|
On February 10 2011 21:15 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 20:34 Jayme wrote:On February 10 2011 19:53 emythrel wrote:On February 10 2011 19:48 Jayme wrote:On February 10 2011 14:07 travito wrote:On February 10 2011 14:02 Alexhandr wrote:On February 10 2011 14:01 Eskii wrote:On February 10 2011 13:54 Silidons wrote:
If I say it, I'll probably get banned. Fine, if you don't say it, I will... THE HOLOCAUST! Oh... only absolute morons deny such things. You can't hide the deaths of 11 million innocent people. =/ Despite the atrocities of the holocaust, Hitler was a brilliant leader. He can be credited with huge a economic boom during his time, as well as military success. My question is why is he painted as the posterboy for evil when Stalin and Mao both killed thousands more people under their rule? I am in no way trying to undermine the horrors of the holocaust, but I don't really understand why Stalin or Mao don't get the same negative attention that Hitler does. :/ Not quite sure. Hitler was one of those people that have so much impact on history...more so than Stalin or Mao could ever dream of. WW2 started pretty much on the agenda of one man...one man pretty much initiated WW2. That sort of influence is unheard of. Also people tend to be more sensitive when the genocide is...race related or the like. Stalin killed people to extend his own governmental power. If you weren't communist then you were as good as dead to Stalin. HItler killed Jewish people just because he could really. Hitler was a brilliant POLITICAL leader. He knew propaganda and how to use it. His fault was that he simply wasn't a military genius. If he had kept out of running the military and instead just told them who to invade and left his generals to it the war probably would have turned out VERY VERY differently. Thankfully he was arrogant to a fault. actually until the allies began to push the germans back, Hitler had been a very good military leader. Tyrant or not, he was the mastermind behind their german advance that swept though europe. The tide only turned when the US joined the fight and we had the man power to push him back, we won the war.... Hitler didn't lose it (if you catch my meaning). it was only when things got really bad that Hitler became more and more desperate and stopped thinking straight (well by his standards lol). Hitler was always a kneejerk reactionary military leader. The blitzkrieg was a collaboration thing and relied very heavily on surprise and their superior tank technology. This had little do with Hitler and more to do with common sense. The siege of Stalingrad was one of the biggest tactical blunders to ever grace an attacking army. As if attacking the Soviet Union wasn't enough, doing so in the winter, as well as allowing the lions share of your army to be surrounded in Stalingrad when Hitler had MULTIPLE chances to retreat and cut his losses dramatically is almost hilarious in its ridiculousness. Almost all of Hitler's generals told him point blank that Stalingrad was going to turn into a death trap if he didn't GTFO. He didn't GTFO and it turned into a death trap, and then the Soviet Union steam rolled Germany. That was when the tide changed in the war. It had little to do with the US. The US's main contribution in WW2 occurred in the Pacific theater. The European theater was dominated by the British crippling the Luftwaffe and the Soviet Union picking over half of Germany's available army to pieces. The US helped with Normandy and all that but by that time all the signs for a German collapse was already there because of Hitlers stubborn and frankly retarded attack on Stalingrad. If Germany had never attacked Russia, or if they had retreated from Stalingrad... the war would have turned out differently. I'm not saying that Germany would have won, but the Allied breakout after Normandy would have been much more difficult than it already was if the red army wasn't breathing down Germany's neck at the same time. If Germany had won or just not been completely steam rolled on the eastern front they may have had the time necessary to either develop a weapon of mass destruction, or some sort of stalemate. Hitler's arrogance is why the German army collapsed as quickly as it did. The German military commanders were scary good, the world is lucky Hitler was arrogant. US helped in Europe a lot also even earlier, but more with shipments of necessary stuff. Russians got a lot from US so they could devote a lot of production towards actual weapons and not to care about producing so many helmets, transport trucks, .... But yes Germans would have lost even without that.
If you actually look at the numbers you can see that the american and british shipments were VITAL for the survival of the Soviet Union. Yeah, the russians did contribute most to germany's downfall, but it is very unlikely they could have kept up without allied support.
|
Also, somewhat piggybacking off of Sm3agol's post about 9/11, but related to the Moon landing.
If you don't think we landed on the moon, then you are completely ignoring evidence and any sort of logic. If the government faked the moon landing, someone would've noticed:
From Wikipedia: As this chart shows, NASA's budget peaked in 1966, during the height of construction efforts leading up to the first moon landing under Project Apollo. At its peak, the Apollo program involved more than 34,000 NASA employees and 375,000 employees of industrial and university contractors. Roughly two to four cents out of every U.S. tax dollar (or 4% of the total federal budget) was being devoted to the space program.
