[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/his/ - History

Historical Discussion

Catalog

Email
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Flag
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Oekaki
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
dicesidesmodifier
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, swf, pdf
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Infinity Cup II status- rip

Allied boards - [ Philosophy ]


File: 1456408964158.jpg (114.65 KB, 615x375, 41:25, stalinbby.jpg)

d72495 No.35469

Because we all need help sometimes. Just ask questions about essays, post essays which you have already submitted and just generally help out the studying anon.

ad6a5f No.35481

/his/ is for "/his/tory" not for "/his/ essay is undone".


d72495 No.35482

>>35481

I know that some people come for the latter so I think making a containment thread is a good idea, also people like reading and sharing their work on this board.


d35768 No.35496

I got an assignment on my World Empire history class about the butterfly effect, or alt history.

I was wondering, what if the mongols had not gone to war against the Khwarezmid empire?

What if the Khwarezmids had established trade routes and an eventual alliance with the Mongols as they first intended?

I believe that He would've finished off the Jin and moved on to the Song. Eventually he might have taken towards Europe and depending on his current relations with the Shah he might have or not gone to war.

The Shah, being an ally of the Mongols would gain power within the muslim lands and the Caliphate of Baghdad might react either violently or in fright.

What do you /his/torians think might have happened? I'm conflicted about the Khan actually taking Constantinople or Western Europe at some point.


000000 No.35505

>please do my work for me

back to reddit


b850f0 No.35518

>>35505

that is not what this thread is supposed to be, and is not what I had in mind when I suggested the Idea; I didn't make this thread though.

>>35339


b850f0 No.35707

Just found this looking through an old note book. We watched the film in class and the assignment was to write a 2 page paper arguing whether the film was a propaganda piece or not.(course was Western Civ. 2)

I got a 97% for some grammar errors that i fixed. Just came up with title now. How do you think I did?

“The Great Dictator” Review: Propaganda or Not

Released in 1940, "The Great Dictator", written and directed by Charlie Chaplin, was a film made to bring light to the escalating abuses against the jews in National Socialist Germany and to poke fun at the fascist leaders of Italy and Germany(Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler, respectively). While propaganda is commonly defined as, "the expression of opinions or actions carried out deliberately by individuals or groups with a view to influence the opinions or actions of other individuals or groups for predetermined ends and through psychological manipulations.” While Chaplin has stated that his film is not a propaganda piece, several choices he made while directing the film would suggest that it is.

One choice he made which could influence the audience's opinions was having the character Adenoid Hynkel, representative of Adolf Hitler, speak German-sounding gibberish whenever he is speaking about the jews and his national socialist views. This decision could influence the audience to think that all of Hitler's national socialist are nonsensical. Also, that anyone who would listen to and follow those national socialist ideas as idiots.

Another element of the film that could considered propaganda is the characterization of Adenoid Hynkel and Benzini Napolini, representative of Benito Mussolini. Throughout the film both Hynkel and Napolini are portrayed as clumsy buffoons, who just so happen to lead a nation. For example, in the first speech of Hynkels that is shown, Hynkel pauses to take a sip of water and dumps the rest down his pants. Also, after the speech, Hynkels aid, Herr Herring, representative of Hermann Göring, slightly bumps Hynkel and Hynkel tumbles down the stairs of the stage. Another example of this is when Napolini comes to visit Hynkel. After greeting with Hynkel, Napolini completely forgets that he was traveling with his wife and leaves with Hynkel, without her.

Another decision Chaplin made that could influence the audience's views is the choices of music. For example, whenever Hynkel and others of the party are shown more serious, march-like music was played; while whenever the 'people of the ghetto' are shown softer, more uplifting music was played. By playing the serious, march-like music during scenes with Hynkel and party members, it causes the audience to feel that they are very rigid and authoritarian, even without hearing them speak. By playing the softer, more uplifting music during the scenes with the 'people of the ghetto', it causes the audience to feel that they are purely the victim, even though they were plotting a suicide bombing on the palace.

In conclusion, while Charlie Chaplin may not have deliberately created "The Great Dictator" as a propaganda film, several decisions made during the production would give the impression that it is. For example, Hynkels gibberish speech, the buffoonish characterization of Hynkel and Napolini, and the different background music chosen for party members and the 'people of the ghetto', could all influence the way that the audience views the real world around them.


b850f0 No.35708

>>35707

>>35707

of course, double-spacing doesn't work on here.


b850f0 No.35709

>>35707

>some grammar errors that i fixed.

never mind, found some more




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]