Historical "facts" and popular representations of histrical figures that are wrong

[Denamic]

Not to keep harping on about the Hitler thing, but he was neither a vegetarian, nor an atheist.

He loved dogs though.
I'm a dog lover too.
Wait... Doesn't this mean I can relate to Hitler?
I feel dirty.

 

[beastro]

If he was a great leader he would have built and constructed and MADE things and changed the way the world viewed germany at the time. In essence what Nelson Mandella (in a very different set of circumstances) was able to do in South Africa.

Considering the current state of South African and the unending diaspora of the educated, I only see Mandella accomplishing the last of those four things.

 

[beastro]

Look im not sure EXACTLY about the definitions of communism and facism but isnt it pretty contradictory to say that Hitler, probably the most famous fasict who ever lived) could have been communist but for a few small differences?

He basically wanted communism without the men doing the work getting the credit. It was a warped nationalism.

No, he wanted himself getting the credit.

Nazism was pure thuggery and beyond the pale of fascism which was competing ideology of the era.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

In the War of 1812, it was unlikely that the Canadian militia had much effect in battle at all compared to the redcoats. They weren't invested in the war much at all, since the Americans were, to many Canadians at the time, friends and family. Additionally, most of these people were farmers, who just wanted to get back to their crops so their family doesn't starve to death. Perhaps the most condemning, they were barely trained at all, making them incompetent on the battlefield. Sir Isaac Brock, while maintaining in a speech that the contributions of the Canadian militia were valued, likely to increase morale, his own private journals say otherwise.

This shouldn't really deter from any pride Canadians have for winning this war, however, as Canada was a part of Britian at the time and so the British military was pretty much the military force of Canada, even though they were British.

 

[Westaway]

americans claiming that the atomic bombs were necessary to defeat japan without an invasion. it's history revisionism at it's best, japan had already signaled willingness to surrender prior to the bombings but was ignored. the consensus among historians is pretty much that it was to field test those things and to intimidate the soviets, which were perceived as a growing threat.
also, slightly related: pretending like the germans would have won the war in europe without american assistance. no. just...no. (pacific is a different deal though)

Their willingness to surrender is irrelevant; even if it was the case. The Allies wanted Japan to surrender unconditionally. And I'm pretty sure that that criterion was not met by Japan's peace offer.

it actually was, with a single remark: they wished for the emperor to remain in office, as a point of national honor. this was accepted by the americans anyway, later after the surrender actually happened. so if it would have been really just about ending the war, they could have done it the week before already. in the japanese calculations around the actual surrender, btw, the nuclear bombing played only a very small role. the main reason for the japanese surrender was the soviet invasion of manchuria.

Okay, with all due respect i'm going to have to ask that you provide a credible source to back up what you're saying.

no offense taken, it's your right.
from the top of my head (although there are numerous others) i firstly think of the strategic bomb survey of '46. if even the US military itself says in hindsight that it wasn't necessary it should get one thinking.
i know it's not how it's taught in american high school history, but on an academic level there is really not much of a discussion about it.
patriotism should not distort historic facts, but sadly, it happens every day.

If it's worth anything, that's what my history teacher taught my class, and I think he studied World War 2 at McGill.
Didn't Japan offer to surrender, but with a couple conditions, and get denied, then nuked? If my memory serves me right, they still actually got some of their conditions. The U.S just wanted to test that shit out on the Japs so they would be ready for the Reds.

 

[beastro]

In the War of 1812, it was unlikely that the Canadian militia had much effect in battle at all compared to the redcoats. They weren't invested in the war much at all, since the Americans were, to many Canadians at the time, friends and family. Additionally, most of these people were farmers, who just wanted to get back to their crops so their family doesn't starve to death. Perhaps the most condemning, they were barely trained at all, making them incompetent on the battlefield. Sir Isaac Brock, while maintaining in a speech that the contributions of the Canadian militia were valued, likely to increase morale, his own private journals say otherwise.

This shouldn't really deter from any pride Canadians have for winning this war, however, as Canada was a part of Britian at the time and so the British military was pretty much the military force of Canada, even though they were British.

The only people who try to separate the two are modern day Canadian nationalists who loath our ties to the Empire.

 

[kortin]

The movie 300 is a thorn in my side. As someone who had looked into the battle of Thermopylae, it got a little bit frustrating with the poor representation of the phalanx, giving the persians elephants, gunpowder, that massive guy, the last stand only containing 300 Spartans (when in reality, there was around two thousand people in the last stand), no mention of Admiral Themistocles, the reasoning for Spartans not sending the full force and the representation of Spartan training as being solely about strength, when in fact they were trained to win at all costs (the right of passage was to murder a slave without being caught, requiring stealth over brute force).

