Why have Eastern Europeans played such a tiny role in world history compared to their neighbors?

Are you trying to deny PLC impact on world history? Pathetic.

Why did Japan manage to be consistently successful throughout history then?

Obviouslt Japan lagged behind Western Europe for a large part of history but they held their own (against foreign invasions) and created a distinct civilization.

If you need any recommendations about a certain topic in world history, just ask on this board. That way you'll increase your knowledge and realize that my question is very valid.

As I said, Russia eventually managed to play a large (yet dubious/negative) role in world history, but that was after the Scandinavian people civilized the Slavic tribes.

Because Islands are always more involved into world politics.
Maybe because of trade.

> Scandinavian people
> civilizing anybody

you meme about varangians and le ebin scandis but fail to acknoledge the fact poles rescued the ever so developed, cultured and whathaveyou westerners in the battle of vienna in 1683?
do you know why the noonbell rings?
do you know who is the father of the H-bomb?
how is the USSR or Russia not part of significant history?

Medieval history of Bohemia and Hungary is hardly marginal when you read about it.

> consistently successful
Japan was literally irrelevant before XX century.

>they have to resort to memes instead of putting forth arguments

> father of the H-bomb?
Manhattan was leader of the Project if I remember correctly.

Japan had the chinese, a prosperous and highly advanced civilisation, to learn from.

>Why did Japan manage to be consistently successful throughout history then?
They weren't. There are multiple periods of Japanese history where they were BTFO by their neighbors and forced into status quo.

>to play a large (yet dubious/negative) role in world history
Ah, yes. Invention and literature, Russias primary influence on the world, were absolutely negative. Let me just throw out my Dostoyevsky and then toss out my arc welder. You should probably avoid taking a monorail ever since you seem to think Russians contributed nothing.

>after the Scandinavian people civilized the Slavic tribes
What does myth have to do with reality?

>A-bombs are the same as H-bombs

> H-bomb
Which is important to civilization because? Shit was never used as a real weapon anyway. What good H-bomb was did to humanity?

Well... East Europe got Norse people to learn from them.

> So we've often discussed why Sub-Saharan Africa never played a (significant) part in world history, can we do something similar for Eastern Europe? I'm genuinely interested.

This right here is when your post turned to pure bait. USSR in the 20th century alone was more relevant than the entirety of Sub Saharan Africa for the last 3000 years.

>Russia's primary influence on the world is literature and invention

TOPKEK!

Russia's primary influence on the world was war, the spread of communism, ethnic cleansing and genocide, the setback of Eastern Europe, the Cold War.

Do you really think writers like Dostoevsky actually influenced the world to a significant extent? They were writers, nothing more.

Yes, because the Soviets weren't exclusively Russian or even Slavic.

> war
> genocide
> ethnic cleansing
Yes. Why they don't just take some lessons from the germans... I mean anglos...

>forgoing 600 years of history for 60
Yes. Russian contributed nothing but war. Forever and all time just war. Nothing of significance but war.

>Dostoevsky actually influenced the world to a significant extent
That depends. Does Dostoyevsky have a place in the top 100 books of all time? What about Tolstoy?

>They were writers, nothing more
Oh, boy.

Now it's obvious you're just baiting

Sage and move on lads

> setback of Eastern Europe
Because it was such progressive region under the rule of Habsburgs?

Germans and Anglos have produced a hundred times the scientists, the thinkers, the leaders that the Russians have.

> Oh, boy.
Can you name even one people who was influenced by Dostoevsky and done something useful (not obscure writing)

/int/ and /pol/ need to fuck off back to their containment boards

Probably the untold tens of thousands of people that read his books every year because they're classic literature.

duno, ask your government if they were signifact in making their foreign policy mayhaps

Yes. And ruined hundred more time people lives in hundreds more parts of the world than Russia was even able to reach.

