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

[Froggy Slayer]

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.

300 gets a free pass with me for being ridiculously stylised. Though anyone thinks that it accurately reflects history is an idiot.

 

[PureChaos]

Hitler may not have only had one testicle. Only 1 person during WWI stated he did but none of his medical records after then made any reference to it whatsoever. Even his private physician never mentioned it. Although it can't be proven to be false, it can't be proven to be true either

 

[Evil Smurf]

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.

300 gets a free pass with me for being ridiculously stylised. Though anyone thinks that it accurately reflects history is an idiot.

I love the movie because it glorifies war and I can use this as an example of what not to do

 

[C. Cain]

Very well put, though Normandy was, IIRC, a joint British-American attack, with little in the way of Russian assistance. I could be wrong, though.

I concur with SckizoBoy. Germany had already lost by that point.
Anyhow. The US played some part on the Eastern FrontNotice: Eastern Front does not mean Pacific Theatre. The latter was essentially won by the US alone. , albeit indirectly. They provided the USSR with quite a few lorries, if memory serves. This had two major effects:

- Better logistics for the Soviets.And logistics are one of the most important aspects of any war.
- The Soviets could concentrate their resources on producing weapons.

That said, however, I'm still quite certain that the USSR would have won in the long run, irrespective of the US' intervention. Germany had just too many problems. Too much land to occupy, their supply lines were exposed and too long, too many partisan threatening said supply lines, a horrendous resource allocation, a fragile economy... And so on.

 

[Frission]

Hitler may not have only had one testicle. Only 1 person during WWI stated he did but none of his medical records after then made any reference to it whatsoever. Even his private physician never mentioned it. Although it can't be proven to be false, it can't be proven to be true either

...

I never heard about that.

No wonder the guy was so mad.

 

[C. Cain]

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.

 

[chadachada123]

I don't want to include anything that has already been said, so I guess I'll include some personal annoyances:

Darwin did not turn to Christianity while on his death bed.

Christopher Columbus did not discover North America. He rediscovered it several hundred years after the Vikings. EDIT: Because a bunch of people are whiny pedants, let me amend this statement: I FUCKING KNOW THAT THE NATIVE AMERICANS GOT THERE FIRST. The first non-native people to find, oh, hey, another fucking continent outside of the ones we already know, was the Vikings. They, for all intents and purposes, 'discovered' North America.

The Constitutional Convention did not open with a prayer.

Thomas Jefferson, while owning slaves, was not pro-slavery, and drafted plenty of legislation that stopped the importation of slaves and the like, and made his state the first to stop importation of slaves from Africa.

Many/most of the founding fathers were deistic, and not strictly Christian.

 

[Kathinka]

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.

 

[Kathinka]

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.

 

[Supertegwyn]

Hitler may not have only had one testicle. Only 1 person during WWI stated he did but none of his medical records after then made any reference to it whatsoever. Even his private physician never mentioned it. Although it can't be proven to be false, it can't be proven to be true either

That isn't even a fact. There is a song, "Hitler Has Only Got One Ball" that created that myth.

The first one I could think of was that Napoleon was short. He wasn't, 5'7" was average for his time and he was seen in public with his guards who were well above average.

It was due to confusion in French units, as he was 5'2" in French measure... Nelson was the short one: 5'4".

No, it was British propaganda against the French. The British wanted to slander Napoleon's name, so they decided to make him short.

Edison didnt invent shit.

Linchon didn't give a fuck about slaves

The Americans were being a bit unreasonable about the whole Revolutionary war thing.

Who is this Linchon hey?


OT: MacArthur wasn't a crazy general, neither was he a tactical genius. Some of his plans worked fantastically (the landings at Inchon) while others (Yalu river) failed dramatically.

 

[Arakasi]

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 will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races ? that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

Yeeep. He was racist.
But so was almost everyone in is time. The moral zeitgeist marches on.

 

[Kathinka]

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.

Again, I know America has been capable of things like this before, so it's not like I hold any delusions of perfect innocence or something, and i'm not saying that you're making it all up as you go, but I would really prefer this info be backed by something more tangible than your memory, i'm really not comfortable with taking your word on something like this.

i understand that, and what i said was not directed at you, sorry for the confusion. i meant it more as a general statement about historic understanding. not in relation to this exchange right here.
as for sources, you probably missed that bit up there in my earlyer post:

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.

the strategic bomb survey is a very good source to start, but there is of course a ton of additional literature on the subject. you could even go down as far as original research, if literature alone isn't enough. there is pretty detailed documents around the japanese dispute and reasoning behind the surrender.

 

[Spineyguy]

The Puritan settlers to America from Britain were not seeking refuge from religious persecution, the Puritan movement had been trying to 'purify' the Church of England at the time, and when that didn't work they started to look for alternatives. Many Puritans held the belief that theirs should be the only religion, a sentiment which was not echoed in England, where a relatively diverse range of faiths existed. Roughly 20,000 Puritans set sale for the Americas in search of a land where they could have the monopoly on faith. Puritans especially disliked Quakers, such that Mary Dyer was hanged on Boston Common in 1660 purely because of her religion. Dyer is still held up as an exemplary martyr for Quakers today.

Escape from persecution my arse, the puritans went to America so that they could persecute.

They also didn't go on the Mayflower, nor did they land at Plymouth Rock.