EPTWhat are some debatable accounts of history? - Page 26
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
T0fuuu
Australia2275 Posts
| ||
|
icystorage
Jollibee19350 Posts
 | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6642 Posts
On February 10 2011 14:07 travito wrote: 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. :/ He was not a good military leader at all, logistics was an alien word to him, he ignored practical problems and fucked up Operation Barbarossa and every subsequent operation on the Eastern Front, if he had given his troops winter clothing (or at least allowed them to bring it themselves) and simply let his generals do what they want the Wehrmacht would have had far greater success. In fairness though Stalin was an awful leader as well and not only purged thousands of his own troops but messed up his military operations too. The reason Hitler gets more hate than Stalin and Mao though is he because he actively sought to kill entire races and did loads of inhumane medical tests on the homeless and insane, where as Stalin and Mao more killed people just as a result of other things they wanted to do. | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
On February 11 2011 14:38 jello_biafra wrote: He was not a good military leader at all, logistics was an alien word to him, he ignored practical problems and fucked up Operation Barbarossa and every subsequent operation on the Eastern Front, if he had given his troops winter clothing (or at least allowed them to bring it themselves) and simply let his generals do what they want the Wehrmacht would have had far greater success. In fairness though Stalin was an awful leader as well and not only purged thousands of his own troops but messed up his military operations too. The reason Hitler gets more hate than Stalin and Mao though is he because he actively sought to kill entire races and did loads of inhumane medical tests on the homeless and insane, where as Stalin and Mao more killed people just as a result of other things they wanted to do. Hitler was a terrible military leader, but he has to be given credit for being extremely charismatic. If only he wasn't so evil and put his energies and talents to something beneficial for the world. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6642 Posts
On February 11 2011 14:43 Ryuu314 wrote: Hitler was a terrible military leader, but he has to be given credit for being extremely charismatic. If only he wasn't so evil and put his energies and talents to something beneficial for the world. His speaking skills were amazing and he knew exactly what to say to get people on his side and it's a shame his views weren't different. On February 10 2011 14:53 gongryong wrote: 1969 Moon Landing! why has no one mentioned it yet? Sorry Americans, but there is overwhelming evidence against it. Are you serious...? | ||
|
Hidden_MotiveS
Canada2562 Posts
From the Canadian perspective the Canadians burnt the white house and "showed them hillbillies". From the British perspective, they fought the war, and don't care very much for it. Napoleon was more important at the time. | ||
|
Orome
Switzerland11984 Posts
While the Serbs have their fair share of blame in the Yugoslav wars, the account of those wars in the west have been very simplistic and one-sided. Popular newspapers took an incredibly complex conflict and tried to paint the easy picture of bad Serbia with Milosevic as their leader as the cause of all problems. Another example would be the West's portrayal of the trouble in Kenya 4 years ago. Another extremely complex conflict that had tribal disputes at their root, but somehow our media managed to turn it into good revolutionary Odinga vs. bad ruler Kibaki, even though, if anything, the evidence was that Odinga was the troublemaker. | ||
|
jello_biafra
United Kingdom6642 Posts
The whole Samurai honour code didn't exist, the Bushido code we know of today was created by the Japanese government during WW2 to boost the citizen's fighting spirit. Islamic fundamentalism as we know it today (lack of women's rights, hatred of the west etc.) didn't exist until the 1950's. The American thanksgiving holiday didn't exist until 1863 and was created to try and avert the Civil War (which obviously did not happen lol). in 1941 it became a standardized holiday with Turkey and such. Pretty much all medieval torture devices like the rack, iron maiden etc. did not exist. Again made up in the 19th Century to try and portray the people of that time as far more brutal and inhumane than they actually were. The wild west really wasn't very wild, in fact you were a lot more likely to be murdered in Baltimore in 2008 than in Tombstone, AZ in 1881. The image of bandits having shootouts in the streets every day was created by a few famous gunfighters like Billy the Kid (who killed 4 people in his life) and others who wanted to further the image of a living in a really badass, dangerous place. This passed into popular culture then movies etc. leading to the misconception today. | ||
|
SpiffD
Denmark1264 Posts
