Lies they teach you in HIstory class
- Thread starter PatientGrasshopper
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The Vikings were the first to establish themselves.TaborMallory said:
The first to enter the border were fishermens. These fishermens installed camps only for fishing. However, they left after a while. They weren't very interested with getting more land for king and country.
If your major is history (like me), I guess it's pretty important. Even if you don't find history interesting, it still have a faily great use.Leviathan_ said:
-The methods for learning history trains your long-term memory.
-If you plan to study in human sciences, you need to know the past.
-If you do research (in pretty much any subjects), good chance you'll look in the past.
-History is tied with culture. If you study in art/music/publicity/etc., you'll need to know a few past events.
And plenty other reasons to listen in your history class. (I'm pretty tired now).
Yahoo answers is utterly trustworthy...
Hitler - by far. Hitler killed people on an industrial scale - Treblinka, Sobibor & the other death camps were murder factories, Stalin had nothing like this.
Stalin did not kill more than Hitler - The figures of 60million were based upon assumptions - not on facts. Since the archives were opened the death toll has been going down and down.
The latest figures are around the 5 to 7 million mark.
The Ukrainian famine: 2- 3.5 million
see:
http://www.zn.ua/3000/3150/36833/
&
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#c?
For the purges
about 700,000
See:
Stalinism and Nazism: Dictatorships in Comparison, Cambridge University Press 1997 - Ian Kershaw, & Moshe Lewin
For de-kulakisation:
about 3.5 milllion
See:
http://www.augb.co.uk/collectivisation.p?
Total deaths:
7.5million
Hitler - 6million Holocaust
& at least 40million others across Europe
see:
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hit?
So in this bizarre game of who is the more monsterous - Hitler is by a long way.
Hitler - by far. Hitler killed people on an industrial scale - Treblinka, Sobibor & the other death camps were murder factories, Stalin had nothing like this.
Stalin did not kill more than Hitler - The figures of 60million were based upon assumptions - not on facts. Since the archives were opened the death toll has been going down and down.
The latest figures are around the 5 to 7 million mark.
The Ukrainian famine: 2- 3.5 million
see:
http://www.zn.ua/3000/3150/36833/
&
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor#c?
For the purges
about 700,000
See:
Stalinism and Nazism: Dictatorships in Comparison, Cambridge University Press 1997 - Ian Kershaw, & Moshe Lewin
For de-kulakisation:
about 3.5 milllion
See:
http://www.augb.co.uk/collectivisation.p?
Total deaths:
7.5million
Hitler - 6million Holocaust
& at least 40million others across Europe
see:
http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/hit?
So in this bizarre game of who is the more monsterous - Hitler is by a long way.
This sounds like economics, not history. Anyway, you're wrong. Lack of inflation means the economy is not growing, which is bad. Even a gold backed economy is risky and subject to inflation. If say a large amount of previously unavailable gold were discovered, the value of gold would drop significantly. And even in a gold system, it's only valuable because we say it is.PatientGrasshopper said:
In some ways, the system in which the government can determine the amount of available in the market is superior. It is not subject to massive and uncontrollable changes in value, and a centralized system keeps things in order. Of course human error is sure enough to find a way to stick it's hands in there.
Edit: Oh, and just skimming through this I have seen a lot of things presented as lies that I actually learned the truth about in history class. I think it's less them spreading lies and more you people not listening.
So, to recap on the historical bits...
- "Opposites" is a rather vague definition. It all depends on how you draw your little political spectrum.
- Stalinism and Nazism are edge cases. Their totalitarian aspects tend to obscure the other features of communism and fascism.
- Fascist governments throughout the world were based on nationalism. Much of the communist movement tried to be staunchly internationalist, a class struggle which transcended border and race. The ethnic persecutions of Nazism were aimed at destroying people who didn't fit the nationalist image of what a German should be. The ethnic persecutions of the early Soviet era were aimed at destroying national identity because it was perceived as something that could undermine the communist order (Jewish communist leaders tried very hard to erase their own Jewishness; Stalin's ethnic dislocations were all about breaking the will of ethnic minorities and separating them from their cultural touchstones). While you'd have to be a fool to say that racism didn't exist in the USSR, Soviet policy from Khrushchev onward definitely stressed outreach to communist movements regardless of language or color.
- Credible statistics point to Hitler organizing the murder of more people. Explicitly killing his adversaries figured much more prominently in his agenda.
- If you're going to play a numbers game, why not Mao (who had access to a lot of targets) or Pol Pot (massive purges, proportionally)?
- The rhetoric of Southern secession always emphasized that it was about the states' rights in relation to slavery.
- Before the war, there were terrorist actions and frontier proxy wars fought specifically over the question of slavery.
- Before the war, both North and South would support massive centralized policies whenever those policies would benefit them and whine about "states' rights" whenever they didn't.
-- Alex
No, not really.
- "Opposites" is a rather vague definition. It all depends on how you draw your little political spectrum.
