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

[GrimTuesday]

Hilter was a fucking genius, you just have to ignore:

Most, if not ALL of the the economic policies!

Most, if not ALL of his personality1

The fact he ignored ALL of the opinions from his advisers!

The fact that he was notoriously lazy (Not do ALL of the evil dictatoring!)

Yet he insisted on doing so much (Do ALL of the things!)

If you're wondering, I'm Australian.

So, just ignore that he was Hitler?

Basically. I was mocking Boudica.

Oh, sorry. Missed the joke.
Also, Serbia caused WW1. Germany was just fufilling treaties.

I'd go with Austria-Hungary. They should have realised that annexing the recently independent Bosnia would cause trouble. I mean, do you think that people living there, having just gained their freedom from the Turks, would just accept Germanic overlords? They really should have known better.

But the Serbs hired the guy to kill Arch-Duke Ferdinand hoping to provoke the Austria-Hungarian Empire, and in the end cause it's destruction.

They actually didn't hire anyone, the guy who assassinated him was a member of a pro Serbian Independence movement called the Black Hand. The Serbian Government refused to allow the Austria-Hungarians in to search for the terrorists, lest they never leave and that's why they went to war.

 

[Hellcat 13]

Hilter was a fucking genius, you just have to ignore:

Most, if not ALL of the the economic policies!

Most, if not ALL of his personality1

The fact he ignored ALL of the opinions from his advisers!

The fact that he was notoriously lazy (Not do ALL of the evil dictatoring!)

Yet he insisted on doing so much (Do ALL of the things!)

If you're wondering, I'm Australian.

So, just ignore that he was Hitler?

Basically. I was mocking Boudica.

Oh, sorry. Missed the joke.
Also, Serbia caused WW1. Germany was just fufilling treaties.

I'd go with Austria-Hungary. They should have realised that annexing the recently independent Bosnia would cause trouble. I mean, do you think that people living there, having just gained their freedom from the Turks, would just accept Germanic overlords? They really should have known better.

But the Serbs hired the guy to kill Arch-Duke Ferdinand hoping to provoke the Austria-Hungarian Empire, and in the end cause it's destruction.

They actually didn't hire anyone, the guy who assassinated him was a member of a pro Serbian Independence movement called the Black Hand. The Serbian Government refused to allow the Austria-Hungarians in to search for the terrorists, lest they never leave and that's why they went to war.

Revision: Hired was not the right word. The government new about the plan, but refused to stop it knowing it would provoke Austria-Hungary

 

[Barciad]

John Churchill and William Slim.
Neither of these are particularly famous, but without a shadow of a doubt are the finest two generals Britain has ever produced.
John Churchill (aka the Duke of Marlborough and an ancestor of Winston Churchill) fought and won the single most decisive land battle in British history. In 1704 at the Battle of Blenheim (in modern day Bavaria) he smashed the grand French army, fatally undermining Louis XIV's imperial ambitions.
Had the battle gone the other way then "all Europe might at this day suffer under the effect of French conquests resembling those of Alexander in extent and those of the Romans in durability" - Sir Edward Shepherd Creasy. Though in reality, the Bourbon Monarchy never regained their old vitality. It stuttered, stagnated, declined, and eventually imploded.
As for William 'Bill' Slim. His was a ultimate army on a shoe string. With few numbers, little material, a viciously long supply chain, and not much sympathy from up top, he pulled off a military miracle. He was what is often referred to as 'A soldier's soldier'. One effectively that came from a relatively humble background, had risen through the ranks by virtue of sheer ability, and thus understood the daily travails of the average Tommy.
In '44 he saved India at Imphal, then he went onto the attack, finally taking Rangoon in '45. This remember being with forces that were always bottom of the priorities list when it came to men and materials. Plus as Max Hastings once remarked:-
"In contrast to almost every other outstanding commander of the war, Slim was a disarmingly normal human being, possessed of notable self-knowledge. He was without pretension, devoted to his wife, Aileen, their family and the Indian Army. His calm, robust style of leadership and concern for the interests of his men won the admiration of all who served under him ... His blunt honesty, lack of bombast and unwillingness to play courtier did him few favours in the corridors of power. Only his soldiers never wavered in their devotion"
Top bloke.

 

[BNguyen]

As for WWII, it never ended.

