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

[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.

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).

The Canada I loved long through a slow death because of that fact.

We have tried to replace our British heritage with something manufactured in opposition to it and it's soulless to me. I do not mind the domination of American culture in our lives with that in mind.

 

[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.

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.

It's about progress though, right? We've come a long way as a species over the last two thousand years--a long way. I believe we will achieve something like perfection eventually, and maybe not as far into the future as you'd think. Assuming we survive that long lol.

No, we haven't come a long way.

We are still the same creatures we were then and tens of thousands of years ago. The only thing that divides us from them is our collection and recorded knowledge and that is an extremely fragile thing. You lose that and it won't take many generations for state of civilization to irreparably degrade.

 

[beastro]

I completely agree on that. Communism would be the good way to run a society

No. It wouldn't.

I like property.

 

[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.

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.

It's about progress though, right? We've come a long way as a species over the last two thousand years--a long way. I believe we will achieve something like perfection eventually, and maybe not as far into the future as you'd think. Assuming we survive that long lol.

No, we haven't come a long way.

We are still the same creatures we were then and tens of thousands of years ago. The only thing that divides us from them is our collection and recorded knowledge and that is an extremely fragile thing. You lose that and it won't take many generations for state of civilization to irreparably degrade.

Um, "tens of thousands of years ago" we were barely human. Hell, not much longer than ten thousands years ago we only just began farming. You want to go back "tens" of thousands? Yeah, okay, you go Google what humans were like a good thirty thousand years ago and see if there's much of a difference between them and your average American lol.

You really have to learn that subtlety is a key facet of good trolling.

 

[FoolKiller]

Lol.

This thread is the definition of ironic. All of history that is recorded is biased in many ways. Just read all the posts that have competing theories.

For my two cents worth, the US was more or less irrelevant in victory of the European front. The bigger issue for them was to make sure that the Russians didn't get further than they already did.

Considering that they weren't an issue with United States interests until the post-war started to become a forming reality and containing an expansionist Nazi Germany was the primary reason they got involved on the Allied side from the start, I find that an amusing view on the war.

Care to elaborate?

Nope. Not at all.

But this is my point. It's all biased based on the author and the victor. But its also amusing to believe that the cold war started after WWII.

 

[Da Orky Man]

America is responsible for winning World War II/America had nothing to do with winning World War II.

That's right, those are both false. Britain was holding out against Germany and Italy, this is true. Russia dedicated a lot of manpower, and the failed invasion of Russia weakened Germany, also true.

However, Britain didn't have the resources to fight against Japan. Meanwhile, Russia lost a lot of manpower in that failed invasion, so they would have had problems with an attack on Japan as well.

On top of that, without the atomic bombs that the U.S. developed, the back-up invasion plan would have resulted in many more deaths on both sides.

So it's not true that America is the only reason the Allies won World War II, but they were a large help.

Just before Germany surrendered, London got hit by a Vengance missile, the first ever interballistic missile. Churchill and Stalin were still at each others throats (they absolutely haaaaated each other) and Japan was doing pretty well for itself in the East. Even ignoring the huge amounts of money and munitions the States gave to the allies before entering, anyone who says the war would of been won without the States is vastly overestimating the capabilities of the other allies nations.

There was no such thing as a Vengeance missile. What i presume you mean is the Vergeltungswaffe 2 rocket, translated as 'retaliatory weapon 2', better known as the V-2.

Now, according to Wikipeida, 12,000 labourers were killed making the V2s, 5200 were completed and, in total, killed 7,250 Brits.

Yeah, they weren't much of a threat.

 

[beastro]

Lol.

This thread is the definition of ironic. All of history that is recorded is biased in many ways. Just read all the posts that have competing theories.

For my two cents worth, the US was more or less irrelevant in victory of the European front. The bigger issue for them was to make sure that the Russians didn't get further than they already did.

Considering that they weren't an issue with United States interests until the post-war started to become a forming reality and containing an expansionist Nazi Germany was the primary reason they got involved on the Allied side from the start, I find that an amusing view on the war.

Care to elaborate?

Nope. Not at all.

But this is my point. It's all biased based on the author and the victor. But its also amusing to believe that the cold war started after WWII.

Oh, that would be an amusing idea, just like asserting that it started before the war began.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

My uncle told me something about how Abraham Lincoln was actually really racist or something. No idea if that's true or not but it seemed far fetched to me so I just agreed with him so he'd shut up.

I don't know about racism, but he certainly wasn't trying to be the "Great Emancipator" he's known for being today.

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union." (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)

This isn't the first time I've pulled up this quote. Last year, a friend of mine and I started talking about presidents (for some reason) and he said, I shit you not, "Abraham Lincoln was probably the greatest president. He freed the slaves and crippled the South's economy for all the horrible things they did."

It's funny how we paint history with such fanciful colors.

 

[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).

The Canada I loved long through a slow death because of that fact.

