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

[Ryotknife]

Depending on what you see as "history", Jesus Christ wasn't a handsome, white, long-haired, bearded man. He was middle-eastern and would have had darker skin. Not sure about the hair and handsomeness though.

I think the image of a white Jesus only exists in the minds of those from European descent, particularly Americans.

Kind of weird when you think about it. I mean, the guy kind of lived in the Middle East. Why would he be white >_>

why the hell do we get blamed for everything -_-.

white jesus has been around longer than our nation has.

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

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

Do you have any proof of that?

 

[Ihateregistering1]

"Braveheart" is a load of manure, and about as historically authentic as "300" was.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

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.

Is that what they were called? Never knew that. Are they called Vengeance missiles for slang or something then? I have definitely heard the term being thrown around a lot, even by some of my history professors.

Regardless, Britain was pretty much on it's heels by the this point in the war. Considering that our largest advantage was the Channel separating us from the mainland and a frickin' huge Navy to protect it, I'm hesitant to dismiss a weapon that can entirely bypass that.

The V2 was mainly a weapon to damage Britain's morale. It was targeted at London, and would scream while the jet engine was on so that people knew it was coming, then when it dropped down to hit the earth the engine would cut out and the screaming would stop. For anyone on the ground hearing this it was a massive strain on the nerves, as you knew it was coming, knew when it was about to go off, but couldn't tell where it was. And this was happening maybe multiple times a day.
The downside was that it could be detected and intercepted by the RAF or anti air implacements, so many were shot out of the sky, it was really inaccurate and unreliable, and it was really costly to the Nazis in material, money and men, which at this stage of the war they could not afford.

In fact the biggest problem the Nazis faced was supplies. They actually had the best quality planes (first serviceable jet aircraft) the best ships (the Bismark) best tanks (The king tiger) and even the best guns (STG44 - Predecessor to the modern assault rifle) But they did not have the materials or fuel to produce and supply enough of these to beat the combined Allied forces, made up of Russians, Americans, British, Canadian, Australian, etc. etc. etc...
On the Eastern Front, for every Nazi tank the Russians destroyed, the Nazis took out 3 Russian tanks, but because of the numbers difference, they would have had to have that ratio at 1/20 to actually ruin the Russians store of tanks.

Finally, the Nazis actually got really close to beating Russia. When they invaded, in the first week their tanks travelled 300 miles and completed all their objectives, in the second week they travelled another 300 miles and were doing so well that Hitler was actually going a bit crazy at the fact nothing had gone wrong, and his paranoia nearly made him dick everything up by wanting them to retreat because they'd managed to bypass millions of Russian soldiers who now lay between the frontline tanks and the German border. They had 300 miles to go to reach Moscow, Stalin was so surprised that he hadn't even ordered an evacuation of the city, so all major functions of the country were still being run out of the city.
Moscow was 300 miles away from Russia, and there was a clear run to it. Not a Soviet soldier in sight. In a week they'd have been finished.
At this point the winter was just starting to set in, and in Russia the seasonal weather really changes fast. Hitlers' paranoia led him to stop his tanks advance on Moscow to divert them North to help out the secondary Nazi advance line in Leningrad, who were a bit bogged down. They went up there, secured Leningrad after a few days, were about to resume the advance to Moscow, and discovered Stalin had got his act together and launched everything he had at the Nazis. The weather deteriorated, and the Nazis had no winter gear, their vehicles were not cold-proof, and their supply lines were too long and stretched to work.

In short, if Hitler hadn't been a mad paranoid idiot, and diverted his main attack to help out a (not very important) secondary offence that wasn't in any severe danger of harming the invasion if it failed, then he would have been in Moscow before Stalin could have evacuated all his staff from it, and Russia would have had to surrender. (Stalin had made Moscow the absolute seat of all power in Russia, everything was controlled from that one city: all the trainlines ran through Moscow to get to everywhere else in the country, for example. Without it Russia were screwed and could not keep fighting as a country.)

-snip-

When I first saw your posts on these forums I thought you were really polite and nice, now look at you, talking about how great a guy Hitler was. For shame.

