Difference between revisions of "History Discussions"
From Conservapedia
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
*[[Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?]] | *[[Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?]] | ||
*[[What was the cause, aspiration, and long-range significance of the French Revolution]] | *[[What was the cause, aspiration, and long-range significance of the French Revolution]] | ||
| − | *[[Should | + | *[[Should Napoleon be considered a great man]] |
*[[What was the impact of the Industrial Revolution on European Life and Thought during the 19th century]] | *[[What was the impact of the Industrial Revolution on European Life and Thought during the 19th century]] | ||
*[[What was Karl Marx's interpretation of historical development?]] | *[[What was Karl Marx's interpretation of historical development?]] | ||
Revision as of 11:22, December 26, 2014
- Is the American Occupation of the Hawaiian Islands justified?
- Did Joan of Arc truly hear voices?
- Was the American involvement in the Vietnam War justified?
- Was Christopher Columbus a Genoese Merchant or a Catalonian Jew?
- Was the North right to prevent Southern secession in the US Civil War?
- What was the cause, aspiration, and long-range significance of the French Revolution
- Should Napoleon be considered a great man
- What was the impact of the Industrial Revolution on European Life and Thought during the 19th century
- What was Karl Marx's interpretation of historical development?
- How did Social Darwinism influence social and economic developments in the 1800's
- How did democracy evolve in England between 1800 and 2000
- Compare the causes and outcomes of WWI and WWII
- Was the Reformation a good change...or a bad one?
- What is the proper conservative response, in terms of both politics and personal ethics, to the Holocaust and other genocides?
- What single factor or policy is most responsible for the clear success of the U. S. occupations of Germany and Japan following World War II?
- [[Did John Stuart Mill mean to say with his famous quote about people for whom nothing is worth death that those opposed on principle to violence for any reason are literally not fit to be free? Does this mean that violence and freedom are two sides of the same coin?]]