On February 11 2011 10:21 semantics wrote: Yes but from the US standpoint invasion of japan had causalities just for the landing at 60%+ then pushing though japan and occupying territory until japan concedes would likely be bloodier and the American public was getting sick with the war. Civilians don't mean shit with everyone was drafted it's not a volunteer army nor are all the goods used in war made by the government it's called total war. And considering that after the 2nd bombing the emperor of japan was nearly over thrown by the military dictatorship when he made the announcement of surrender, i'd say the right choice was made. Anyways America felt so bad about the bombings we gave ton of resources to rebuild japan(mostly under the premise of if we rebuild them they wont follow Germany into fascism like what happened after WWI, it also give us reason to stash military resources over there.) Anyways the bombing of Dresden in WWII is a cake walk compared to what the US did to Tokyo. That is a poor justification. Even if "everyone" was drafted it certainly wasn't women and children whom, I might remind you, died in the thousands when the two bombs were dropped. | ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
On February 11 2011 15:22 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: From a US perspective, the war of 1812 was a victory for the states. Something about it being a moral victory or the states not losing anything of value. From the Canadian perspective the Canadians burnt the white house and "showed them hillbillies". From the British perspective, they fought the war, and don't care very much for it. Napoleon was more important at the time. That's actually a good example of how popular history is false- at least the Canadian perspective. It's true that we Canadians are proud that we burned down the White House. I reference tongue-in-cheek jingoist War of 1812 song by Three Trolls in a Baggie. However, it was actually the British the burned down the White House. The colonial irregulars were generally unreliable. Actually that's another North American myth is the supposed effectiveness of the citizen soldier vs the regular soldier. Citizen soldiers had a tendency to run away unless stiffened by veteran troops. | ||
|
ZergOwaR
Norway280 Posts
On February 10 2011 13:59 TheGiftedApe wrote: http://www.1421.tv/ 1421, china discovers america the evidence is extremely thin, especially since a lot of chinese records from this era were destroyed. you can watch the documentary here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7722602442889799648# well if we look past the indians and such that allready lived in america.. china still didnt discover america first.. still a european.. and several hundred of years before columbus  Leiv Eiriksson.. around year 1000 ^^ he is said to have followed the route of Bjarne Herjolvssons.. who got off course near greenland.. and spotted new land (though didnt make landfall) ^^ | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
On February 11 2011 14:38 jello_biafra wrote: He was not a good military leader at all, logistics was an alien word to him, he ignored practical problems and fucked up Operation Barbarossa and every subsequent operation on the Eastern Front, if he had given his troops winter clothing (or at least allowed them to bring it themselves) and simply let his generals do what they want the Wehrmacht would have had far greater success. In fairness though Stalin was an awful leader as well and not only purged thousands of his own troops but messed up his military operations too. The reason Hitler gets more hate than Stalin and Mao though is he because he actively sought to kill entire races and did loads of inhumane medical tests on the homeless and insane, where as Stalin and Mao more killed people just as a result of other things they wanted to do. Stalin was outright looking to create a better country. I definitely wont blame the Soviet Union's brutal history on him alone. He entrusted certain individuals with absolute power who in turn entrusted their agencies with the same kind of power. Gulag's aren't a result of evil Stalin doctrine they are a result of people getting drunk with power and acquiring god's complex. | ||
|
SniperSamS2
United States8 Posts
On February 11 2011 15:51 jello_biafra wrote: Basically everything that is stereotypically Scottish is made up, for example kilts weren't invented until 400 years after William Wallace died and were created by an Englishman, there were no clan/family tartans, they were made up for tourists in the 19th Century, haggis was eaten by the ancient Greeks and Romans. The whole Samurai honour code didn't exist, the Bushido code we know of today was created by the Japanese government during WW2 to boost the citizen's fighting spirit. Islamic fundamentalism as we know it today (lack of women's rights, hatred of the west etc.) didn't exist until the 1950's. The American thanksgiving holiday didn't exist until 1863 and was created to try and avert the Civil War (which obviously did not happen lol). in 1941 it became a standardized holiday with Turkey and such. Pretty much all medieval torture devices like the rack, iron maiden etc. did not exist. Again made up in the 19th Century to try and portray the people of that time as far more brutal and inhumane than they actually were. The wild west really wasn't very wild, in fact you were a lot more likely to be murdered in Baltimore in 2008 than in Tombstone, AZ in 1881. The image of bandits having shootouts in the streets every day was created by a few famous gunfighters like Billy the Kid (who killed 4 people in his life) and others who wanted to further the image of a living in a really badass, dangerous place. This passed into popular culture then movies etc. leading to the misconception today. the Bushido code wasnt invented by the Japanese gov't in ww2 it existed way before. read "Japan before Perry" by Totman its not all about the Bushido but definitely says that the Bushido code was written in a book about bushido called Hagakure n it states that "If you are ready to discard life at a moment's notice, you and the bushido will become one. In this way throughout your life, you can perform your duties for your master without fail." also the american thanksgiving holiday did exist sort of but ur are right in that it became a National holiday in 1863. many different english colonies in the new world, during the 17th and 18th century, had their own thanksgiving but it probably wasnt on the last thursday of november and dont think turkey and all that was served; maybe turkey could have been served but probably not like a big deal as it is today. not sure of the Medieval times, the islamic fundamentalism seems right around the time where the shah of iran was the "puppet of the west" and i really dont have much interest in the wild west so not sure about it. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On February 11 2011 16:43 Sfydjklm wrote: Stalin was outright looking to create a better country. I definitely wont blame the Soviet Union's brutal history on him alone. He entrusted certain individuals with absolute power who in turn entrusted their agencies with the same kind of power. Gulag's aren't a result of evil Stalin doctrine they are a result of people getting drunk with power and acquiring god's complex. That is crazy, Stalin was definitely power-monger and knew pretty well about most of the deaths that are attributed to him, of course he did not kill them personally, but saying he just chose a bad people and was a good reformer wanting the best dor the country is not true. You might try to argue that about Lenin, but Stalin was a thug that got to power, as thugs often tend to do, and can be blamed a lot. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On February 11 2011 17:05 SniperSamS2 wrote: the Bushido code wasnt invented by the Japanese gov't in ww2 it existed way before. read "Japan before Perry" by Totman its not all about the Bushido but definitely says that the Bushido code was written in a book about bushido called Hagakure n it states that "If you are ready to discard life at a moment's notice, you and the bushido will become one. In this way throughout your life, you can perform your duties for your master without fail." also the american thanksgiving holiday did exist sort of but ur are right in that it became a National holiday in 1863. many different english colonies in the new world, during the 17th and 18th century, had their own thanksgiving but it probably wasnt on the last thursday of november and dont think turkey and all that was served; maybe turkey could have been served but probably not like a big deal as it is today. not sure of the Medieval times, the islamic fundamentalism seems right around the time where the shah of iran was the "puppet of the west" and i really dont have much interest in the wild west so not sure about it. There is some exaggeration in portrayal of medieval times and torture, but many of the devices existed and were used. | ||
|
Nightfall.589
Canada766 Posts
Stalin was outright looking to create a better country. I definitely wont blame the Soviet Union's brutal history on him alone. He entrusted certain individuals with absolute power who in turn entrusted their agencies with the same kind of power. Gulag's aren't a result of evil Stalin doctrine they are a result of people getting drunk with power and acquiring god's complex. You're right, the blame does not solely rest on Stalin's shoulders. Lenin had his hand in it, too (Look up the Cheka.) | ||
|
SniperSamS2
United States8 Posts
On February 11 2011 09:53 Brethern wrote: I only read the first few pages of the thread but I have to post this article. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/holohoax.htm I read the first few lines and I now have the urge to start breaking things. First off The Nazi's were collecting people for death very early in the 30th's I think it was around 1933 (that's when hitler got into power.) chances are he had thugs going around before that as well. Secondly. Gas chambers were not the only thing used there's this thing called guns that maybe people heard of. I also had the unfortunate experience of meeting people like that in real life, it's sad but they do believe in it. yea that site was definitely made by a neo nazi living somewhere in south america. acutally may be even living in the US or europe. one reason they found no bodies they gassed was because they BURNED all the bodies after killing them. there was a camp called Treblinka and had very few survivors. i think out of the 850,000 killed like 10 survived. one account of the camp was that the person saw a train load of jews come into the camp and take them out and tell these people that they were going be fine but the nazi's would take all their gold, jewlery and whatever they had left then killed them. i dont remember how frequently the killings occurred but it was fast and it happened for over a year. they in 1942 or 43 the camp closed and all evidence gone and today you will only see land. hitler didnt plan on killing the jews when he came to power in 1933. he had no idea what to do with them so he set up these ghettos. but sometime early during the the war a general named Reinhard heydrich came up with the idea and hitler approved. at first they used guns to kill the jews. then they used gas because it was more effective. theres a documentary about ww2 and the nazis its called The Nazis: A Warning from History. i highly advise you all to get the netflix 1 month free trial and rent it and then after a month u can cancel if you want. | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