Just out of pure morbid curiosity, what exactly are the attributes and actions of Hitler that you admire? Because with all the ranting and raving at you no ones actually bothered to ask that. We really suck at properly debating here.

 

[Nadia Castle]

"I hate it when people glorify tribal socities, that they were perfet and living together with the nature in harmony etc.

In general I hate it when people glorify the past, whether it's hippies and 'natural' ways of life or right-wingers and the utopia of 50-American family."

Amen to that, but damn you for summing up my post in two sentences

 

[Nadia Castle]

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

Do you have any proof of that?"

If you read Mein Kampf Hitler makes tons of references to his 'god given right' and the 'devine germanic nation'.

Actually it's probably worth adding that Mein Kampf isn't the satanic bible people somehow believe it to be but more of a badly written celebrity autobiography written by someone with ten minuets of fame. That's right, one of the most reviled books in history has more in common with the tat filling up bargain bins.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

To be fair, it was written by Frank Miller originally. He's best known for that series of documentaries about Batman.

 

[Lethos]

Another weapon that could bypass the Channel was the bomber aircraft, with which the Germans did a fair bit of damage. However, the RAF managed to fend off the Luftwaffe quite effectively, eliminating much of the threat from the air.

But an unmanned missile is something new. I'm not even going to pretend to be a military historian though (international relations is more my thing), so I concede to your superior knowledge in this area.

SnippidySnipSnip

This was very interesting and a very good read. Thanks for the informative post. Interesting that Napoleon was so determined to capture Moscow when it didn't really matter, yet Hitler didn't push for capturing Moscow when it did matter.

 

[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

The rumour came from the fact he had been a choir boy, and it was common practise back then to cut off a testicle to keep your voice high. Buuut, it wasn't done to all and we don't know if He had. It would explain why he was so pissed off all the time.

That's a new one, never heard of that happening...ever. Every other source I've looked into said it was during the Battle of Somme in WWI where he sustained a groin injuring causing the loss of one testicle.

 

[Baldry]

I am a big fan of history, I love reading about it, and learning new things. However, this love of history has lead to me getting annoyed when people start saying things that aren't really true, bust have been sold to them as truth. For example, when people talk about Richard the lionheart, people often talk about him as if he had some great love for England, or that he was a good king. Neither of these are actually true, Richard the Lionheart hated England he hated how rainy and cold it was, he spent something like 6 months of his reign in England although a big portion of that was because he was off killing Muslims in the Third Crusade. In addition he didn't even speak English, preferring to speak French (His mother was French and he much preferred France to England). He also left England with tons of debts, forcing his brother to clean up the mess.

Yeah because John was such an amazing king. Also it's debatable as to if he was a good king. Personally I think he was he just died too soon. One of the reasons he wasn't in England was because John fucked him over, teamed up with Phillip and gave him a shit load of Angevin land while Richard was still on the Crusade that Phillip had left due to him being upstaged by Richard. If Phillip hadn't left, Richard would've continued onto beat Saladin at Jerusalem. Saladin even says this himself, his army was fed up, they wanted to leave and go back to their families. Also your forgetting the fact Richard got kidnapped by the Germans(or Austrians I forget) and was unable to leave until England paid the ransom. Once he returned he had to clean up the trouble that John had caused and was doing a good job at it until he died. He left England in secure hands of his counsel and don't you think if England was annoyed at him taking money to fight wars they would've done something, the lack of rebellions shows England was quite content with Richard. I personally think that if he hadn't died England would be a little bit bigger then it is today.

On topic, I had a good one but just forgot it...Fuck.

That's just not true. He was a shitty king who used his kingdom in England to raise money for his wars. He spent 6 months in England during his ten year reign and was quoted as sayong both that he hated England because it was "cold and always raining" and in raising money for the crusades, he is reported as saying that "[He] would have sold London if [he] could find a buyer." The fact is that he was a shitty king, though he was a great warrior. THe only reason England might be bigger today is if he had done some conquering to get away from the cold and wetness of England.