You have 34,000 people working on site for a project, another 375,000 people contracted to do research and development, and no one figures out that it's all a big sound stage and a light show? NASA would have to have some ridiculous special effects team to pull off a live spectacle that aired around the world, and keep it all a secret afterwords. Plus, wouldn't the Russians have jumped to the punch if they figured out it was fake? They probably had teams of people analyzing the video to determine its authenticity and they never said a word.
Plus, Mythbusters tested the common conspiracies around why the landing was fake (all the claims about shadows and the flag etc.) and found them to be all false.
|
On February 10 2011 13:52 Alexhandr wrote:
I hear some people believe Hitler never committed suicide. Rather, the "Russkies" got to him first and did... well... what would you expect people to do to Hitler?
there was a hitler personality profile that was made 3 or so years before he committed suicide, which predicted that if he was losing the war, he would try to destroy everything around him then kill himself. I think suicide is like 99.9% accurate.
|
Conspiracy theories about massive government cover-ups have the implicit assumption that governments are hyper-effective at controlling information at all levels.
All people involved in the original incident, those people's families and coworkers, and the entire command chain, all the way up, from that time onward, can stay on message and keep the cover-up going. Considering how (relatively) little time it took for the Tonkin Gulf, Bay of Pigs, Pentagon Papers, Watergate, etc incidents from the same period of history to leak I simply cannot fathom all the ducks of a moon landing coverup being in a row for so long.
Anyway, 2013 is when the Warren Commission gets declassified. Maybe my opinion will change.
|
ok i have one that very few people know about. It's debatable weather the wright brothers actually invented the airplane. Richard Pearse is a new zealander who invented an airplane using scrap metal in his backyard 9 months before the wright brothers. More can be found on his wikipedia pagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse.
|
Netherlands45349 Posts
Lee Harvey Oswald and JFK is 1 of the most debatable stuff in history.
Also ,for anyone who knows who Anne Frank is, the diary is often debated as being finished by a relative, and thus a portion of it is considered false by some historicans.
|
Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia surviving the Russian revolution and appearing some years later was also very debatable.
|
I don't know if this has been posted already or not since there's 14 pages, but this is a pretty hilarious and interesting conspiracy theory dealing with history during the early middle ages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_time
"The Phantom time hypothesis is a conspiracy theory developed by Heribert Illig (born 1947 in Vohenstrauß, Germany) in 1991. It proposes that there has been a systematic effort to make it appear that periods of history, specifically that of Europe during Early Middle Ages (AD 614–911) exist, when they do not. Illig believed that this was achieved through the alteration, misrepresentation and forgery of documentary and physical evidence."
|
many people believe the Jews where slaves to the Egyptians and build't the pyramids, even though the only account of this is in the bible.
|
|
|
Well, I'm not sure how Americans tell the story of the War of 1812, but Canadian troops burned presidential estate to the point where it needed white paint to cover the scorch marks, resulting in what we now call The White House.
|
yep,
Here is another one there has never been a mummy found in any pyramid of Egypt. Every king ect was found in the valley of the kings. Reason for calling the pyramids tombs build't for kings?...
|
On February 11 2011 00:17 HackBenjamin wrote:
Well, I'm not sure how Americans tell the story of the War of 1812, but Canadian troops burned presidential estate to the point where it needed white paint to cover the scorch marks, resulting in what we now call The White House.
Wrong
http://www.snopes.com/language/colors/whitehouse.asp
In addition, Canadian beer is not on average any stronger than American beer. Americans measure alcohol content by weight, Canadians by volume.