/int/ and /pol/ are actually filled with nationalistic Eastern Europeans who delude themselves when it comes to their history. That's why this question was asked on Veeky Forums.

> thousands of people
Who literally done nothing. Way to proof my point.

Since you want specifics here's a pretty good list:
>Einstein
>Gauss
>Nietschze

All of them wrote specifically about Dostoevsky's influence on them. I also forgot another influential Russian writer: Pushkin. Meme harder, faggot.

Except you said Eastern Europe and the USSR is indeed in Eastern Europe. Stop moving the goalposts now.

>Mendeleev, Sikorsky, Wichterle, Divis, Dvorak, Capek, Sikorsky, Kafka, von Neumann, Erdos, Jedlik, Liszt, Bartok, Tschaikovsky, Copernicus, Lukasiewicz, Tsoilkovsky etc

To equate this with Sub Saharan Africa is indeed bait.

It was. Bohemia was one of Europe's most industrialized regions under Habsburg rule.

Germans and Anglos have through their contributions improved the life of billions. They kickstarted the industrial revolution, because created the modern field of physics, have had the greatest mathematicians, etc.

Sure they did bad things, but we have something to show for it. The Soviets literally only ruined the lives of people. The only people who it improved were some Central Asian nomads.

This is why Veeky Forums needs flags. If you're flag was burgerland for example then people wouldn't automatically assume you're trolling.

When talking about USSR's importance, it is easily forgotten that it didn't even last a century and was preceded by ~400 years of tsarist Russia, ~250 years of the Moscow principality, ~350 years of Kievan Rus' etc. How relevant was Russia (and the rest of eastern Europe) during these periods?

What are this great contributions?

Prove that burgers don't shitpost

>How relevant was Russia (and the rest of eastern Europe) during these periods?
Tsarist Russia was extremely influential on Europe and Asia. Especially under Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, and both Alexanders and Nicholas'.

Before the Cold War, "Eastern Europe" meant just Russian territories.

Yeah, sure, keep naming Jews. Jews who all hate Eastern Europe and fled that shit as soon as they could.

In the fucking OP I wrote about Scandinavians civilizing Slavic tribes (self-admitted by Slavs). Jews also did this, they civilized Eastern Europeans too. No goalposts have been moved.

>askully

its filled with anglo neets who claim to be superior to niggers but cant even change a lightbulb themselves

stay mad nigel, on our way to steal yer jerbs

And why in the fuck shouldn't Jews count? They're a part of Eastern European history just like all the other people that have lived there.

So you're just a Pole. Good, thanks for proving my point. If all Eastern Europeans are this weak mentally, then the question would be answered.

>Please keep the racism to a minimum
>then writes this shit

lmao

Because they came from outside, and civilized the Eastern Europeans, just like Scandinavians did.

Do you count British and French achievements as Sub-Saharan African achievements? No, you don't.

> have had the greatest mathematicians
The one and only greatest mathematician spent most of his life in Russia actually.

> keep naming Jews
If you exclude Jews you couldn't name even one western scientist.

Ethnic German civilizing Slavs.

The Jews have lived in Eastern Europe for hundreds upon hundreds of years.

Besides considering everyone in EE is ethnically mixed I don't think separating its people by ethnicity just to fit your argument is a wise idea. Go back to KC or whatever shithole you crawled out from.

Newton

Do you know that Earth revolve around the sun? Can you guess who come up with that idea? Not some smart French guy for sure.

Newton, Gauss, Euler. Greatest of all time.

im not but you are one retarded chav thats for sure

I can't because they do, but burger education doesn't cover a lot of european history so I'm more likely to give their posts the benefit of the doubt.

>It's a polandball episode

> practiced fucking kabbalah
You literally can't be more jewish

>doesn't cover a lot of european history
Actually, it does. It just doesn't cover European history East of the Oder or North of the Kiel Canal.

Ethnic Germans have been a part of Eastern Europe since forever.

