonymousSpeed]

4 minutes ago, Jotari said:

If we're going to go there then I think we could say a lot of the same things about Buddha too. Though neither were particularly political leaders.

Too bad Buddhist theology is garbage and the guy mostly promoted bad ideas, all peaceability aside.

[Jotari]

3 minutes ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Too bad Buddhist theology is garbage and the guy mostly promoted bad ideas, all peaceability aside.

I mean I wouldn't be entirely onboard with Buddhism myself, but the point was about peace promoting people in history and he'd almost fit the bill more than Jesus. So warranted a mention imo.

[AnonymousSpeed]

6 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I mean I wouldn't be entirely onboard with Buddhism myself, but the point was about peace promoting people in history and he'd almost fit the bill more than Jesus. So warranted a mention imo.

Eh, that's fair actually. It's my understanding that Buddhist practice is more-or-less docile compared to Christian practice, which is more-or-less active.

[eclipse]

On 6/23/2021 at 9:01 AM, Original Johan Liebert said:

Maybe it's a matter of appearances VS reality. In the south, as far as I know, slaves did not get into positions of power even if they were competent - and I think there were measures to keep them from being competent in certain ways (not being allowed to read IMO). They could not even form stable families without permission. In Rome, at some point, slaves could become freed men, and sometimes they had power and influence and the ability to share in the changing world in a more human way. I'm not an expert on either place, but maybe that's a good measure of how ok it is to have slaves at all.

(I dunno if Roman slaves could have families)

It would definitely be on a society-by-society basis, and it would have to take the entire society into account.  Which means looking at the society through the view of their times, not necessarily ours.  Human sacrifice is abhorrent from our view, but apparently it was okay in certain areas of the world once upon a time - thus, we'll need to take our own disgust out if we want to objectively evaluate them.

On 6/23/2021 at 6:15 PM, AnonymousSpeed said:

What if I told you that slavery was never okay?

I understand that people thought differently back then, but I don't really see why we should view them through their eyes and not our own. At the very least, I don't think it bodes well if people's first impression of historical figures is "successful conqueror = good leader".

Because they're human, and humans haven't changed much over millennia.  Given a set of tools and circumstances, without outside knowledge of pesky things like refrigeration or instantaneous long-distance communication, is it a reasonable assumption?  I'd say yes, once society shifted from hunter-gatherer to agrarian (otherwise you'd run out of land).  Whether or not the concept of having someone working for someone else their entire lives in exchange for food and shelter was done in a moral fashion is another story entirely.

[henrymidfields]

My biggest hot take? Well, if it's something that the rest of the Japanese would have problems with:

The atomic bombings of either Hiroshima or Nagasaki at least was inevitable. As long as there are people who are going to drag the rest of Japanese society to the "fight until death" mentality, I'd be really surprised that will change. In fact, if the Kyujo Incident (Japanese: 宮城事件) attempted coup on the night before Japan's surrender is any indication, the two atomic bombs, the Soviet Invasion into Japanese-controlled Manchuria, and the Emperor Hirohito's decision might only have been barely enough for Japan's ministers and generals to see the writing on the wall.

Do I think this can justify the US Government's decision? No.

Does this negate any of the sufferings that people in Hiroshima or Nagasaki faced? No.

Do I think that the above events are a lot greyer in ethics than how many fellow Japanese see it as? Yes, absolutely.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, henrymidfields said:

My biggest hot take? Well, if it's something that the rest of the Japanese would have problems with:

The atomic bombings of either Hiroshima or Nagasaki at least was inevitable. As long as there are people who are going to drag the rest of Japanese society to the "fight until death" mentality, I'd be really surprised that will change. In fact, if the Kyujo Incident (Japanese: 宮城事件) attempted coup on the night before Japan's surrender is any indication, the two atomic bombs, the Soviet Invasion into Japanese-controlled Manchuria, and the Emperor Hirohito's decision might only have been barely enough for Japan's ministers and generals to see the writing on the wall.

Do I think this can justify the US Government's decision? No.

Does this negate any of the sufferings that people in Hiroshima or Nagasaki faced? No.

Do I think that the above events are a lot greyer in ethics than how many fellow Japanese see it as? Yes, absolutely.

It's such a hotly debated topic that either stance can come across as a hot take. Personally I straddle the fence by saying the first bomb was pretty justifiable but the second was unnecessary. One also has to factor in whether the bombs being dropped even had anything to do with Japan, as a l of people suspect it was more about displaying their new weapon to the world, and more specifically Stalin. I fear if at least one bomb wasn't dropped during the war then the cold war wouldn't have been so cold. Humans can't just sit on that kind of power and not use it. At least Japan had a pretty clear place to point to to show the effects of the thing so people would be a bit more hesitant to use them in the following decades (and there were some really close calls in the following decades). Without Hiroshima and Nagasaki we might have seen a nuclear strike in Pyonyang half a decade later, or Hanoi a few decades after that. And the further things go the more dangerous the weapons can get. I think the healthiest perspective is to just look at the 75 years since then and just appreciate how the governments of the world have all managed to restrain themselves and ensure nothing like it has happened again (not that absolutely awful things haven't happened since anyway, but by and large things have been way better since 1945 then they were before it).

[henrymidfields]

4 hours ago, Jotari said:

It's such a hotly debated topic that either stance can come across as a hot take. Personally I straddle the fence by saying the first bomb was pretty justifiable but the second was unnecessary. One also has to factor in whether the bombs being dropped even had anything to do with Japan, as a l of people suspect it was more about displaying their new weapon to the world, and more specifically Stalin. I fear if at least one bomb wasn't dropped during the war then the cold war wouldn't have been so cold. Humans can't just sit on that kind of power and not use it. At least Japan had a pretty clear place to point to to show the effects of the thing so people would be a bit more hesitant to use them in the following decades (and there were some really close calls in the following decades). Without Hiroshima and Nagasaki we might have seen a nuclear strike in Pyonyang half a decade later, or Hanoi a few decades after that. And the further things go the more dangerous the weapons can get. I think the healthiest perspective is to just look at the 75 years since then and just appreciate how the governments of the world have all managed to restrain themselves and ensure nothing like it has happened again (not that absolutely awful things haven't happened since anyway, but by and large things have been way better since 1945 then they were before it).

Absolutely agree with this too. It probably also helped Japan (and Europe as well once word got out on Fukuryu-maru, a number of close calls like the one accidental drop of one of the bombs on Spain, or Maralinga in Australia) being war-averse - which, considering what was going on pre-1945, is a good thing.

[NinjaMonkey]

The UK should have annexed Malta like they wanted us to do.

On 9/3/2021 at 2:24 PM, Jotari said:

One also has to factor in whether the bombs being dropped even had anything to do with Japan,

It was to avoid the massive amounts of US casualties that would have happened, had the US simply invaded Japan.

[Jotari]

2 hours ago, NinjaMonkey said:

The UK should have annexed Malta like they wanted us to do.

It was to avoid the massive amounts of US casualties that would have happened, had the US simply invaded Japan.

They could have just not invaded Japan and left if blockaded. Japan's navy had basically been eradicated by that point. The issue with basically locking down Japan and starving them out would (aside from being more costly) be that it leaves Japan open to a Russian invasion which would have sent Japan the way of Eastern Europe and made them a major threat in the Pacific. Hence my point that there's decent reasons to believe the dropping of the bombs had less to do with Japan itself and more to do with Stalin.

Edited September 12, 2021 by Jotari

[henrymidfields]

17 hours ago, Jotari said:

They could have just not invaded Japan and left if blockaded. Japan's navy had basically been eradicated by that point. The issue with basically locking down Japan and starving them out would (aside from being more costly) be that it leaves Japan open to a Russian invasion which would have sent Japan the way of Eastern Europe and made them a major threat in the Pacific. Hence my point that there's decent reasons to believe the dropping of the bombs had less to do with Japan itself and more to do with Stalin.

The Soviets planned to do that with Hokkaido. I've checked one source cited in Wikipedia, and the extra time the Soviets would gain from such a blockade probably wouldn't have helped all that much. Yes, the proposed invasion was planned too late, and yes because the Americans opposed it, but also the Soviets proved less than capable at their first amphibious assault on one of the Kuril Islands, losing a good deal of (see page 158 of this journal) what little immediate naval capability they had (page 156-57 of the aforementioned journal). Half of Hokkaido was what they thought as a realistic expectation (page 157) - Honshu was completely off the table for them (page 155). And to some extent, the Americans were aware of that because of the negotiations between Truman and Stalin.