On February 11 2011 10:10 UberThing wrote: Dresden bombing in WW2 and the atomic bombs in Japan. These were arguably "atrocities" by any definition as it involved the mass killing of primarily civilians. History has a tendency to lose focus of this. History is written by the winners? Yes. The systematic firebombing of any German city of note was not so much targeted at civilians but because a fair few of them had a whole lot of war industry in them. Please remember that this was a war. As much as people wanted to be humanitarian within it....when a worlds survival is at stake there are going to be bad points to it. You cannot avoid this. While they could have been more PRECISE in their bombing and they could have avoided strategic targets with heavily civilian presence...I don't think they quite qualify as atrocities. You could say war as a whole is an atrocity if you want, that I would be far more willing to agree with. The atomic bombs are FAR FAR more complicated. For some reason people tend to believe that the atomic bombs on Japan were a complete unnecessary loss of life and that they were an unneeded overkill. I highly doubt that a land invasion would have been any "better." In fact going by evidence, culture, and how difficult it would be to invade Japan I can fairly safely say that a land invasion would have had far more civilian casualties...hell casualties in general than the atomic bombs did. The Japan of WW2 is the same country that invented the Kaiten suicide submarine and had absolutely no qualm about flying their airplanes into ships and sacrificing themselves. They would have fought to every last man, woman, and probably child if it came down to it. The ONLY reason Japan even surrendered after that second atomic bomb was because they falsely believed we had more bombs to use and the military still threatened a coup because they were so pissed off at the surrender. Japan was more than willing to fight to the absolute death instead of surrendering. Do you honestly believe this would have been a better outcome? War sucks. A lot of people die in them. Any alternative leads to death. | ||
|
Nightfall.589
Canada766 Posts
On February 11 2011 18:19 Jayme wrote: I highly doubt that a land invasion would have been any "better." In fact going by evidence, culture, and how difficult it would be to invade Japan I can fairly safely say that a land invasion would have had far more civilian casualties...hell casualties in general than the atomic bombs did. The Japan of WW2 is the same country that invented the Kaiten suicide submarine and had absolutely no qualm about flying their airplanes into ships and sacrificing themselves. They would have fought to every last man, woman, and probably child if it came down to it. The ONLY reason Japan even surrendered after that second atomic bomb was because they falsely believed we had more bombs to use and the military still threatened a coup because they were so pissed off at the surrender. Japan was more than willing to fight to the absolute death instead of surrendering. Do you honestly believe this would have been a better outcome? War sucks. A lot of people die in them. Any alternative leads to death. The complain about the atomic bombings that most Japanese have, is that they insist that their country was ready to surrender, without the bombings. Given their refusal (Prior to the bombing) to accept the only terms the Allies could offer (I believe this was decided at... Postdam?) - unconditional surrender, I'm inclined to believe otherwise. | ||
|
don_kyuhote
3007 Posts
On February 11 2011 18:19 Jayme wrote: The systematic firebombing of any German city of note was not so much targeted at civilians but because a fair few of them had a whole lot of war industry in them. Please remember that this was a war. As much as people wanted to be humanitarian within it....when a worlds survival is at stake there are going to be bad points to it. You cannot avoid this. While they could have been more PRECISE in their bombing and they could have avoided strategic targets with heavily civilian presence...I don't think they quite qualify as atrocities. You could say war as a whole is an atrocity if you want, that I would be far more willing to agree with. The atomic bombs are FAR FAR more complicated. For some reason people tend to believe that the atomic bombs on Japan were a complete unnecessary loss of life and that they were an unneeded overkill. I highly doubt that a land invasion would have been any "better." In fact going by evidence, culture, and how difficult it would be to invade Japan I can fairly safely say that a land invasion would have had far more civilian casualties...hell casualties in general than the atomic bombs did. The Japan of WW2 is the same country that invented the Kaiten suicide submarine and had absolutely no qualm about flying their airplanes into ships and sacrificing themselves. They would have fought to every last man, woman, and probably child if it came down to it. The ONLY reason Japan even surrendered after that second atomic bomb was because they falsely believed we had more bombs to use and the military still threatened a coup because they were so pissed off at the surrender. Japan was more than willing to fight to the absolute death instead of surrendering. Do you honestly believe this would have been a better outcome? War sucks. A lot of people die in them. Any alternative leads to death. Some Japanese military actually did stage a coup when Japan decided to surrender, but was foiled rather quickly and easily. Also, atomic bomb wasn't just about US vs Japan. Soviet Union declared war on Japan and was marching through Manchuria with ease. I can't even imagine what post-WW2 would have been like had the Soviets invaded Japanese mainland. Maybe a Communist North Japan and Capitalist South Japan? | ||
| ||