Annoyingly, there are people I know who believe that film was accurate.

Ever heard of tangential learning? 300 is commonly used as an example of tangential learning done right. Of course it's not accurate, but the movie is definitely entertaining in its own way and did inspire me (and hundreds of thousands of other people) to go look up the Battle of Thermopylae myself and learn about it.

 

[beastro]

americans claiming that the atomic bombs were necessary to defeat japan without an invasion. it's history revisionism at it's best, japan had already signaled willingness to surrender prior to the bombings but was ignored. the consensus among historians is pretty much that it was to field test those things and to intimidate the soviets, which were perceived as a growing threat.
also, slightly related: pretending like the germans would have won the war in europe without american assistance. no. just...no. (pacific is a different deal though)

Their willingness to surrender is irrelevant; even if it was the case. The Allies wanted Japan to surrender unconditionally. And I'm pretty sure that that criterion was not met by Japan's peace offer.

it actually was, with a single remark: they wished for the emperor to remain in office, as a point of national honor. this was accepted by the americans anyway, later after the surrender actually happened. so if it would have been really just about ending the war, they could have done it the week before already. in the japanese calculations around the actual surrender, btw, the nuclear bombing played only a very small role. the main reason for the japanese surrender was the soviet invasion of manchuria.

Okay, with all due respect i'm going to have to ask that you provide a credible source to back up what you're saying.

no offense taken, it's your right.
from the top of my head (although there are numerous others) i firstly think of the strategic bomb survey of '46. if even the US military itself says in hindsight that it wasn't necessary it should get one thinking.
i know it's not how it's taught in american high school history, but on an academic level there is really not much of a discussion about it.
patriotism should not distort historic facts, but sadly, it happens every day.

If it's worth anything, that's what my history teacher taught my class, and I think he studied World War 2 at McGill.
Didn't Japan offer to surrender, but with a couple conditions, and get denied, then nuked? If my memory serves me right, they still actually got some of their conditions. The U.S just wanted to test that shit out on the Japs so they would be ready for the Reds.

Japan demand a return to the state which existed before the war with their empire intact and no indemnities placed on them.

This was put forth through their embassy in the Soviet Union with the clear intention that they wanted this so they could recover and renew the war at a later date.

The Allies did not recognize the offers and rightly so, their only demand was unconditional surrender as they had placed before Germany and was done specifically with the intent of preventing what the Japanese leadership wanted for the post-war world.

 

[Mr_Spanky]

Look im not sure EXACTLY about the definitions of communism and facism but isnt it pretty contradictory to say that Hitler, probably the most famous fasict who ever lived) could have been communist but for a few small differences?

He basically wanted communism without the men doing the work getting the credit. It was a warped nationalism.

Honestly I think trying to "pin it down" like that is a mistake. Hitler, like just about every dictator that has ever existed, wanted power and didnt want to share it with anyone. Trying to exact his political motives from history and rumour is essentially impossible.

In the end communism and facism and most other dictatorships fail for the exact same reason. They are dictatorships. Every dictatorship ends. And the more the dictator wants to continue their rule the bloodier and nastier the war that comes after. Thats why democracy was invented so that there could be a smooth transistion of power from one dictatorship to the other. And it also gives the great masses the misguided impression that they have a genuine choice.

 

[beastro]

Look im not sure EXACTLY about the definitions of communism and facism but isnt it pretty contradictory to say that Hitler, probably the most famous fasict who ever lived) could have been communist but for a few small differences?

He basically wanted communism without the men doing the work getting the credit. It was a warped nationalism.

No, he wanted himself getting the credit.

Nazism was pure thuggery and beyond the pale of fascism which was competing ideology of the era.

Socialism was Hitler's competition and he either killed or locked them up until the socialist party was no longer the competition lol.

Democratic Socialists were or those National Socialists who placed "Socialist" before "National".

It's a whole 'nother can of worms to delve into the ideological roots of Fascism, especially since Hitler was so far divorced from them or really any political bend. He was purely totalitarian and wanted to be God to feed his fragile ego.

 

[beastro]

Look im not sure EXACTLY about the definitions of communism and facism but isnt it pretty contradictory to say that Hitler, probably the most famous fasict who ever lived) could have been communist but for a few small differences?

He basically wanted communism without the men doing the work getting the credit. It was a warped nationalism.

Honestly I think trying to "pin it down" like that is a mistake. Hitler, like just about every dictator that has ever existed, wanted power and didnt want to share it with anyone. Trying to exact his political motives from history and rumour is essentially impossible.