There are other weaknesses at play, including how to procure the resources and the forces needed when most of them were busy occupying Eastern Europe and Germany, the potential chokepoint in the form of a Japanese pre-emptive strike on the Trans-Siberian Railway from Manchuria, not to mention how the main part of Russia was in such bad shape after Operation Barbarossa. The only way they could realistically take half of Japan would be if the US invited them. So yeah, I still will have to say the bombs had a fair amount to to do with Japan. Especially when I also consider the Purple Hearts medallions that were made for the cancelled Operation Downfall are still being issued to this day!

Edited September 13, 2021 by henrymidfields

[Jotari]

5 hours ago, henrymidfields said:

Especially when I also consider the Purple Hearts medallions that were made for the cancelled Operation Downfall are still being issued to this day!

Oh I won't deny that a flat out invasion was definitely planned for. If the bombs didn't work or weren't used then the USA would have went in there. I was just providing the alternate option from dropping the bombs or invading. For the US's interests they had no reason for doing that, and I think Soviet designs in the Pacific (as well as it costing a lot more cash than an invasion would) were one of the reasons for that. By the time the bombs were dropped Japan had been very soundly beaten in a practical sense. They were just so hell bound on fighting the war that they continued well past a time when most nations would have surrendered.

[Acacia Sgt]

24 minutes ago, Jotari said:

They were just so hell bound on fighting the war that they continued well past a time when most nations would have surrendered.

Which is mostly why the US thought to drop the bombs, more than any fears of further Soviet encroachment on the Far East.

The costly campaign to take Okinawa, the planning and revaluations of Operation Olympic (invasion of Kyushu), those of Operation Coronet (invasion of Tokyo), evaluating the release of chemical weapons over the Japanese islands, the estimations of Operation Downfall which included dropping further Atomic bombs to aid the ground troops. The US spent the weeks after Okinawa analyzing the Japanese defenses, and came to the conclusion of testing the bombs in hope to scare them to surrender, and if not, then it'd still be a test to see how the bombs could be deployed for Downfall.

So yeah, it was Japan's own actions, more than Stalin's, that led to the US using the bombs.

Edited September 13, 2021 by Acacia Sgt

[henrymidfields]

Another tinderbox from a Japanese. This one goes both ways:

What the Left would hate: I'm for amending Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution to allow some form of military action (or at least remove ambiguity with self-defense)...

What the Right would probably hate: ...but I'm against the current amendment from the Liberal Democrats. Given our poor track record in World War 2 (ironically we were better with following the Conventions pre-1930s) and our chauvinistic tendencies, the new article should add and emphasize Japan's obligations to abide to the international Laws and Customs of War, and it should also explicitly state that war should be an option of last resort, and diplomatic efforts should be prioritised where possible. I also distrust the pro-amendment factions due to their undervaluing of Article 9 in the past, because it really brought up our standards of living by allowing us to focus on economic development, and kept us out of most major conflicts as far as I've known. (Which is ironic considering our military spending in absolute terms is actually within the Top 10.)

Edited September 14, 2021 by henrymidfields

[Jotari]

11 hours ago, Acacia Sgt said:

Which is mostly why the US thought to drop the bombs, more than any fears of further Soviet encroachment on the Far East.

The costly campaign to take Okinawa, the planning and revaluations of Operation Olympic (invasion of Kyushu), those of Operation Coronet (invasion of Tokyo), evaluating the release of chemical weapons over the Japanese islands, the estimations of Operation Downfall which included dropping further Atomic bombs to aid the ground troops. The US spent the weeks after Okinawa analyzing the Japanese defenses, and came to the conclusion of testing the bombs in hope to scare them to surrender, and if not, then it'd still be a test to see how the bombs could be deployed for Downfall.

So yeah, it was Japan's own actions, more than Stalin's, that led to the US using the bombs.

Well of course if Japan had surrendered it would have been a moot point and the bombs wouldn't have been dropped. I'm just saying that cold war politics likely were a consideration at that point and that how the soviet union would react would have played a role in decision making.

Edited September 14, 2021 by Jotari

[henrymidfields]

On 9/14/2021 at 5:00 PM, Jotari said:

Well of course if Japan had surrendered it would have been a moot point and the bombs wouldn't have been dropped. I'm just saying that cold war politics likely were a consideration at that point and that how the soviet union would react would have played a role in decision making.

 

On 9/14/2021 at 5:50 AM, Acacia Sgt said:

The costly campaign to take Okinawa, the planning and revaluations of Operation Olympic (invasion of Kyushu), those of Operation Coronet (invasion of Tokyo), evaluating the release of chemical weapons over the Japanese islands, the estimations of Operation Downfall which included dropping further Atomic bombs to aid the ground troops. The US spent the weeks after Okinawa analyzing the Japanese defenses, and came to the conclusion of testing the bombs in hope to scare them to surrender, and if not, then it'd still be a test to see how the bombs could be deployed for Downfall.