Euler was a russian mathematician user

>implying this isn't the containment board

...

He isn't even a legit mathematician. Hindu gods literally give him all equations in dreams.

Fleming and Pasteur. Likely the two biggest reasons many of us still draw breath.

> Scandinavian people civilized the Slavic tribes
This is not /pol/, lad.

We really should have cleared things up before getting into op's debate.

Any non-elective American history course glosses over most of european history, with the British and French being possible exceptions.

Also I'm American and don't understand what you mean by East of the Oder so I'm just going to assume that makes me right.

Because Slavs.

/thread

You don't /thread your own posts, you dumb /pol/cuck.

But I do.

/thread

My guess is they were too far away to be directly involved in the culture of Mediterranean Sea as much as the western Europe, yet too close to have enough room to do their own thing. The most alluring option they always had was to take inspiration from the west, so they got trapped in a situation of always lagging behind them.

> take inspiration from the west
Wait... Why west was so ahead then?

...

Western Europe got rich as fuck off of (colonial) expeditions, specifically western Europe that had Atlantic coastline.

Primarily rural
Few cities
Poor
Noble yoke
Tartar yoke
Ottoman yoke
Shitty climate

If Europe had been an empire Eastern Europe would have been that shitty frontier region soldiers dread being sent too.

3 words direct sea access.

>Wait... Why west was so ahead then?
Because when Slavs emerged in Europe, west was basically the Romans.

...

...

You should probably know things about history and geography before you decide to come here.
What a retarded fucking post.

Nice argument, you surely debunked all his points.

> literally the kingdom of cities
> Few cities

Compared to what? Northern Italy? The low Countries? What do these maps here tell you?

Not him but look at Bohemia ffs.

fine
>primarily rural
So was fucking everywhere, great fucking job
>few cities
Just because you can't be assed to learn Eastern European cities because you can't pronounce them doesn't mean they don't exist.
>Poor
For most of history, no they weren't to any significant extent. Most plight they endured was at the hands of ridiculous ideologies manufactured in Western Europe like communism and the spread of the Ottomans into Europe, which was 100% facilitated and maintained by the West. For the most of history, however, Eastern Europe was absolutely fucking fine and some of their cities were grander than anything you might find in Scandinavia, the North of Germany, or England.
>Noble yoke
does not apply to Eastern Europe more so than Western Europe to any meaningful level besides in Russia.
>Tartar yoke
>Ottoman yoke
Yes.
>Shitty climate
literally what the fuck is this even referring to.

Barely west of the Oder desu.

>muh Oder

I see Bohemia and northwest Hungary (Slovakia) being pretty damn populous on that map.

>Eastern Europe just too far away from good agriculture
have you ever heard of the huge fields in and around ukraine, the so called breadbasket of the soviet union?

>So was fucking everywhere, great fucking job
>Just because you can't be assed to learn Eastern European cities because you can't pronounce them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Parts of western Europe and Northern Italy reached 25-40% urbanization by the 1600s, Russian, Poland etc. retained serfdom and had a way lower urbanization ratio.

>For most of history, no they weren't to any significant extent.

To give an example: during the last decade of Mikhail Fyodorovich Romanovs rule the average real wage of all Russians was comparable to an early 14th century English unskilled laborer.

>does not apply to Eastern Europe more so than Western Europe to any meaningful level besides in Russia.

Poland-Lithuania had Szlachta and serfdom and frankly so did much of Eastern Europe after 1500.

>literally what the fuck is this even referring to.

Russia has four seasons of fuck everyone weather, it's continental and prone to a wide range of temperatures and from Ukraine onward you got shitty steppes.

>Greece not considered core because Byron said something
>southern Sweden and Norway for whatever reason are core

Into the trash

All those maps indicate is that city states have higher population density than large countries do. It is unusual for such a high amount of major cities to be concentrated in such a small area, and it not being the case elsewhere is not the sign of backwardness.