The European theatre didn't end until 1990. In 1945, Germany was fractured and didn't exist as a country, only East Germany and West Germany, none of which were official combatants in the war. The peace treaty was only signed in 1990 after the Berlin wall came down and the country of Germany was reunited.

The pacific theatre never ended, Japan and Russia never signed peace agreements with each other and there is still and island in the pacific that both countries have troops stationed and neither are willing to give up, meaning WWII is still a currently active war.

technically that might be true if it really were a world war
A world war must involve the majority of global powers, so if only two or three nations are still having tiffs with each other, it can't be a world war,
that world war ended long ago

 

[beastro]

"Sir" Francis Drake was nothing but a pirate and a thief.

He was the Queen's man and that's all that mattered.

This was a time when the Royal Navy was still in it's infancy. The Crown relieved heavily on private citizens arming and crewing their ships which they offered for a Letter of Marque. They formed the mainstay of both their fleet ship wise and as flag officers.

This was nothing new. This was the time of the mercenary when stand armies didn't exist and wealthy commanders led bands of a few hundred men roam war to war offering their services to whomever was willing to pay. Why would it be any different at sea?

 

[BNguyen]

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 >_>

because it was a time in which the Roman Empire extended into the Middle East, thus a good portion would have to be of Roman descent and be white, and it would be more than likely that Jesus would be white. After all, Jesus wasn't born into a slave family that and the Romans utilized slaves back then who were either not from a neighboring empire and were not Roman, i.e. white

 

[Barciad]

Hilter was a fucking genius, you just have to ignore:

Most, if not ALL of the the economic policies!

Most, if not ALL of his personality1

The fact he ignored ALL of the opinions from his advisers!

The fact that he was notoriously lazy (Not do ALL of the evil dictatoring!)

Yet he insisted on doing so much (Do ALL of the things!)

If you're wondering, I'm Australian.

So, just ignore that he was Hitler?

Basically. I was mocking Boudica.

Oh, sorry. Missed the joke.
Also, Serbia caused WW1. Germany was just fufilling treaties.

I'd go with Austria-Hungary. They should have realised that annexing the recently independent Bosnia would cause trouble. I mean, do you think that people living there, having just gained their freedom from the Turks, would just accept Germanic overlords? They really should have known better.

But the Serbs hired the guy to kill Arch-Duke Ferdinand hoping to provoke the Austria-Hungarian Empire, and in the end cause it's destruction.

The Serbs never hired anyone. The ideology of the Black Hand was what would be referred to as 'Pan-Slavic Nationalism'. That is to say, a single, unified Slavic State, free of Turkic or Germanic control. Now what you a constantly forgetting is the nature of these Balkan states. Up until the 19th Century, they had all been part of the Turkic Ottoman Empire.
However, structural and military stagnation within the Ottoman Empire, combined with the advent of Nationalism (i.e. the idea of national identities) causes all these provinces (Greece, Rumania, Bulgaria, Serbia etc) one by one, to win their independence.
Princip and all the rest were not motivated my any notion of monetary gains, but rather nationalist zeal. The fact that they had been conquered again, just after throwing off the Turkic yoke must have infuriated them. Austria was playing with fire when it annexed Bosnia, and it should have known better.

 

[AMMO Kid]

There really were no "Dark Ages" in the Christian West or "Cultural Explosion" in the Muslim East. The fact is that the West invented and developed all sort of amazing new agricultural, military, and scholarly advancements during the "Dark Ages" while the Muslim countries just stole all their technology and culture from the nations they conquered. This also explains why their technology became obsolete so quickly (behind Europe), because they did not make any advances on it.

 

[Hellcat 13]

Hilter was a fucking genius, you just have to ignore:

Most, if not ALL of the the economic policies!

Most, if not ALL of his personality1

The fact he ignored ALL of the opinions from his advisers!

The fact that he was notoriously lazy (Not do ALL of the evil dictatoring!)

Yet he insisted on doing so much (Do ALL of the things!)

If you're wondering, I'm Australian.

So, just ignore that he was Hitler?

Basically. I was mocking Boudica.

Oh, sorry. Missed the joke.
Also, Serbia caused WW1. Germany was just fufilling treaties.

I'd go with Austria-Hungary. They should have realised that annexing the recently independent Bosnia would cause trouble. I mean, do you think that people living there, having just gained their freedom from the Turks, would just accept Germanic overlords? They really should have known better.