So yeah, it was Japan's own actions, more than Stalin's, that led to the US using the bombs.

There's also the other point that Japan had her own nuclear program during the War. And theoretically it could, since an area within present-day North Korea has uranium deposits. And even today, it still can, due to the economic and technological capacity. The thing that is stopping Japan from developing the bomb would be the how much of a PR suicide this will be. Even today, it still is the best way to be voted out of office, and it probably also a good way to make bigger enemies out of China and Russia, and it might even be a way to make enemies out of USA and Japan's other allies.

[Jotari]

3 hours ago, henrymidfields said:

 

There's also the other point that Japan had her own nuclear program during the War. And theoretically it could, since an area within present-day North Korea has uranium deposits. And even today, it still can, due to the economic and technological capacity. The thing that is stopping Japan from developing the bomb would be the how much of a PR suicide this will be. Even today, it still is the best way to be voted out of office, and it probably also a good way to make bigger enemies out of China and Russia, and it might even be a way to make enemies out of USA and Japan's other allies.

Uranium isn't the only thing that is required to make nuclear weapons. I think it was lack of reliable access to heavy water that hindered the German attempts. Though I'm also unser about Japan's overall resources in that regard. Either way I don't think they were ever all that close to making nuclear weapons. I'd be more concerned with their interest in making gas weapons which they did manufacture a good deal of, though I don't think they were ever used in a military capacity. Most other major nations in WWII swore off gas weapons due to their use in World War I and a lot of military personal having first hand experience of how horrifying they are as weapons, but the Japanese had absolutely no compunctions about it.

[Etrurian emperor]

One historical hot take is that I don't get what's supposed to be so great about Sparta. It was a pseudo fascistic hellhole who's hegemony didn't even last a single lifetime without leaving much of a legacy for Greece or the wider world. And the moment their hegemony ended they were a non entity/tourist attraction for the rest of their history.

So the reverence to Sparta in popular culture was something I never agreed with. Particularly striking in Assassins Creed where its established Sparta ruined your life for the heck of it, and that daddy went along with it because he loved Sparta more than you but we're still supposed to feel a reverence towards the place and consider our arrival a glorious homecoming. 

[henrymidfields]

On 9/17/2021 at 3:12 AM, Jotari said:

Uranium isn't the only thing that is required to make nuclear weapons. I think it was lack of reliable access to heavy water that hindered the German attempts. Though I'm also unser about Japan's overall resources in that regard. Either way I don't think they were ever all that close to making nuclear weapons. I'd be more concerned with their interest in making gas weapons which they did manufacture a good deal of, though I don't think they were ever used in a military capacity. Most other major nations in WWII swore off gas weapons due to their use in World War I and a lot of military personal having first hand experience of how horrifying they are as weapons, but the Japanese had absolutely no compunctions about it.

I know this is probably not a good simulator example, but have anyone played as the Japanese for Hearts of Iron? How easy or difficult was making nukes as the Japanese there?

[Interdimensional Observer]

On 9/16/2021 at 5:33 PM, Etrurian emperor said:

One historical hot take is that I don't get what's supposed to be so great about Sparta. It was a pseudo fascistic hellhole who's hegemony didn't even last a single lifetime without leaving much of a legacy for Greece or the wider world. And the moment their hegemony ended they were a non entity/tourist attraction for the rest of their history.

From what I read once in a book on the history of defensive walls, the Spartans very insecure. They wanted to live as primitively as possible to retain their warrior culture, which was the epitome of manliness, and avoid the feminization brought on by more developed forms of civilization. They were afraid of losing touch with the ancient laws and traditions established by Lycurgus, who to make it worse, might not have actually existed.

Part of the appeal of Sparta for audiences living millennia afterwards I suppose is a romanticized one. A very distinctive Classical Greek city-state for those looking for something that isn't Athenian, which is to say learned, sophisticated, elitist (aka the very things modern populists hate). Sparta is simplistic, brutal, "natural" and "manly". -Although there are many other Greek city-states to idealize, and all of them enjoyed having their hoplites stab other Greeks. Militancy wasn't unique to Sparta, just the way it societally expressed it. But unique is not the same as good.