Lies they teach you in HIstory class
- Thread starter PatientGrasshopper
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Nigh Invulnerable said:
Just because they failed doesn't mean they failed the goal doesn't mean it wasn't the goal to begin with.
Although the first Pilgrims just came to farm, further south on the east coast than new England.
So yeah, i guess you are right.
Nope! Irish monks. or so they claim. Theres a monument in an Irish town (if a metal boat roughly the size of a canoe with a couple metal monks in it counts as a monument) saying they came over about 100 years prior.TaborMallory said:
Disregarding the fact that you can't be the first person to discover a place when people live there already all together.
Yeah but the war didn't start when Hitler gained power in '33, it started in '39 over the invasion of Poland, and it was a World War from the start because Britain's colonial troops, New Zealand, Canada and Australia come to mind, were already fighting the Germans in France and the Japanese in Hong Kong in '39. We lost those battles but I think my point is valid.PatientGrasshopper said:
That doesn't make any sense. Ho doe debt stimulate the economy?Spitfire175 said:
The New deal was not simply a measure to keep people from buying on credit, but rather a program very similar to Obama's current plan, where the Government takes control of the Economy and tries to fix the problem, this usually involves throwing money at it, which never works.Cheeze_Pavilion said:
Yes the Neocons have taken over the conservatives but they do not believe in the Austrian school, it is pretty much libertarians that adhere to the Austrian school.
Yes there were some people who advocated the succession for their own personal reasons but the majority of the people who followed it did it because they believed that they would have stronger state's rights if they split. My argument about it's constitutionality is this, if it is not prohibited in the Constitution, it is allowed by the 10th Amendment, now I will also mention though that I do think some people did use it as a justification for slavery, but when human rights are concerned the Constitution protects them. However like I said, there were only the few, who were actively pushing for sucession based on slavery.
Lincoln wasn't as adamant about ending slavery as he is claimed to have been.shwnbob said:
I had never heard this term before but I after reading hat it is I agree for the mot part. I cannot see pure anarchy ever working in reality because of human natur, that is why we need a government to at least enforce justice.lostclause said:
I would agree that the Native American genocide was terrible, and it is so often overlooked, in fact even today we are still taking advantage of them.Voltaggia said:
I somewhat agree with you. The Cold War didn't end until 1991 so I believe that it wasn't truly over until then.wewontdie11 said:
Err, you're referring to Ukraine I believe where it's debated whether or not he intended to cause a famine or if it was an accident of collectivisation. Yes he killed more but it raises the question is it more acceptable to kill more for the aquisition of power than fewer out of an irrational grudge? Personally I don't think there's a right answer to that.sabotstarr said:
I don't feel like searching though 9 pages already on this thread to see if anyone answered this, so here goes.A random person said:
Here is what I was taught in my world civ class last semester. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were left virtually untouched by the fire bombings carried out by US forces because neither of them were major industrial areas to the japanese war-machine. In fact the two cities were more economic in nature and held headquarters for several major industry companies. They also had very high civilian populations, and yes small military bases.
The idea of the bombings was not to cripple the japanese war-machine but to give them the "subtle" hint we could fuck them up. The US had scheduled to drop three atomic bombs on japan, the third one was however a bluff as at the time we only had 2 working bombs to be used. The overall hope was that one would be enough, and some sources say it was but we ignored japanese calls for negotiations after the first one because the US wanted complete unconditional surrender. Thus the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, the city where the survivors from Hiroshima had fled to for safety.
Which is why the federal reserve sucks and we should go back to the gold standardPatientGrasshopper said:
I remember a bunch of lies from when they taught WWII in 5th grade
1. America, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union were the only allied nations
2. Germany and Japan were the only axis nations
3. The war lasted 4 years
4. The french never surrendered
5. Britain and Canada weren't involved in D-Day
6. The Soviets weren't evil
7. no mentioning of Churchill or DeGaull
1. America, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union were the only allied nations
2. Germany and Japan were the only axis nations
3. The war lasted 4 years
4. The french never surrendered
5. Britain and Canada weren't involved in D-Day
6. The Soviets weren't evil
7. no mentioning of Churchill or DeGaull
Arguably mankind has not seen the ideal of any government, after all we're not perfect. The presence of a veto in the american system throws democracy right out the window for example. A cult of personality does rock the equality boat a bit though.Rigs83 said:
Yes it's still an evil but in a question of comparing evils I think we should go with the lesser one. Also my point was that although some people he imprisoned were jewish they were not imprisoned because they were Jewish but for other reasons, such as alleged conspiracies. I know there is some evidence he was anti-semitic but I don't think it ever influenced his actions to any great degree.
And since I didn't comment on 3 I'll assume that last bit is a general comment (correct me if I'm wrong).
Fair point however I think that the invasion of Manchuria can't be linked to WW2 directly. You can make a better case for the marco-polo bridge incident but on the whole this was a regional conflict that became linked to WW2 through japan's alliance with germany (rome-tokyo-berlin axis). Thus you can't really say that this conflict was part of WW2 until global alliances made japan take a side in 1939.MikeOfThunder said:
It definately didn't start in 41 though. Whatever anyone says it was definately in full swing by 39.
This is all just my opinion, but the strongest case is for WW2 starting in 39.
I hope you are being sarcasticRigs83 said:
hm interesting, what do they teach in the outh?EisBaron said:
Yes,he came after Columbus, and I have always thought it would be funny if we were called Vespuccia.Syntax Error said:
Exactly, in fact I used that same graph as a point of reference in one of my posts.PurpleLemur said:
I blame Call of DutyCheeze_Pavilion said:
He also didn't have wooden teeth, they had ivory and some other stuff but no wood.dwightsteel said:
1.) When Dachau was liberated in 1945, Dick Winters of the 101st Airborne (Easy Company) was a Lieutenant. At that point in time, Winters was a Major, not a Lieutenant. (big difference) (this was coming from a frigin' textbook)
2.) The allied forced safely landed on Normandy beach on June 6th, 1944. Thing was, most of the beach invasion was met with heavy resistance and it took three days to fully secure the beach. Over 225,000 allied forced died during that time trying to take the beach. (not what I would call a safe landing. Again, from the same retard textbook.)
3.) The marines were involved during the Battle of the Black Sea (also known as The Day of the Rangers) in 1992 and lost 17 men. In reality, it was the Army that was involved in that battle (more specifically, the Rangers and Delta Force) and 18 men (19 if you count the one that died a few days after the battle by a motor round at the Army hanger.) died in October of 1993. (this was coming from a SAT prep book!)
2.) The allied forced safely landed on Normandy beach on June 6th, 1944. Thing was, most of the beach invasion was met with heavy resistance and it took three days to fully secure the beach. Over 225,000 allied forced died during that time trying to take the beach. (not what I would call a safe landing. Again, from the same retard textbook.)
3.) The marines were involved during the Battle of the Black Sea (also known as The Day of the Rangers) in 1992 and lost 17 men. In reality, it was the Army that was involved in that battle (more specifically, the Rangers and Delta Force) and 18 men (19 if you count the one that died a few days after the battle by a motor round at the Army hanger.) died in October of 1993. (this was coming from a SAT prep book!)
Purely speculation, however I think it is completely possible. Some people actually believe prehistoric Europeans crossed over during the Ice Age when the upper third of the Atlantic was frozen. Also believed that more ancient cultures like the Greeks could have possibly crossed the Atlantic. There are alot of Native American legends that speak of "white" people coming from the sea on ships and wearing skins of metal. Human's have been around for a long time and we have utilized the sea for some time now, I personally believe that other people before Columbus found America. They just didn't exploit it.TaborMallory said: