Lies they teach you in HIstory class

[lostclause]

Not so much a lie as selectivity:

World War Two ended when Germany was defeated and Berlin was occupied, and we convienently omit the part near the end where the Allies use weapons-of-mass-destruction on Japan.

Thats not entirely true. The war between America and Japan continued for a short period of time after that until America Nuked them which caused the Japanese to surrender. Fact is they surrendered to America but not the rest of the Allies. The Japanese were still in China (because in 1938 japan invaded china which might have actually been the beginning of WW2) so the Chinese and some Russian divisions were transferred to kick them outta there. Not exaclty sure when it ended but china was liberated after a while. What is odd is to this day Russia and Japan never signed a peace treaty. Probably because during the liberation of China by the Russians, the Kuril islands were captured. Which is caused and i think still is causing a bit of tension between the two.

I believe Putin said recently that they wouldn't end it unless they got to keep the islands.

 

[Lusadaka]

Not so much a lie as selectivity:

World War Two ended when Germany was defeated and Berlin was occupied, and we convienently omit the part near the end where the Allies use weapons-of-mass-destruction on Japan.

Thats not entirely true. The war between America and Japan continued for a short period of time after that until America Nuked them which caused the Japanese to surrender. Fact is they surrendered to America but not the rest of the Allies. The Japanese were still in China (because in 1938 japan invaded china which might have actually been the beginning of WW2) so the Chinese and some Russian divisions were transferred to kick them outta there. Not exaclty sure when it ended but china was liberated after a while. What is odd is to this day Russia and Japan never signed a peace treaty. Probably because during the liberation of China by the Russians, the Kuril islands were captured. Which is caused and i think still is causing a bit of tension between the two.

I believe Putin said recently that they wouldn't end it unless they got to keep the islands.

Japan and Russia were never meant to be friends. Hehe i believe OFP2 is set in those islands (or on one of them) where the American Marines come out and shoot everyone up ending the conflict XD.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

I've already stated my opinions on this but I'll say it again. 37 is the date of the marco-polo bridge incident. Japan invaded manchuria in 31. Why not place the start then? Why not in 38 when the last peace treaty broke down?

Why not 28 June 1914? There was quite a big lull while the survivors of the first few years went home and had children and those children got old enough to enlist, then everyone built up their armies again and had another go.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

Come on. Really. Of all the unreliable sources in the world, you picked one of the two most famous examples. Unless he was a lawyer as well, it'd be hard to trump that!

...

So, are they teaching "why we invaded Iraq" in history classes yet, and if so which lie(s) are they teaching?

...

To Greyfox's question: at least it did end. We've still got one town stuck in WWII [http://thecapitalscot.com/pastfeatures/berwick.html]!

Err... you are still not making sense. Why Iraq was invaded is just a matter of opinion. No ones honestly come out with an accepted reason, other than 'we thought there might be a threat'. And we had bigger sticks than they did.

A direct quote about someone who is classed as the 'great emancipator' saying 'i really don't care about slavery, all i care about is the union' is a very valid point. You can't just discredit it because a politician said it, and it makes you look extremely short sighted.

Allow me to clarify something.

Come on. Really. Of all the unreliable sources in the world, you picked one of the two most famous examples. Unless he was a lawyer as well, it'd be hard to trump that!

BIG SPACE

INSERTED HERE

BECAUSE I'M

STOPPING THE

LINCOLN THING

AND GOING

BACK TO

THE OP​

So, are they teaching "why we invaded Iraq" in history classes yet, and if so which lie(s) are they teaching?

Is that any easier for you?

As to discrediting things politicians say, it would be gegend mein Religion to trust or revere a politician in the first place, so him having said that does little damage to my opinion of him, especially as there was no explanation attached of the circumstances under which, context in which or audience to whom he said it.

Also my first post on the matter
was just a joke, but whatever.​

 

[lostclause]

I've already stated my opinions on this but I'll say it again. 37 is the date of the marco-polo bridge incident. Japan invaded manchuria in 31. Why not place the start then? Why not in 38 when the last peace treaty broke down?

Why not 28 June 1914? There was quite a big lull while the survivors of the first few years went home and had children and those children got old enough to enlist, then everyone built up their armies again and had another go.

Because we're talking about Japan and China neither of whom did much in WW1.