But the Serbs hired the guy to kill Arch-Duke Ferdinand hoping to provoke the Austria-Hungarian Empire, and in the end cause it's destruction.

The Serbs never hired anyone. The ideology of the Black Hand was what would be referred to as 'Pan-Slavic Nationalism'. That is to say, a single, unified Slavic State, free of Turkic or Germanic control. Now what you a constantly forgetting is the nature of these Balkan states. Up until the 19th Century, they had all been part of the Turkic Ottoman Empire.
However, structural and military stagnation within the Ottoman Empire, combined with the advent of Nationalism (i.e. the idea of national identities) causes all these provinces (Greece, Rumania, Bulgaria, Serbia etc) one by one, to win their independence.
Princip and all the rest were not motivated my any notion of monetary gains, but rather nationalist zeal. The fact that they had been conquered again, just after throwing off the Turkic yoke must have infuriated them. Austria was playing with fire when it annexed Bosnia, and it should have known better.

You missed the post where I revised the statement, saying that the Serbian government knew of the guy, but didn't stop him wanting to throw what became World War 1 into motion

 

[BNguyen]

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.

Uhh, you do realise that the entire movie is David Wenham's character telling a story to get the rest of the army's adrenaline pumping, right? It was never meant to be an accurate retelling, simply propaganda about how awesome those 300 Spartans were. It just really annoys me when people don't understand this and complain about the historical inaccuracies.

This ignores the slant of the comic and the movie which leans in a direct Frank Miller is quite well known for.

For starters, being one of the archetypical conservative Hellenes, a Spartan would never spin such a blasphemous tale to rouse the hearts of all of Greece - he'd most likely get beaten to death.

It doesn't matter what it ignores because it shows in the actual movie that that is what is happening, you can't just watch a movie and pick a scene and decide that bit didn't happen. The film IS an embellished story told my Delios to pump up the Spartan army. It shows in the movie that that's what it is and to deny that is to just ignore parts of the film.

And if that is the case then I stand by my my historical nitpicking and state that no Spartan would lace his story with such anti-religious undercurrents.

I understand what you're getting at, but I hate films which don't even pay lip service to historical accuracy and 300 makes no qualms about where it stands on that matter.

if you remember from the film, the oracle's translators were lecherous deformed men who were paid off by Xerxes and said to respect a holiday which would have allowed Xerxes ample time to invade and take over regardless if the Greeks had fought after the holiday.
What I don't understand is why you think someone's story, a piece of fiction, should even have to be historically accurate. It's be like saying every sci-fi book depicting humans is inaccurate because we haven't achieved that level of technology yet

 

[Barciad]

Hilter was a fucking genius, you just have to ignore:

Most, if not ALL of the the economic policies!

Most, if not ALL of his personality1

The fact he ignored ALL of the opinions from his advisers!

The fact that he was notoriously lazy (Not do ALL of the evil dictatoring!)

Yet he insisted on doing so much (Do ALL of the things!)

If you're wondering, I'm Australian.

So, just ignore that he was Hitler?

Basically. I was mocking Boudica.

Oh, sorry. Missed the joke.
Also, Serbia caused WW1. Germany was just fufilling treaties.

I'd go with Austria-Hungary. They should have realised that annexing the recently independent Bosnia would cause trouble. I mean, do you think that people living there, having just gained their freedom from the Turks, would just accept Germanic overlords? They really should have known better.

But the Serbs hired the guy to kill Arch-Duke Ferdinand hoping to provoke the Austria-Hungarian Empire, and in the end cause it's destruction.

The Serbs never hired anyone. The ideology of the Black Hand was what would be referred to as 'Pan-Slavic Nationalism'. That is to say, a single, unified Slavic State, free of Turkic or Germanic control. Now what you a constantly forgetting is the nature of these Balkan states. Up until the 19th Century, they had all been part of the Turkic Ottoman Empire.
However, structural and military stagnation within the Ottoman Empire, combined with the advent of Nationalism (i.e. the idea of national identities) causes all these provinces (Greece, Rumania, Bulgaria, Serbia etc) one by one, to win their independence.
Princip and all the rest were not motivated my any notion of monetary gains, but rather nationalist zeal. The fact that they had been conquered again, just after throwing off the Turkic yoke must have infuriated them. Austria was playing with fire when it annexed Bosnia, and it should have known better.

