Are women actually interested in history?

Yes, many, but then I'm not much into bimbos.

>Ukrainian genocide
No such thing.

That's just your politeness and Aspergers talking.

The Holodomor and persecution of Kulaks (who were largly Ukrainian) in general.

No, I'm pretty objective.

where 2 find intelligent womyn?

Not on 4chins, that's for sure

What's her name and her books?

Kulaks are not really a defined group, and it's a meme anyway. They did "attack" peasantry, "kulaks" were an excuse, but there was no intention to destroy Ukrainians or any nation, or even cause deaths.
Oblique intent disqualifies their actions as a form of genocide.

Yes, we are.

Yes, we are interested in history.

Anne Applebaum's 'Red famine: Stalins' war on Ukraine' and 'GULag - a History of the Soviet concentration camps'.

London?

show bob and vegene

post pics

>we

k mate.

Rarely, VERY rarely.

>women aren't only interested in history motivated purely by the attempts to justify current political nor-

Yeah, no."history" and "pop history" are two very different things.

The term 'kulak' in Russian (there is similar bastardization of the word in Ukrainian, never used before Bolshevik coup, so no real history of use in Ukraine) means fist and to mid 19th Century meant handy or hard working muzhik and had no negative connotation whatsoever, just the opposite.

The negative connotation was made by Russian radical intelligentsia who 'went to the people' and realised the peasants didn't give two shits about their radical ideas, they only cared about their 'mir' where nothing existed outside their village, wanted all the privately owned land to belong to the village commune, who would distribute it among peasants of said commune (without any collective farming, but with open-field farming). Explanation for this uninterest in their radical ideas the revolutionaries made up some shadowy figure of a 'kulak' controlling the peasant psyche.

But it was only the Uljanov's 'bolshevik' section of Russian Social Democratic Party and Socialists-Revolutionaries during the second decade of 20th Century and especially after October coup, who made the 'kulak' mean some bloodthirsty, money grabbing, 'speculating' character responsible for all and every problem in the countryside and starting from the Civil war, reason for peasantry's unwillingness to give all grain to Bolshevik expropiation teams and to join the Collective farms.

>there was no intention to destroy Ukrainians or any nation, or even cause deaths
There is a long history of Great Russian's belittling Ukraine as 'Little Russia' and Ukrainian language as just a 'dialect of Russian'. The Georgian Dzugasvili adapted Great Russian attitude even before the Revolution or Bolshevik coup, but especially during the first years of his reign. His idol was the tsar Ivan IV, commonly known as 'Terrible' in English.
...

...
The Ukrainian genocide of 1932-34 is a direct result of this historical attitude of Russians'. Ukrainian
intelligentsia in cities had had to adopt to Russian language during Tsarist Russia, because of it being forced
command language in all institutions of Russia and at the start of 20th century had mostly 'forgotten' the
Ukrainian language.
The peasantry and some of the Cossacks of Ukraine on the other hand spoke only Ukrainian.

Starting from the revolution, revival of Ukrainian language and culture among Ukrainian intelligentsia started
and although at the end, Bolsheviks managed to take and finally keep power in Ukraine (Kiev changed hands
multitude of times during the Civil war), they adapted policy of 'Ukrainization', allowing the cultural revival
to continue and accepting the use of Ukraine in Bolshevik institutions in the country, thinking this would help
getting Ukrainians and especially the peasants to accept Bolshevik rule.

It didn't, and at the end 1920's, the 'Ukrainization' was quickly turned to age old 'Russification' and at the
same time Dzugasvili closed NEP and returned to revolutionary policy, including the collectivization of
agriculture. The collectivization was resisted just as much by Russian muzhik as by Ukrainian peasants and
Cossacks - those still alive after almost complete annihilation of Don Cossacks during the Civil war era.
...

...
Russification' in Ukraine was resisted by not only peasants, but by the intelligentsia too, even those loyal to
Bolshevism. Since the base of Ukrainian language was peasantry and thus the traditional culture of Ukraine,
Stalin decided to destroy the peasantry.