 

[obex]

Lie #1
Communism and Fascism are opposites. The truth is they are both totalitarian governments run by dictators who oppose individuality. In fact the Nazis were the National Socialist German Worker'S Party.

Hate to pull you up mate but they are different except when put into practise communism has lead to dictatorships how ever the ideal of communism is different to fascism so an ideal communist society would be opposite to a fascist one and it would be great but it wont work as it is impractical.

Looks at own avatar.... dont jump to conclusions here.....

 

[Dele]

I am trying to compile a list of lies or misinformation they teach you in History class. So far this doesn't even apply to current events which would make this list far more interesting. Do you have any you think you want to add or any rebuttals. Also note for those in other countries, this is written from an American perspective.
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.

the only one i wasnt aware of was number three. makes sense thinking about it now. Im pretty sure I learned the truths in history class, and my history class doesnt touch on economics, so oh well.

Yeah, actually it's deflation that is a natural process of the economy and not inflation.

Hate to pull you up mate but they are different except when put into practise communism has lead to dictatorships how ever the ideal of communism is different to fascism so an ideal communist society would be opposite to a fascist one and it would be great but it wont work as it is impractical

Ideal fascist society is similiarly great but just like communism, it tends to fail when applied to real life.

 

[obex]

Ideal fascist society is similiarly great but just like communism, it tends to fail when applied to real life.

I think that fascism only works in a small community the smaller the population the more likely the dictator (remember dictator means unquestionable leader not evil guy) will satisfy needs however when there is a large community with many different groups of ideals then the fascist state will no longer represent the perfect ideal and it has 2 choices embrace the most popular ideal of the people through vote (i.e become a democracy) or stay a unquestionable leader and punish those who try to think differently that's when you tend to get problems

 

[TruthMan]

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.

Lie #6 is up to debate the US did Supply insurgents in afghanastan while russia was attempting to take control... Watch Charlie Wilson's war if you dont want to research it. its a good movie. also do you really think we didnt at least try to plant spies. its easier to plant a spy in a dictatorship then in a democracy


Lie # (i dont know) we were imperialistic bastards, the phillipine war for example(i know i spelled that wrong)

 

[Highlandheadbanger]

1. So than you would say it is possible for something to be both communist and Fascist?

2. I am just pointing out that they were both bad guys, as you said though Stalin is just viewed as a hero since he helped us.

3. Gold is more stable because it cannot be artificially created and when more is discovered it is not indefinite.

1. In theory, yes I suppose it could be possible. In his initial rise to power, Hiter actually ran against several other parties vying to take control of then lost cause Germany. This was during the Great Depression and what happened to the States was the lucky break, Europe was especially hard hit, with the currency dropping to less then nothing. No one supported the Nazis initially, the Communist Party seemed the begruding lead canidate (nobody wanted the Communists, but they were the only party that established a sensible plan for rebuilding the German economy. The Nazis ran a vicious anti-Communist campaign which also coincided with a stroke of luck in the form of a slight uptake in the economy, keeping the German people just short of turning to the Communists for help.

2. I'm not saying anything here either, though I find the rationalization of the Allies interesting ("If Hitler invaded Hell, I'd might as well make a pact with the Devil" -Winston Churchill) as well as the almost instantaneous turning of the Allies upon the Soviets following the dismantlement of Hitler's war machine. It makes for interesting politico-social examination.

3. Actually, theres a reason we went off the Gold Standard a long time ago. The supply of gold produced simply could not keep up with the growth of the economy, neither could silver at times. Another serious issue that arose was the balance of power between debtor and debtee. In a Gold Standard economy, those who own the gold have the power (i.e. the very rich). Those without gold are then at the mercy of the gold-controllers, which created a vicious system where banks, loan offices, and "highly-esteemed" citizens of the community had a chokehold upon the small businessman, the wage laborer, and the small-time farmer. Average people were kept in a vice by debt, and the social mobility ladder grew increasingly difficult as the rich got richer and the poor stayed in debt. Situations where rent on houses grew increasingly outrageous, leaving many people at the mercy of the bank or forced to evict, lose their assets, and ruin their credit.