You missed the post where I revised the statement, saying that the Serbian government knew of the guy, but didn't stop him wanting to throw what became World War 1 into motion

Okay, fair enough.

 

[Dimitriov]

personally speaking, not sure if it's entirely correct but, I'd prefer someone who has actually worked in business rather than politics getting our economy back up and running. Obama has done very little in the way of helping the people, having just mostly traveled around and done apologies to numerous countries, and add to the fact that technically, he really isn't an America seeing as how he was born in Hawaii and Hawaii isn't technically a state, rather, through a chain of underhanded tactics, the US forcibly acquired Hawaii and illegally turned it into a state, going against the UN charter article 73. In 1999, Bill Clinton officially signed a document denying the United States' rights to claim ownership of Hawaii, so officially, Obama might have been born by American parents but because he was born in Hawaii, that makes him Hawaiian, not American, and therefore not capable of holding the title of American President.

Just want to say that I am not American, and you can obviously vote for whomever you want.

That being said, I do feel I should point out two things:

1. Obama has never apologised to any country that I am aware of. Some people have indeed made this claim, and repeatedly, but it has been fact checked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romneys-claim-that-obama-is-an-apologist-for-us-is-based-on-distortions/2011/12/01/gIQAdDpXlO_story.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_apology_tour.html

2. He really is the legal president of the United States of America. No, really. The Hawaii thing is just silly. Even if Hawaii isn't legally a State (Bill Clinton's apology was ruled to have no actual legal effect, it was just an apology for ending the Hawaiian monarchy basically) the constitutional wording simply requires a "natural-born citizen" of the United States. It does not define what that means (simply being born under U.S. jurisdiction could satisfy it), and Obama has been accepted as President.

Seriously, vote however your conscience tells you, but please base it on facts.

 

[beastro]

"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.

Hitler believed in Hitler.

His ego would grasp at whatever he could to maintain his illusion as unique in the world. What ever lie or excuse could be manufacture to wipe away whatever set back reality placed in front of him.

I've dealt with sociopaths quite a bit in my lifetime. They all think that they're God and they all want everyone to worship them as God. Their egos are too small and fragile to tolerate being anything but Top Dog.

The only difference with Hitler is that when things went bad, he'd like to think that if his divinity couldn't save his butt, then the universe would protect him and could then quickly be discarded so he could take center stage again.

If the game got hard for him, then he expected reality to whip out cheat codes to give him a pass so he could keep being a bigshot on Very Easy. The only problem came when it all crumbled so he decided that if he was going to lose, then everybody should. I mean, is the universe really worthy of existing if he wasn't at the center of it.

What that said, religion for a sociopath, for or against, is immaterial. Nothing matters if it doesn't ultimately benefit them in some way.

 

[Kashrlyyk]

...It is pretty obvious though that Japan was not going to surrender unconditionally and it came down to either invading the country or using the A-bomb....

...
Japan tried to negotiate a peace that would have allowed them to keep pretty much all of the land they had conquered before the outbreak of the war. The Allies refused (since they wanted unconditional surrender) and used the bombs as leverage....

From the US Strategic Bombing Survey, that you both clearly didn't read in order to keep your lies, on page 106 in the Summary of the Pacific War:

Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic
bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted
sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and
obviate the need for invasion.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported
by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is
the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and
in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have
surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if
Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been
planned or contemplated .

 

[beastro]

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.

Uhh, you do realise that the entire movie is David Wenham's character telling a story to get the rest of the army's adrenaline pumping, right? It was never meant to be an accurate retelling, simply propaganda about how awesome those 300 Spartans were. It just really annoys me when people don't understand this and complain about the historical inaccuracies.

This ignores the slant of the comic and the movie which leans in a direct Frank Miller is quite well known for.

For starters, being one of the archetypical conservative Hellenes, a Spartan would never spin such a blasphemous tale to rouse the hearts of all of Greece - he'd most likely get beaten to death.

It doesn't matter what it ignores because it shows in the actual movie that that is what is happening, you can't just watch a movie and pick a scene and decide that bit didn't happen. The film IS an embellished story told my Delios to pump up the Spartan army. It shows in the movie that that's what it is and to deny that is to just ignore parts of the film.

And if that is the case then I stand by my my historical nitpicking and state that no Spartan would lace his story with such anti-religious undercurrents.