|
On February 10 2011 23:04 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 21:15 mcc wrote:On February 10 2011 20:34 Jayme wrote:On February 10 2011 19:53 emythrel wrote:On February 10 2011 19:48 Jayme wrote:On February 10 2011 14:07 travito wrote:On February 10 2011 14:02 Alexhandr wrote:On February 10 2011 14:01 Eskii wrote:On February 10 2011 13:54 Silidons wrote:
If I say it, I'll probably get banned. Fine, if you don't say it, I will... THE HOLOCAUST! Oh... only absolute morons deny such things. You can't hide the deaths of 11 million innocent people. =/ Despite the atrocities of the holocaust, Hitler was a brilliant leader. He can be credited with huge a economic boom during his time, as well as military success. My question is why is he painted as the posterboy for evil when Stalin and Mao both killed thousands more people under their rule? I am in no way trying to undermine the horrors of the holocaust, but I don't really understand why Stalin or Mao don't get the same negative attention that Hitler does. :/ Not quite sure. Hitler was one of those people that have so much impact on history...more so than Stalin or Mao could ever dream of. WW2 started pretty much on the agenda of one man...one man pretty much initiated WW2. That sort of influence is unheard of. Also people tend to be more sensitive when the genocide is...race related or the like. Stalin killed people to extend his own governmental power. If you weren't communist then you were as good as dead to Stalin. HItler killed Jewish people just because he could really. Hitler was a brilliant POLITICAL leader. He knew propaganda and how to use it. His fault was that he simply wasn't a military genius. If he had kept out of running the military and instead just told them who to invade and left his generals to it the war probably would have turned out VERY VERY differently. Thankfully he was arrogant to a fault. actually until the allies began to push the germans back, Hitler had been a very good military leader. Tyrant or not, he was the mastermind behind their german advance that swept though europe. The tide only turned when the US joined the fight and we had the man power to push him back, we won the war.... Hitler didn't lose it (if you catch my meaning). it was only when things got really bad that Hitler became more and more desperate and stopped thinking straight (well by his standards lol). Hitler was always a kneejerk reactionary military leader. The blitzkrieg was a collaboration thing and relied very heavily on surprise and their superior tank technology. This had little do with Hitler and more to do with common sense. The siege of Stalingrad was one of the biggest tactical blunders to ever grace an attacking army. As if attacking the Soviet Union wasn't enough, doing so in the winter, as well as allowing the lions share of your army to be surrounded in Stalingrad when Hitler had MULTIPLE chances to retreat and cut his losses dramatically is almost hilarious in its ridiculousness. Almost all of Hitler's generals told him point blank that Stalingrad was going to turn into a death trap if he didn't GTFO. He didn't GTFO and it turned into a death trap, and then the Soviet Union steam rolled Germany. That was when the tide changed in the war. It had little to do with the US. The US's main contribution in WW2 occurred in the Pacific theater. The European theater was dominated by the British crippling the Luftwaffe and the Soviet Union picking over half of Germany's available army to pieces. The US helped with Normandy and all that but by that time all the signs for a German collapse was already there because of Hitlers stubborn and frankly retarded attack on Stalingrad. If Germany had never attacked Russia, or if they had retreated from Stalingrad... the war would have turned out differently. I'm not saying that Germany would have won, but the Allied breakout after Normandy would have been much more difficult than it already was if the red army wasn't breathing down Germany's neck at the same time. If Germany had won or just not been completely steam rolled on the eastern front they may have had the time necessary to either develop a weapon of mass destruction, or some sort of stalemate. Hitler's arrogance is why the German army collapsed as quickly as it did. The German military commanders were scary good, the world is lucky Hitler was arrogant. US helped in Europe a lot also even earlier, but more with shipments of necessary stuff. Russians got a lot from US so they could devote a lot of production towards actual weapons and not to care about producing so many helmets, transport trucks, .... But yes Germans would have lost even without that. If you actually look at the numbers you can see that the american and british shipments were VITAL for the survival of the Soviet Union. Yeah, the russians did contribute most to germany's downfall, but it is very unlikely they could have kept up without allied support.
They were not vital for survival, they were vital for preventing long stalemate, thus shortening the war. Things that were quite vital were (in my opinion) :
1) finding out that Japan has no plans on attacking them, thus enabling them to move a lot of well trained units on European front.
2) germans alienating a lot of people that might have helped them at least temporarily, but that was basically unavoidable.
3) Stalin actually letting generals run the war
|
Curse the big bang theory for popularizing one of the main reasons the moon landing is provable, Neil Armstrong put a mirror on the moon that you can reflect a laser off of.
The smarts used to just let the dumbs run around being dumb, and laugh at them... Now we help them understand by feeding them knowledge through sitcoms.
|
Pretty much everything written about the founding fathers is debatable. Many people have the idea that the founders were all devote Christians but many of the founders were actually deists, which is someone who does not believe in a personal deity.
You also have the Treaty of Tripoli which expresses that America was not founded as a Christian nation. The motto "in God we trust" was not on all coins until 1938 and first appeared in 1864. "under God" was not added to the plead until 1956.
This all just goes to show you how some people will try and rewrite history so that it suits their world view and belief system.
|
On February 11 2011 00:17 HackBenjamin wrote:
Well, I'm not sure how Americans tell the story of the War of 1812, but Canadian troops burned presidential estate to the point where it needed white paint to cover the scorch marks, resulting in what we now call The White House.
Not exactly right, it would be technically British troops as it was all part of the British empire and they burned the white house down well a lot of it. The mansion that was built for the president was in the style of the neoclassical era so it was painted white before the fire. After the rebuilding of it it was redone to still be painted white. The white house isn't coated with marble so the color was added.
|
On February 10 2011 23:03 couches wrote:
Creationism
Actually no, it's not even debatable so nm.