 

[lostclause]

snip

Sure. However, most Monarchs claim to rule by divine right or right of conquest or something else that doesn't have to do with the 'consent' of the people.[/quote]Right, sorry about the delay. I'll post what I can remember of my other one.
Fascism is usually quite authoritarian, this is taking the assumption that it's not a dictatorship as in such the laws can be broken on a whim. In order for it to be so there must be a clear code of laws. So I suppose what I'm arguing here is that anything with a consistently applied code of laws can be considered a social contract, no? After all you are giving up freedoms for these laws (although if they're not applied consistently such as in a dictatorship the previous point is void because the freedoms are not given up for anything). Whilst fascism does tend to impose itself if it has such laws then it must be a social contract regardless of the motive of the government.
My communism comment wasn't saying it was a social contract, I was explaining how they claimed their right to rule. However since you bring it up couldn't it be considered a social contract as it takes rights in return for a guarantee (the government itself who is supposed to act in the best interests of the people)? Admittedly when you have dictators or corruption it may no longer be one but I'm speaking theoretically.
And for monarchy they do depend on the consent of the people to an extent. After all the French revolution occurred when people felt the monarch wasn't carrying out his responsibilities (thus Napoleon was able to call himself Emperor as he was furfilling the responsibilities of a king and there was no real objection except from the idealists of the revolution).

 

[Dele]

3. Actually, theres a reason we went off the Gold Standard a long time ago. The supply of gold produced simply could not keep up with the growth of the economy, neither could silver at times.

Two wrongs here. First of all the reason why you went off Gold Standard was because your government needed to finance wars without destroying the morale (and losing the elections) with huge income taxes and thus implemented a less obvious way of taxation (inflation).

Secondly, there is absolutely no net gain from adding or reducing the amount of money (or in this situation, gold) from the system, as money is (usually) neutral in the long run, thus there is no reason to add or reduce the amount of money in circulation, unlike you claimed.
Money supply x Velocity of money = Price level x Economic output. Forget velocity and you have M=PE. When economical output increases and money supply is relatively constant (gold standard), you have constant deflation, which is the natural state of the economy.
The social problems you described that come with deflation are absolutely correct though.

 

[Highlandheadbanger]

3. Actually, theres a reason we went off the Gold Standard a long time ago. The supply of gold produced simply could not keep up with the growth of the economy, neither could silver at times.

Two wrongs here. First of all the reason why you went off Gold Standard was because your government needed to finance wars without destroying the morale (and losing the elections) with huge income taxes and thus implemented a less obvious way of taxation (inflation).

Secondly, there is absolutely no net gain from adding or reducing the amount of money (or in this situation, gold) from the system, as money is (usually) neutral in the long run, thus there is no reason to add or reduce the amount of money in circulation, unlike you claimed.
Money supply x Velocity of money = Price level x Economic output. Forget velocity and you have M=PE. When economical output increases and money supply is relatively constant (gold standard), you have constant deflation, which is the natural state of the economy.
The social problems you described that come with deflation are absolutely correct though.

Thanks mate, It was pretty late when I wrote that up, but its good to see someone caught me stumbling through economic theory. I really have more of a taste for how economics affect people then the actual theory itself.

 

[Verbose]

I think I get it but couldn't you classify any government (except Anarchy) as such a system? After all in exchange for giving up, say, your freedom to steal you are given a guarantee that they will try to prevent it happening to you (in whatever way the government sees fit be it preventative or punitive). And this happens in just about every government, to a greater or lesser degree.

From a position of political philosophy, yeah. But then, most of the Marxists I've known have interpreted every social structure through the lens of their philosophy and had it making some degree of sense so I think that's not too uncommon. Social Contractualism is, first and foremost, an ethical philosophy. Things are morally good if they promote social stability. When you're applying it to political philosophy (by arguing about the best type of government, for example), it's usually an argument about the best way to promote social structure.

It lets us firmly declare that murder and stealing are wrong and have a good reason for doing so. It's not quite so helpful when arguing about the merits of democracy. I think the biggest benefit to Social Contractualism is that most of our arguments tend to be about empirical fact - as a rule, we don't think things should be done on principle so much as they should achieve the desired effect. In political philosophy, we're all over the place but we're an odd bunch in ethical arguments.

 

[Piotr621]

Time for a bit of Australian history...
We're told that the British colonisation of Australia was actually an "invasion" but I am of a slightly different opinion. True, the British treatment of the Aboriginies wasn't the best, but consider what would have happened if a different empire would have claimed Australia for it's own? Let's not forget what happened with the Aztecs and Spanish...