I understand what you're getting at, but I hate films which don't even pay lip service to historical accuracy and 300 makes no qualms about where it stands on that matter.

if you remember from the film, the oracle's translators were lecherous deformed men who were paid off by Xerxes and said to respect a holiday which would have allowed Xerxes ample time to invade and take over regardless if the Greeks had fought after the holiday.
What I don't understand is why you think someone's story, a piece of fiction, should even have to be historically accurate. It's be like saying every sci-fi book depicting humans is inaccurate because we haven't achieved that level of technology yet

I'm fine with it being purely Miller's take on the event. I know his bias' and he's free to throw them about. I take it as his work of chest thumping when it comes to religion, especially Islam.

What I have an issue with is this theory that the survivor created this story to whip the Greeks into a fury. Sci-Fu stories can do whatever they want with the authors invented cultures, but adhering to this theory runs counter to the very conservative and outright superstitious nature of the Greeks, most of all the Spartans.

It just wouldn't happen and I find such nits picking me hard to ignore.

Now they could have removed those anti-religious elements with regard to Greek seers and I'd have no problem since, save that one bit, the Greeks of the era would have loved seeing the film and just how much the Persians are demonized in it.

 

[Giftfromme]

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.

If only Stalin had not killed many millions of his own people he would not be been one of the most evil people to have existed, things may have been different

 

[BNguyen]

personally speaking, not sure if it's entirely correct but, I'd prefer someone who has actually worked in business rather than politics getting our economy back up and running. Obama has done very little in the way of helping the people, having just mostly traveled around and done apologies to numerous countries, and add to the fact that technically, he really isn't an America seeing as how he was born in Hawaii and Hawaii isn't technically a state, rather, through a chain of underhanded tactics, the US forcibly acquired Hawaii and illegally turned it into a state, going against the UN charter article 73. In 1999, Bill Clinton officially signed a document denying the United States' rights to claim ownership of Hawaii, so officially, Obama might have been born by American parents but because he was born in Hawaii, that makes him Hawaiian, not American, and therefore not capable of holding the title of American President.

Just want to say that I am not American, and you can obviously vote for whomever you want.

That being said, I do feel I should point out two things:

1. Obama has never apologised to any country that I am aware of. Some people have indeed made this claim, and repeatedly, but it has been fact checked.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romneys-claim-that-obama-is-an-apologist-for-us-is-based-on-distortions/2011/12/01/gIQAdDpXlO_story.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_apology_tour.html

2. He really is the legal president of the United States of America. No, really. The Hawaii thing is just silly. Even if Hawaii isn't legally a State (Bill Clinton's apology was ruled to have no actual legal effect, it was just an apology for ending the Hawaiian monarchy basically) the constitutional wording simply requires a "natural-born citizen" of the United States. It does not define what that means (simply being born under U.S. jurisdiction could satisfy it), and Obama has been accepted as President.

Seriously, vote however your conscience tells you, but please base it on facts.

well, fine, I'll vote for somebody who knows business and how to run a business rather than someone who knows how to be a proctored speech. I mean, why vote for someone who got the Nobel prize after and only for giving a speech, rather than having accomplished something verifiable.

 

[beastro]

...It is pretty obvious though that Japan was not going to surrender unconditionally and it came down to either invading the country or using the A-bomb....

...
Japan tried to negotiate a peace that would have allowed them to keep pretty much all of the land they had conquered before the outbreak of the war. The Allies refused (since they wanted unconditional surrender) and used the bombs as leverage....

From the US Strategic Bombing Survey, that you both clearly didn't read in order to keep your lies, on page 106 in the Summary of the Pacific War:

Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic
bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted
sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and
obviate the need for invasion.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported
by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is
the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and
in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have
surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if
Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been
planned or contemplated .

How many would have died by November 1st, 1945 both Japanese, Allied and Far Eastern civilians?

It would have been many times the butchers bill of 200k for the two nukings.

This point also ignores that fact that by the time the survey was being done, Army opposition had been crushed and everyone left was completely on board to protect the Emperor with many taking the fall for things he was directly responsible for, but due to the nuances of the Emperors relationship with the military and his Cabinet, left nothing directly tied to him.

Add on top of this that the United States was now completely on board in keeping monarchy in place to crush the growing post-war Communist movement brewing in Japan and you found a very messy, distorted view of things required by the demands of the new World War.