As Applebaum points out in her 'Red Famine', Lemkin coined the term 'genocide' especially the Ukrainian
genocide in mind, not the Holocaust (and not in 1943 like current English Wikipedia article states, but before
the war).
When the legal terms for the word were defined in the UN convention, it was the Soviet representive who wanted
to make sure that only the attempt to completely annihiliate certain ethnic group or nation would constitute as
a 'genocide', so the Bolsheviks would not come under fire from killing the 'bourgoise' of Petersburg and Moscow
or the killing the 10 000 Don Cossacks effectively ending their traditional culture and way of life and of
killing at least 3.9 million Ukrainian peasants with the hunger weapon to wipe out the cultural base of Ukraine
and its language.

Yes
Yes

When it involves them.

Wrong.

>"Im not interested in history. Im interested in HERstory!"

They're interested in the suffrage movement and that's about it

I ain't even dissecting this diarrhea of posts.
There was zero intention to destroy Ukrainians, after all Ukrainians were literally promoted as a nation by Bolsheviks, and "Great Russian" Stalin had far easier and profitable methods of destroying Ukrainian identity, which didn't involve killing millions of people, in a region that didn't even have strong Ukrainian identity.
Furthermore, places like Kazakhstan and some areas of Russia were hit even higher.
Go take your political bullshit somewhere else, I mean, it's one thing to say Holodomor was a genocide, but to try to frame it on RUSSIANS, that's just fucking insanity.

show bobs

My Chinese girlfriend comes from a government family and shes an avid student of (((Chinese))) party history. The rest just bores her as its to much like 'study'.

>he hasn't read Barbara Tuchman
For shame user.

no, currently teaching russian history to my friend who doesn't know nothing.

LONDON
O
N
D
O
N

I was thinking about picking this up. Is it good? Is it better than Keegan's WW1 book?

It's really fucking good. It only covers the first month though, which gives it more time to focus on all the things that went down. JFK said it was his favorite book, and he read it constantly during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

>Ukrainian intelligentsia

Why is containment of shitposters so hard? You already have 2 boards, what more do you want

That's what they can make you think but no, just as men are prisoners of lust, women are prisoners of vanity

No, but then again I've never spoken to a girl.

t.sperg
Woman are only interested in cock.

Oddly enough the women I've dated have all said they're somewhat turned on when I passionately talk about history. I suspect that has more to do with just being passionate about hobbies in general though.

Most relevant graduate programs are at least half if not majority women at this point, so yes.

Barbara Tuchman is literally one of the most famous historians of the 20th century.

yeah, but I kinda zoned out when she started mentioning the schwarzschild metric of a minkowski space as a non-trivial solution used in einstein's field equations

There are some women who value traditional gender roles and legitimately think men have it rough competing with other men for dominance, and wish to see their sons succeed regardless while not being feminized, but who wish for men to understand the sensitive subtle ways they interpret the world.

These women are indeed interested in history. They see men as heroes and women, too. But serving society in different ways. Those women are called conservative.

Have been reading Mandy Sadan's Being and Becoming Kachin. The opening chapters are pretty dense for a non historian like me but it's a fascinating history and her Mandelbrot/fractal lens seems like a good innovation to compare with the Mandala theory of history.

I feel genuinely sorry for men who have never had an intelligent conversation with a woman or believe that such a thing isn't possible.

I've met more female history grads than male history grads. Once met a gal who spoke latin, anouther who mastered in early middle ages history in Britain. Only made out with one of them.

Girls like a passion that they can gain from

Which one?

>Oddly enough the women I've dated have all said they're somewhat turned on when I passionately talk about history.

where does one find women like this

>woman says she's interested in history
>her entire twitter is filled with unsourced articles claiming historical figures are gay
Fujos are truly a cancer upon everything they touch

Because boards with topics gives them a topic to shitpost about.

Every board is a funposting board.

Yes. Social history mostly. Autistic shit like military history is boring.

Two of my best History teachers in University are both women: One teaching Medieval/Modern era (She is a medievalist) and the other teaching Contemporary era + other stuff like Fascism/Nazism ideology and antisemitism in Europe.