Lies they teach you in HIstory class

[lostclause]

The Chinese say WW2 started in 1937, and the Russians in 1941. It's pretty Eurocentric to claim a divine right to the 'true' start of WW2.

Not particularly. Most of the countries became involved in the conflict when britain and france declared war. Most small european countries became involved through their treaties with the major powers. Thus most of the nations that joined WW2 joined in 39 (especially when you consider the size of the empires which they brought with them).
As for china, why not claim 31 when Japan invaded Manchuria? 37 after the marco polo bridge incident? 38 when the ceasefire broke down? Really, they'd been fighting so long that this conflict can only be seen as part of WW2 when they tie themselves to the british and wider war. Maybe you disagree but that's what makes sense to me.

 

[Alex_P]

As far as secession goes, the Confederacy was trying to act within the COnstitution to free themselves from the Federal Government
http://www.civilwarhome.com/statesrights.htm

Why did you post this in response to me? I said absolutely nothing about the legality of secession. (Fundamentally, I don't care about the legality of secession at all; there's no reason to.)

Slavery was a cause -- the proximate cause, if you have to pick one. "States' rights" were an excuse on top of that. Anyone who says otherwise is, simply put, either lying or misinformed.

Even South Carolina's secession declaration [http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp], which is a document that purports to be all about "states' rights", repeatedly pins the actual reasons for secession on disagreements about slavery.

ETA: Hell, your own source addresses this directly -- "Both men forgot that the preservation of slavery had been the object of state sovereignty, state rights, secession, and the formation of the Confederacy."

-- Alex

 

[Spitfire175]

Lie #3
Inflation is a natural process of the Economy. The truth is inflation can be avoided or at the very least minimized if the Government didn't continue to over mint money and if we actually had money that was backed by something.

Inflation is a natural process of the economy as its a result of growth, it can't be avoided without the economy stopping.

Quite right, since there is always more debt than actual wealth. Federal reserves make sure that new $$$ keep coming ans the nation (USA) gets more debt. Inflation is also a useful tool, if you have, say, hundreds of billions of debt. With accelerated infaltion it's easier to get rid of such a burden.

 

[chstens]

Lie #5
The Pilgrims didn't actually pull themselves up by their boot straps. The stole from native american grave sites and also stole their food. There was not much hard work on their part the first year, at least not in the way we were told. Many of them did die in the first year.
Lie #6
The USA didn't defeat Soviet Russia. Reports were issued by economists and professors to the US gov in the 1960's that communism, the way it was set up in Russia, would collapse on its own, either that or be seriously and radically altered, in the next 20 years.

Yea also to add on to the pilgrims thing, it is often implied that the Mayflower was the first European ship of settlers, but this is not true. In fact some of my ancestors come from Jamestown which preceded the the landing of the Mayflower by over 10y ears.
The Russian thing is interesting, I didn't know that exactly but it did seem a bit weird the we we were said to have defeated them.

Here's another.
World War one didn't end until 1919.
which also throws out the 'fact' that 1919 was supposed to be the only year when there wasn't a war :|

Yea, I think I remember something about that. Also,in the US we claim that WWII started in 1941 when Europe puts the date at 1939,while Hitler gained power even before that.

Hitler gained power even earlier in the 30's, yes. But he didn't invade Poland until 1939, and that's when England and France decleared war on Germany.

 

[Ghostkai]

Christopher Columbus didn't fucking discover North America. He thought he was in the Indies south of Asia. The first people from Europe to discover North America were the Vikings.

I knew that from a young age....people like to believe that a single hero did something great

I think it actually has to do with Italian-Americans being sick of hearing about all the great things Anglo-Americans did, so they wanted a 'Founding Father' figure of their own to be proud of.

I think it's far more likely that the Historians wanted the discovery of America to be credited to a valiant fairy tale-esque explorer, instead of a bunch of murderers and rapists. Don't think it has anything to do with race.

 

[lostclause]

snip

I'd appreciate that you didn't call me 'brainwashed' for daring to disagree with you. I have a different political compass from you and expecting me to classify such complex ideas in exactly the same way as you is unreasonable.
I'm not claiming that either could be classified in such a blanket term as 'better'. I'm well aware that the red army was not particularly nice. Yes they had a eugenics program to create niche workers, forcing sons into the same jobs as fathers. Also breaking the family unit wasn't new either, they tried that in the USSR too if i remember rightly.
As for the Jews; being stripped of possessions was mandatory for communism. Some farmers in Poland escaped this but they were the exception (and would later cause trouble under Walesa)
Yes I've heard of the warsaw uprising and the Soviet inactivity. We're talking occupation here. Not to say it's not relevant but do you really expect either ruler to help those who would soon turn against them? Those poles fought for democracy. Not communism. Stalin wasn't going to help them and they knew it. They hoped to take warsaw before he got there in hopes of gaining concessions. Also don't forget it was the Nazi's that were the ones to put down said uprising.
Like I said, it's a matter of perspective. Communism has a guarantee for jobs, Jews and others avoided genocide etc. To apply a blanket statement like the op betrays a certain one sided thinking. Neither was good and it depends on who you are as to which was better. Furthermore you forget that Eastern Europe was occupied for longer than Stalin and that Stalin was denounced after his death in hopes of a new era of communism. The occupation went on and just about everything mentioned above ceased. Stalin had E.E. for 8 years. The USSR had it for over 40.

 

[veloper]

Umm, Lie one is wrong. They are left and right wing, they're just opposite in names and methods. Just because they have a couple of similarities doesn't mean they're not opposites

Okay. You'vew been brainwashed, sorta. The political spectrum has 4 extreme ends: Communist, conservative, libertarian and anarchist. Stalinism is communism in practicality. (The difference between communism and socialism is that communism is a societal utopia, socialism is an economic system(its opposite is capitalism)) National socialism is NOT the opposite of communism or stalinist socialism. They are inversions of each other, mirror images, so to speak. Both systems support exteme goverment power, control religion, have a centalised power structure, control the economy and control all media.

I'd agree with this post if Stalinism was emphasized over the "socialism" and "communism".
Socialism is a useless word that can mean anything and should be removed from our vocabulary in favor of more clearly defined words, like Stalinism, Maoism, Troskyism.

As "socialists" they get along so terribly you might aswell throw the national socialists into the chaos aswell.

 

[Firenz]

This is very much a revisionist arguement but:
King John was not a bad king, Richard I was not a good king.
The former was put in a really crappy situation by the fact that the latter hated England and used it as a cash cow. The Political / Economic situation and paying off Richard's debts caused the high taxes that John is remembered for.

 

[shwnbob]

A friend of mine told me Abraham Lincoln was not quite the saint everyone claimed he was. He didn't even care about the slaves apparently. I don't know if thats right but it sounds realistic.

 

[Steelfists]

Umm, Lie one is wrong. They are left and right wing, they're just opposite in names and methods. Just because they have a couple of similarities doesn't mean they're not opposites (for example they're both governments!)
Lie two is also wrong. Europe was under soviet yoke for longer than just stalin, and even so 'better' is not something that can be measured in body counts. Also you're forgetting perspective, it was better for say Jews bacuase just about anything was better than the nazi's.
I was never taught 3 or 4 so I'll keep quiet on them.

He's right about the Stalin one. Up to 60 million people were killed by him.

What, personally? Now that's a busy leader! XP

XP. How appropriate.

 

[impactsickness]

there are no cavemen sillies ._. god created everything the way it is today, more or less

 

[Verbose]

After all, the word 'Anarchist' means 'absence of judges', and loosely came to mean absence of government. Now it carries connotations of selfishness, lawlessness and depravity that aren't technically accurate.

Technically inaccurate, yes, but functionally they're very much the point.

Okay, not so much depravity but no government means no laws (since without government nobody has the authority to establish laws or the power to enforce them). When there is no law, the only rules are what you can do and what you can stop others from doing. This environment promotes selfishness and punishes altruism. At best, you hope for a community of people who band together from enlightened self-interest but doing that puts you on the path of reforming a government, most likely some sort of republic.

Personally, I find the idea abhorrent. There's nothing that irritates me more than people vehemently claiming that the best government is no government, especially if they're relying on people not being raging dickholes for it to work. And I'm well aware you didn't say any of this, Armitage Shanks (love the reference, by the by) but I felt it was a point that needed elaboration.

 

[lostclause]

Personally, I find the idea abhorrent. There's nothing that irritates me more than people vehemently claiming that the best government is no government, especially if they're relying on people not being raging dickholes for it to work. And I'm well aware you didn't say any of this, Armitage Shanks (love the reference, by the by) but I felt it was a point that needed elaboration.

Maybe a night watchman state is more to your tastes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Watchmen_State

 

[dwightsteel]

After all, the word 'Anarchist' means 'absence of judges', and loosely came to mean absence of government. Now it carries connotations of selfishness, lawlessness and depravity that aren't technically accurate.

Technically inaccurate, yes, but functionally they're very much the point.

Okay, not so much depravity but no government means no laws (since without government nobody has the authority to establish laws or the power to enforce them). When there is no law, the only rules are what you can do and what you can stop others from doing. This environment promotes selfishness and punishes altruism. At best, you hope for a community of people who band together from enlightened self-interest but doing that puts you on the path of reforming a government, most likely some sort of republic.

Personally, I find the idea abhorrent. There's nothing that irritates me more than people vehemently claiming that the best government is no government, especially if they're relying on people not being raging dickholes for it to work. And I'm well aware you didn't say any of this, Armitage Shanks (love the reference, by the by) but I felt it was a point that needed elaboration.

Here, here. People who are for an anarchist state, seem to only like the idea of actions without judicial consequences. They forget to think that those very same consequences are probably quite favorable compared to all-american Joe's brand of justice. And as you pointed out, and something I always try to tell those idiots, anarchy, at least for mankind, can only be temporary. As soon as people start banding together for a common goal, as you've pointed out, they are making the choice to govern people and their actions. True, permanent anarchy is paradoxical to the human race.

 

[Brett Alex]

If you caused so much damage to a countries infrastructure it took them 30 years to get back on top I would call that a loss.

they didnt succeded in their aims.

So, if you didn't succeed in your aims, and left the scene of battle after years of not being being able to achieve your aims, you've won because... you said you've won?

Because you had a good try, and thats what really counts?

Was it perhaps only an "Aspirational" Police Action?

 

[Voltaggia]

Lie: Holocaust was the greatest genocide in Eearth's history. The fact is that the greatest genocide was performed by Americans, against the native americans.