Yes he used England to finance his battles, but they were okay with it, he was a hero of the crusades and the government he had left in charge of England while he was fighting worked amazingly. Also don't most people usually complain about the cold and rain of England and even then that quote was most likely meant to be a joke. I'm not saying he didn't exploit England for all he could, he did, but the people didn't mind because they liked him, people don't like shitty leaders. Though I reckon the point your trying to make is that he was a shit king of England and I'm arguing that he was a good leader in general. The way I see it Richard was concerned with all his lands, not just England or France and if he wasn't struck down only ten years into his reign we'd be able to see what would've happened with England.

 

[SextusMaximus]

Watch the Penn and Teller's Bullshit episode on this guy to find out some more.

From the same episode:

Mother Theresa didn't do shit to help people, apparently. The wards that they set up were just there for people to die in, not get better.

The only other thing I know is that St. George wasn't English, but Roman (I think - certainly not English, though).

YES the mother teresa thing!

St George I believe is Welsh btw, despite being patron of England.

EDIT: Way wrong apparently, he was Syrian (from Syria under Roman rule as you say)

 

[sapphireofthesea]

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.

Lots being said here. Japan was ultra nationalistic at the time. It took a direct order from the Emperor, after the devastation of 2 Nuclear attacks (the first assumed a fluke) before the government would properly consider surrender. Okinawa showed the Japanese populations personal desire not to surrender (with civilians actively charging American lines with deadly weapons.
And remember, Japan had taken other countries land and would be capable of doing so again. American was just in expecting a return of all gains and an unconditional surrender, in the real world this saves lives as WW2 showed the world that paper agreements didn't work well enough at the time.

Would give source but was a long time ago that I read that book covering Meiji restoration to modern day (social and political changes). Ultra Nationalism btw can be thought of as the generally accepted Samurai Code (never give up never surrender, give life for country), both the government and the people as a result of war time (everyone did it, UK and US as well) social tinkering.
Also, rule 1 of any war back then, if it can save the lives of your own people (in this case somewhere in the region of 100-300k then it is more than worth it). It is also worth mentioning based on the Okinawan experience, they estimated Japanese civilian losses would be in excess of the Jews killed by Germany (1-3mil). Appropriate forewarning was given as well, which was ignored.

(That was long, if anyone is really hung up on sources I could try and dig them up)

 

[Nikolaz72]

I think Hitler was a great leader. He did a few things during the 30's that he shouldn't have (like dissolving the SA with a knife and locking up the socialists) but underneath the mess there was a fantastic leader. He gets misrepresented and demonized much more than he might deserve.

If he hadn't come into power during the depression, if the upper class had been slightly more varied in ethnic makeup, if the socialists didn't cave to public pressure and open the door for him... Under different circumstances, Hitler may have been the greatest leader Germany had ever known.

Many of hitler's plans and laws were really only beneficial in the short term, If he had not decided to go to war, eventually Germany would have sunk right back into destitution because hitler's leadership was generally lacking in foresight.

I'll say we disagree and leave it at that.

All of Germany's temporary economical boost was build on borrowed money that he never intended to pay back. As such he was a crappy leader, anyone can manage to borrow money and refuse to return it and then start a war against the country you borrowed money from. But as said before, it is not gonna work in the long term in terms of economical policies.

You cannot disagree with facts as it has nothing to do with opinions.

 

[Sneezeburger]

I know its not exactly a fact; but i hate how the movie V for Vendetta was taken so seriously after these latest wikileaks/anon outbursts. I ACTAULY heard someone say 'wikileaks is awesome just watch vfv and you'll see'.

Guy Fawkes was not a hero.


That said its a fucking brilliant film, just don't heroworship it. Its embaressing for real fans, i mentioned it once to someone when asked my fav films and there were like 'woo anon'.
Ugh

 

[weirdsoup]

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.

But 300 isn't SUPPOSED to be historically accurate. It's SUPPOSED to be a propaganda story about Spartan heroism told to the Spartan army on the eve of a battle to get them pumped up. But I can understand the idiocy of those who think it's accurate.

The whole "Columbus proved the world was round" thing annoys me. That was not the reason for his voyage. He set off to prove you could get to the Indies by going west, rather than going by east. The knowledge that the earth was round was known as far back in ancient Greece. Aristotle said it was round in about 330BC. And it was still common knowledge in Columbus' time. The main reason people didn't go west was no one knew about the Americas and assumed that there was nothing but a massive ocean that was too far to cross.

As for America's involvement in WW2, well for what ever good they did at the END of the war, they were quite happy to pump money into the Germany economy under the Nazi and thus help facilitate the war.

There's the whole Hollywood re-write of the WW2 suggesting that there's was only the Americans fighting the evil Nazis which is also annoying but has been done to death on this thread already. But they're not alone in hatchet job histories. Shakespeare was greatly guilty of this in several of his plays, probably most famously in Richard III. In the play, Richard is portrayed as a deformed, power-mad monster who kidnaps and murders his nephews in order to seize the throne. History is a little different. Richard was not deformed and was in fact and excellent solider and general who was deeply loyal to his older brother Edward IV. He was made Lord Protector on Edward's death and moved his nephews to the Tower of London (at the time, this was the royal residence, not a prison as it became under the Tudors)to ensure their safety. He was later informed that Edward IV's marriage was invalid making Richard's nephews bastards and making him the rightful king. He may have killed the boys or he may not, however it's just as likely that Henry VII had them killed as they would likely have been damaging to his shakey claim to the throne.

 

[weirdsoup]

Guy Fawkes was not a hero.

No, he was a terrorist. He and the the rest of the conspirators we motivated by religion (themselves being Catholic) and planned to kill the Protestant King James.

In fact, the current anti-terrorism laws in England make it illegal to venerate or celebrate a terrorist, which kind of makes the whole 5th November celebrations a little suspect

 

[Lord Quirk]

Abraham Lincoln didn't hunt vampires.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Guy Fawkes was not a hero.

No, he was a terrorist. He and the the rest of the conspirators we motivated by religion (themselves being Catholic) and planned to kill the Protestant King James.

In fact, the current anti-terrorism laws in England make it illegal to venerate or celebrate a terrorist, which kind of makes the whole 5th November celebrations a little suspect

The 5th November doesn't celebrate Guy Fawkes, that's something V for Vendetta gets completely wrong. In England they burn bonfires with Guy Fawkes on the bonfire!

They celebrate the capture and execution of an anarchist that tried to kill the King. It's a message against Guy Fawkes and against terrorists, basically saying mess with us and we'll kill your body and ridicule your name for the rest of eternity.

Remember Remember the fifth of November,
Gunpowder, treason, and plot!
I see no reason why gunpowder treason
should ever be forgot.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

And if your profile is right, you're Australian.

Please do not tell Germans who their best leader was. Whoever it was (Bismarck, ffs!), it was NOT Hitler. This is just insulting.

Please don't tell Australians what to think of German leaders.

See, that can work both ways.

But I do not insult you asking you not to do this.

You actually managed to offend me. This does not happen often.

If you take offense to someone saying which political figure they feel could have made the best leader of a country under different circumstances, you're far too sensitive.

My family was almost destroyed by World War 2, and I hold Hitler directly responsible for that.
This is more than that and you know it. Don't try and bullshit your way out of your insane claims.

While sad, I don't see how that has any bearing on my opinion that he could have been a terrific leader under different circumstances.

He wouldn't have been. Everyone has already pointed that out to you. He left Central Europe and Eastern Europe completely ravaged and impoverished. His policies led not only to the deaths of millions of soldiers, but also hundreds of millions of his own civilians, both Jewish and non-Jewish (And for the record, many of the non-jews were executed without the right to trial or even any evidence against them), his leadership lead to a divided europe for several decades, has made the German people both apologetic and greatly impoverished due to the fact that their economy was in shambles and please don't even try to say "ya, but if so-so happened..." because History doesn't work that way. You need judge the man on what he did in his leadership, not create fictitious scenarios in which he might have been better.

If you can't look at how his leadership unfolded and say it was positive, then he was not a positive leader. Please do not make excuses for a genocidal maniac's crazy rule.