We have tried to replace our British heritage with something manufactured in opposition to it and it's soulless to me. I do not mind the domination of American culture in our lives with that in mind.

Okay, perhaps I should explain what I meant by "Canadian militia". I didn't mean that they were "Canadians" in the modern sense, I called them that to differentiate them from redcoats (the official British military) as the militia made up of people that lived in Canada at the time. They were, however, still mostly British in identity.

 

[Dogstile]

Hitler is portrayed inaccurately in most historical accounts. There. Done.

Great job, wasn't so hard, was it?

Now back up what you are saying with factual information from a credible source that utilizes proper citations.

I didn't know we were required to do that. I was just following your lead;

Not sure if this is common knowledge or not but for a brief time, America did have it's own little empire. It didn't come close to the size of say The british empire, but up until the end of world war two I believe, with a few minor exceptions with things like the panama canal, America did indeed impose itself on other people for economic gain.

Or are there credible sources and citations in there that I can't see?

You provide sources when called out on, such as now. Here i'll give you one:

http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/mod/1901platt.asp

Your turn.

Oh, you're not going to do it for any of your other comments? Also, what about citations? I only see a source there. It's almost like you're making this up as you go.

Oops, my baaaad!

http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/etd_hon_theses/123/

There you are, now, once more. Your turn.

Edit: Furthermore, i'll provide support for other posts when called upon, but don't let that distract you from your complete lack of support for anything you have said thus far. ;P

Since when was one student's thesis a go-to citation worth... anything? If you're going to try and hold me to your rules, you have to do better than that.

It's worth more than the opinion of someone on an internet forum, which is what you're using to display your 'facts.'

So if the student had posted the exact same information "on an internet forum" it'd now be worth less? Your logic is flawed.

You asked for citations and proof, you are meant to respond in kind. If you cannot respond in kind, then you lose. That's how your request works. What you are doing is looking at the proof and saying "that doesn't count" constantly.

Its infuriating reading your posts, because you dismiss what everyone else is saying while bringing up no points other than opinion so you can't be disproved. Either argue the same way that you require everyone else to argue, or don't argue.

OT: I'm gonna have to go with Columbus "discovering America". Vikings were their first, they just got beat back by the natives, who at the time were so numerous it was probably like trying to carve your way through a wall of flesh that has weapons to hit you back with.

 

[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.

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).

The Canada I loved long through a slow death because of that fact.

We have tried to replace our British heritage with something manufactured in opposition to it and it's soulless to me. I do not mind the domination of American culture in our lives with that in mind.

Okay, perhaps I should explain what I meant by "Canadian militia". I didn't mean that they were "Canadians" in the modern sense, I called them that to differentiate them from redcoats (the official British military) as the militia made up of people that lived in Canada at the time. They were, however, still mostly British in identity.

Oh I know what you mean perfectly. What I enjoy the most is the level the Quebecers are trumpeted up to when it comes to the Militia Myth.

 

[Da Orky Man]

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.

I was one of those few who knew a fair bit about Thermopylae before watching 300.
As for the movie itself, it's a rather well-done battle movie, though anyone who believes it to be at least a semi-accurate retelling is likely to have replaced their brain with cauliflower cheese.

 

[beastro]

I was one of those few who knew a fair bit about Thermopylae before watching 300.
As for the movie itself, it's a rather well-done battle movie, though anyone who believes it to be at least a semi-accurate retelling is likely to have replaced their brain with cauliflower cheese.

Pro tip: Do not learn about history from TV, movies and video games.

Dramatic license will always come before accuracy.

 

[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.

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.

It's about progress though, right? We've come a long way as a species over the last two thousand years--a long way. I believe we will achieve something like perfection eventually, and maybe not as far into the future as you'd think. Assuming we survive that long lol.

No, we haven't come a long way.

We are still the same creatures we were then and tens of thousands of years ago. The only thing that divides us from them is our collection and recorded knowledge and that is an extremely fragile thing. You lose that and it won't take many generations for state of civilization to irreparably degrade.

Um, "tens of thousands of years ago" we were barely human. Hell, not much longer than ten thousands years ago we only just began farming. You want to go back "tens" of thousands? Yeah, okay, you go Google what humans were like a good thirty thousand years ago and see if there's much of a difference between them and your average American lol.

You really have to learn that subtlety is a key facet of good trolling.

Just a quick heads up: calling someone a troll or accusing someone of trolling is against the rules. You've done it a few times already. Informing you so you can stop. I don't know if mods warn each instance or what, but yeah.

Then please think before posting. Many of the things which you've posted on here, especially you're early comments about Hitler, are extremely inflammatory.

Also, how can one not assume someone is a troll when they first claim to admire and support strong leader of the type like Adolf Hitler and then turn around and claim that they're a Communist, a political ideology that is strictly anti-hierarchical in nature?

 

[DeltaEdge]

Columbus was a huge dick who would have your hands cut off if you didn't meet certain quotas.