In the end communism and facism and most other dictatorships fail for the exact same reason. They are dictatorships. Every dictatorship ends. And the more the dictator wants to continue their rule the bloodier and nastier the war that comes after. Thats why democracy was invented so that there could be a smooth transistion of power from one dictatorship to the other. And it also gives the great masses the misguided impression that they have a genuine choice.

I'm fervently communist and believe it to be the great form of government one could have. Sadly, people treat it as a dictatorship (often at least a borderline military dictatorship, to boot) and its message is muddied.

There's never been true communism because people keep fucking it up lol. A girl can dream, though.

Yeah and there'll never be "true Communism" because it runs against the very fibre of human nature.

We are hierarchical creatures, you ignore hierarchy and you just wind up creating one with a happy dose of cognitive dissonance.

Of course, this is all lip service to you, since you've now gone from being a huge Hitler fan and his style of heavy hierarchy to being a Communist?

Please be more subtle with your trolling.

 

[Subscriptism]

Millions of women were burned during the inquisition.

Not true, the numbers are so far less, it was less than 10 in England alone.

 

[kortin]

I'm fervently communist and believe it to be the greatest form of government one could have. Sadly, people treat it as a dictatorship (often at least a borderline military dictatorship, to boot) and its message is muddied.

There's never been true communism because people keep fucking it up lol. A girl can dream, though.

True Communism is impossible. The human element will always screw it up. ALWAYS. It will never exist. Not while humans are still human.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

In the War of 1812, it was unlikely that the Canadian militia had much effect in battle at all compared to the redcoats. They weren't invested in the war much at all, since the Americans were, to many Canadians at the time, friends and family. Additionally, most of these people were farmers, who just wanted to get back to their crops so their family doesn't starve to death. Perhaps the most condemning, they were barely trained at all, making them incompetent on the battlefield. Sir Isaac Brock, while maintaining in a speech that the contributions of the Canadian militia were valued, likely to increase morale, his own private journals say otherwise.

This shouldn't really deter from any pride Canadians have for winning this war, however, as Canada was a part of Britian at the time and so the British military was pretty much the military force of Canada, even though they were British.

The only people who try to separate the two are modern day Canadian nationalists who loath our ties to the Empire.

I "try to seperate the two" and I don't "loathe our ties to the Empire" (I find the current traditions regarding Britain a bit unnecessary, since we aren't a part of the empire in any practical way anymore, but again, I don't care that much).

 

[snappydog]

Well, this thread seems to have gone the way of Godwin's Law taken to its extreme..
Still, I'll weigh in on that as well.
Nietzsche's views and ideologies do not correspond with those of the Nazis. His sister sympathised with them and twisted his works somewhat.

In other news, the idea that Gaius Julius Caesar was ever emperor of Rome seems popular, but he never was. Neither (officially) was Augustus.

 

[Mr_Spanky]

Look im not sure EXACTLY about the definitions of communism and facism but isnt it pretty contradictory to say that Hitler, probably the most famous fasict who ever lived) could have been communist but for a few small differences?

He basically wanted communism without the men doing the work getting the credit. It was a warped nationalism.

Honestly I think trying to "pin it down" like that is a mistake. Hitler, like just about every dictator that has ever existed, wanted power and didnt want to share it with anyone. Trying to exact his political motives from history and rumour is essentially impossible.

In the end communism and facism and most other dictatorships fail for the exact same reason. They are dictatorships. Every dictatorship ends. And the more the dictator wants to continue their rule the bloodier and nastier the war that comes after. Thats why democracy was invented so that there could be a smooth transistion of power from one dictatorship to the other. And it also gives the great masses the misguided impression that they have a genuine choice.

I'm fervently communist and believe it to be the great form of government one could have. Sadly, people treat it as a dictatorship (often at least a borderline military dictatorship, to boot) and its message is muddied.

There's never been true communism because people keep fucking it up lol. A girl can dream, though.

I completely agree on that. Communism would be the good way to run a society but it requires those who govern to be utterly selfless and make judgements based on the greater good of the people rather than on ANY of their own personal beliefs. Bad people for the job are already corrupt and most good people dont get there. The good people who DO get to the top of the greasy pole end up not being good people anymore.

Perhaps im too cynical but I genuinely dont think that ANY political regime can be good because its always run by a man or woman. Apart from the fact that the people who want power the most are the least appropriate ones to handle it. Men and women are human. The only things that seperates you and me from the position of US preseident of Galatic overload is ambition and oppurtunity.

Ambitious people want power and will sacrifice most things (or everything) to get it. That makes them more likely to get it. And then when they get there? MAYBE 1 in a thousand is a good decent kind of person. The rest are in it because theyre greedy (for money or power or whatever) and so make choices based on what THEY want.

No human society can be governed well and no human society can be GREAT (in my eyes) when you always get those kinds of people making the biggest descions.