That is religion, not history.
What I find amusing is how people have taken the Founding Fathers (some were deists, yes, most were not) and made them into non-Christians. This way they can support whatever progressive agenda by saying, "See, see, it's true!" Bollocks, I say. Especially George Washington, a very devout Christian. Jefferson was a Unitarian, but still a Christian. However, Benjamin Franklin was a deist. This much is true. I hate how people have destroyed the truth about the Founding Fathers for the single purpose of pushing whatever anti-religious agenda they have in mind.
|
On February 10 2011 18:49 Phenny wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 18:45 Frigo wrote:
The Holocaust is a hoax. In reality Hitler gathered the jews in camps to give them food and shelter and pink teddy bears, but the selfish jews killed themselves to make him look bad. I wouldn't be surprised if some people seriously believed this, probably the same kind of people who think 9/11 was an inside job.
Well there was the Iranian president that claimed the holocaust was an American lie, although he might have said to simply score points with his base or to anger Americans who knows. Although makes you wonder how many religious zealots actually agree with him.
|
On February 10 2011 20:03 don_kyuhote wrote:Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 19:53 emythrel wrote:On February 10 2011 19:48 Jayme wrote:On February 10 2011 14:07 travito wrote:On February 10 2011 14:02 Alexhandr wrote:On February 10 2011 14:01 Eskii wrote:On February 10 2011 13:54 Silidons wrote:
If I say it, I'll probably get banned. Fine, if you don't say it, I will... THE HOLOCAUST! Oh... only absolute morons deny such things. You can't hide the deaths of 11 million innocent people. =/ Despite the atrocities of the holocaust, Hitler was a brilliant leader. He can be credited with huge a economic boom during his time, as well as military success. My question is why is he painted as the posterboy for evil when Stalin and Mao both killed thousands more people under their rule? I am in no way trying to undermine the horrors of the holocaust, but I don't really understand why Stalin or Mao don't get the same negative attention that Hitler does. :/ Not quite sure. Hitler was one of those people that have so much impact on history...more so than Stalin or Mao could ever dream of. WW2 started pretty much on the agenda of one man...one man pretty much initiated WW2. That sort of influence is unheard of. Also people tend to be more sensitive when the genocide is...race related or the like. Stalin killed people to extend his own governmental power. If you weren't communist then you were as good as dead to Stalin. HItler killed Jewish people just because he could really. Hitler was a brilliant POLITICAL leader. He knew propaganda and how to use it. His fault was that he simply wasn't a military genius. If he had kept out of running the military and instead just told them who to invade and left his generals to it the war probably would have turned out VERY VERY differently. Thankfully he was arrogant to a fault. actually until the allies began to push the germans back, Hitler had been a very good military leader. Tyrant or not, he was the mastermind behind their german advance that swept though europe. The tide only turned when the US joined the fight and we had the man power to push him back, we won the war.... Hitler didn't lose it (if you catch my meaning). it was only when things got really bad that Hitler became more and more desperate and stopped thinking straight (well by his standards lol). I'm not sure if I agree. Hitler pushed through some of his idiotic and "pride over practicality" moves despite other military generals' protest such as starting a war with Soviet Union. And the German success had more to due with the quality of the German field commanders like Rommel than Hitler's military skills.
I am 100% sure to disagree with what emythrel said. It is in no way true that Hitler was a good military leader. He did not have training and was arrogant, he made huge mistakes, basically every mistake was his. Be it Stalingrad, the believe he could supply it via air, the placement of tanks in france before d-day, strategical descisions like building stukas near the end of the war or any other descision: All of the big mistakes were a direct result of Hitler and only Hitler himself. He was by no means the mastermind behind the swept, the early victories can be explained by plans his subordinates created + incompetence on the side of the allies. Hitler, and this should be in any history book, did lose. The tide didn't turn when the USA joined the fight, the tide turned around 41 infront of Moskow while Stalingrad in 42 sealed the deal. The american material support helped the Sowjet Union hugely but by 44 the invasion of Normandy was not really needed, Nazi Germany, even with all troops station in France, wouldn't have been able to stop the Russian advance. Simply check out the amount of divisions Stalin had. If anything it was insane how long the Wehrmacht was able to "hold" (as in constantly retreat) the Ostfront.
So no, Hitler was by no means a good military leader, if anything he is the perfect example how leaders can fuck up big time despite having really good generals (not all of the Wehrmacht Generals were good but they had a lot of really really good men).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