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

Not quite how it works, think about the price of petrol. If one station increases their prices, another station will also increase their own prices - this ensures them higher profits, as the quantity of petrol demanded is still the same, yet the prices are higher. If prices rise on a good all the way across the board, then demand will stay the same, as compared to a situation where one company raises prices which in turns alters the demand for the product.

Also, inflation is measured by comparing the price of a "basket" of a few hundred different types of goods and services each quarter. If the price of one good included in that "basket" increases during that time, then the official inflation rate will still increase, due to the fact that the cost incurred to consume the good that has risen in price alongside those that have not is still higher. Like I said in my original post, the sources of inflation come mainly from the goods purchased with money, not from the source of the money itself. Sure there might be inbalances every now and then with the amount of money printed but on the whole it's maintained incredibly well. Governments very rarely "print" money in an effort to increase the amount of cash in circulation.

You should read up on your economics before you make those kind of statements.

Why would the first station increase their prices when they know that they could lose their customers to the other less expensive station?

Obviously you've never had to buy petrol for a car, it happens all the time. Over here in Australia the price of petrol is cheaper mid-week, and each petrol station will rise its prices by the same amount over the weekend to ensure the maximum amount of return due to the rise in demand on those days.

There are plenty of reasons that the price of a good may be pushed up by its supplier, and usually when this happens all of the competing suppliers will also increase their prices to ensure higher profits at the same portion of their market share. Basically its an easy way for the companies to make money.

Not sure there's much more I can say on this, that is the way it happens.

You are right I haven't but I have noticed that it's price is effected by location, and if you really want to save money you go to the location that is cheapest. Although I could attribute a lot to people's laziness.

So? Why is "natural" necessarily any better than "man-made"?

Natural is better because there is not an endless supply. So it levels out eventually, if we keep discovering gold we will eventually run out.

So why not wait until that day runs out? I mean, if that's the only advantage, it's not an 'advantage' until some point far in the future.

The prayer in public schools, I will give you that but there are still those who want to take that right away.

So? There are people who want to put mandatory prayer back in schools, too.

The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

Seems to me like you'd need something along the lines of an Amendment to explicitly authorize secession before you can make a case for it. I mean, even our country never claimed that our Declaration of Independence was a right guaranteed to it under Crown law--they admitted that they were going to "alter or abolish" the existing "political bands" under "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God."

There is an amendment, it is called the 1oth Amendment and if the Constitution does not explicitly state it that it is up to the states to decide.

No, actually, the Founding Fathers considered that kind of wording and rejected it:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendXs6.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt10_user.html#amdt10_hd7

First of all as far as the gold goes, the rate at which we find more is substantially less than the rate at which the government prints more money. So we don't have to wait until it runs out.

How do you know that the right for states to secede is not an implied power? The very fact that they opposed putting "expressly" in there seems to make it even more open, effectively giving the states more power.
The wording "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. " still implies that states have the right to anything that is not granted to the federal government.

This seems like a pretty good explanation, and it still reinforces that Communism or socialism are not the opposite of fascism.

That's precisely what I've been trying to say in this thread. Along with the fact that the war winners write the history, just like Churchill said: "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it". The winners of WW2 have pretty much had their way with this.
Also in every nation, the goverment of course wants the people to think highly of their history and leaders. The education is always under surveylance, dispite some talk about the freedom of speech, etc. And it is a lot easier to control large masses of ignorant people than those whu are highly educated. (NOT dissing the USA, here!) For example, in comparison, the results of US public schoos and, say, Finnish ones, are alarmingly different. (Look up, PISA- study)
When there are masses of people, it's best to keep their stomachs full and heads empty. When the population is small, it's for the best if everyone has a comprehensive understanding of the world.
The phenomenon is common: China, Russia, the US, all monitor very carefully what the yougsters are taught, mostly indeed in the history class. There will always be enough smart people to keep the things running.
And I'll stop there, before I insult anyone.

Very true, there is the saying that the winners write the history but that is not entirely true as the losers rewrite history as well.

To Greyfox's question: at least it did end. We've still got one town stuck in WWII [http://thecapitalscot.com/pastfeatures/berwick.html]!

That is funny

It was when my History teacher told me that Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt were brothers.

I was the one to correct her.

Im not sure if that counts mainly because it was out of her stupidity rather than a lie.

I suppose that is slightly better than saying that LBJ and Andrew Johnson were related, but only slightly.