- Stalinism and Nazism are edge cases. Their totalitarian aspects tend to obscure the other features of communism and fascism.
- Fascist governments throughout the world were based on nationalism. Much of the communist movement tried to be staunchly internationalist, a class struggle which transcended border and race. The ethnic persecutions of Nazism were aimed at destroying people who didn't fit the nationalist image of what a German should be. The ethnic persecutions of the early Soviet era were aimed at destroying national identity because it was perceived as something that could undermine the communist order (Jewish communist leaders tried very hard to erase their own Jewishness; Stalin's ethnic dislocations were all about breaking the will of ethnic minorities and separating them from their cultural touchstones). While you'd have to be a fool to say that racism didn't exist in the USSR, Soviet policy from Khrushchev onward definitely stressed outreach to communist movements regardless of language or color.
No, not really.
- Credible statistics point to Hitler organizing the murder of more people. Explicitly killing his adversaries figured much more prominently in his agenda.
- If you're going to play a numbers game, why not Mao (who had access to a lot of targets) or Pol Pot (massive purges, proportionally)?
(Lots of arguments about this one that I didn't bother paying attention to. This is really an economic question.)
No, not really.
- The rhetoric of Southern secession always emphasized that it was about the states' rights in relation to slavery.
- Before the war, there were terrorist actions and frontier proxy wars fought specifically over the question of slavery.
- Before the war, both North and South would support massive centralized policies whenever those policies would benefit them and whine about "states' rights" whenever they didn't.
-- Alex
I don't recall being taught any of these lies in school, and some I don't believe are lies. No history teacher ever said to me "Stalin is better than Hitler" or vice-versa. What kind of pointless discussion is that anyway?
Yes, that is what makes history so messed up, people also believed that because Anne was a witch that her daughter would be a incompetent ruler, but she ended up being one of the greatest queens in the world...just goes to show ya.Nozer said:
That Hitler's body was never found. They actually found it and it's in Russia right now. Of course, my history teacher is the one that told me that...
..... i dunno if sarcasim is implied in those words but sadly some people forget jokes like this do make people belive the socialist is best for a capitalist country... i'm not trying to change the threat topic but....Music Mole said:
*neck to fanblade*
The US government aint the only one that with heald information either, Churchill kept what he knew under his big round hat.CouchCommando said:
In the US I'm assuming lol, tbh it really shouldnt be required since people should learn to research it themselves, rather than being hand fed it.
"In November 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush, visiting Europe for a NATO summit, declared that "should Iraqi President Saddam Hussein choose not to disarm, the United States will lead a coalition of the willing to disarm him."[2]cschwing said:
Thereafter, the Bush administration briefly used the term "Coalition of the Willing" to refer to the countries who supported, militarily or verbally, the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent military presence in post-invasion Iraq since 2003. The original list prepared in March 2003 included 49 members.[3] Of those 49, only four besides the U.S. contributed troops to the invasion force (the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, and Denmark). 33 provided some number of troops to support the occupation after the invasion was complete. Six members have no military.
Today, the official White House list of the coalition shows 48 member states;[3] Costa Rica was removed from the list since the support given was annulated by the Constitutional Court in a suit filed by citizen Luis Roberto Zamora, the Ombudsman and the Costa Rican Bar Association against President Pacheco's decision.[4] However, the relevance of several of the other nations that appear on the list has been questioned.[5] For example, Turkey remains on the list despite reneging on its support before the war began and denying U.S. forces passage to its border with Iraq during the invasion.
The original list of coalition members provided by the White House[3] included several nations that did not intend to participate in the actual fighting. Some of them, such as Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Palau and Solomon Islands, do not have standing armies. However, through the Compact of Free Association, the Marshall Islands, Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia, citizens of those countries are guaranteed US national status and therefore are allowed to serve in the US military. The members of these island nations have deployed in a combined Pacific force consisting of Guamanian, Hawaiian and American Samoan reserve units. They have been deployed twice to Iraq. The government of one country, the Solomon Islands, listed by the White House as a member of the coalition, was apparently unaware of any such membership and promptly denied it.[6]
In December 2008 University of Illinois Professor Scott Althaus reported that he had learned that the White House was editing, and back-dating, revisions to the list of countries in the coalition.[7][8] Althaus found that some documents had been entirely removed from the record, and that others contradicted one another. The process he expected was for the original documents to remain, and to be supplemented by later revisions and updates."
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing
Do you ever hear of us sacking York and the Canadian parliament buildings? Or the fact that the landing party had to tuck its tail and run because of the furious Americans coming their way?Broken Wings said:
Canada: 0 U.S: 2 British: .5(They were sailing back to their own land within 2 days of landing, I wouldn't call that a successful invasion by any means.)
People always remember the big iconic stuff.
Exactly, Canada didn't fend off the Americans, the British did, then they tried to take out America, and that didn't go to well for them either. They also seem to forget the last battle of the War too, in New Orleans where the casualty rate was about 6 to 1 in favor of the americans.Bulletinmybrain said: