# Worst Case of Historical Revisionism?



## SpergPatrol (Jul 17, 2022)

"History is written by it's winners," is a true statement as many countries and people change what happened in thier history books to justify certain events.

Question is what is the outright atrocious case of people rewriting history you have seen that can be proven? 
Why do you think they re-wrote it in that way?
And worst part is it actually convincing anyone?


----------



## Beautiful Border (Jul 17, 2022)

The most outrageous example I can think of off the top of my head is when student activists at a university with an Abraham Lincoln statue wanted it removed because of his connection to the "Mankato hangings". This was an incident where, as said activists would tell you, Abe was responsible for the largest mass execution in American history, in which 38 Dakota warriors were hanged. This is technically true, but is so misleading that it's essentially a lie by omission.

What actually happened was that the US military had captured 303 Dakota men as POWs after a particularly vicious frontier conflict with settlers. The army originally wanted to hang all of them, but Abe personally intervened and commuted the sentences of 265 of them. The 38 who were left to hang were only those who had provably committed acts of rape and murder against settlers. He was actually being incredibly lenient, but by emitting key details when retelling what happened what was an act of mercy is now being used to portray him as a butcher. It's one of the few leftist lies that truly angers me because of how utterly slimy it is.


----------



## Pixy (Jul 17, 2022)

The Jewish revolt in Judea, the most prominent account of which was written by the losers, in this case a former slave of Vespasian who actively participated in the Jewish revolt, Flavius Josephus. His account of the siege at Masada is markedly egregious, as the archaeological excavations and analyses of the site  have not held up his claims of the fantastical last stand by the Sicarii.

There's also the myth of the 'clean wehrmacht', considering most of it came from former/serving german military or those with a vested interest in it. That one's been the most successful, considering how many wehraboos exist and its general persistence.


----------



## whothefuck (Jul 17, 2022)

the way the slave trade is misremembered is probably one- with how the age of african empires is conflated with the slave colonies of the new world when they did not take place at the same time.


----------



## Saturnalia-1918 (Jul 17, 2022)

That the insane Caligula made his horse a Senator. The writing of all the madness Caligula committed came decades after the end of his reign with most just being the publishing of sensationalist rumors and hearsay. In particular, wanting to make his horse a consul, which was not done out of madness but to insult the Senate by saying it had become so powerless that a horse could fulfill the senatorial office.


----------



## Too Many Catgirls (Jul 17, 2022)

There's a lot of hearsay and conflicting information about the Vlasov battalions during World War II. If you were to listen to Stalin, they were abject traitors; if you talked to Wehrmacht leadership they'd tell you that they were useful idiots; and if you listened to Solzhenitsyn they were martyrs. I couldn't tell you what is true and what isn't.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jul 17, 2022)

Civil War states rights bullshit. It's not that it's the most harmful or offensive, just that I'm familiar enough with both sides of it to realize both how widespread it is and how easily disprovable it is too.

Leaving aside the stuff people always bitch about (noble savage Aztecs and American Indians, race and ancient/Medieval Europe, etc.), it pisses me off how Vikings are now played as heroic because they killed Catholics (who had done nothing to them, basically they treat them like a White version of their usual precious brown people because they weren't Christian), pirates, and Texas.

With pirates its straightforward, they - specifically certain historians, like Colin Woodward - play them off as progressive revolutionaries who gay married, had gender equality, fought colonialism, and liberated slaves. The truth is that they were still looters by their nature, and more specifically were looters either serving as mercs of the colonies or as rebellious mercs after their contracts were terminated (War of the Spanish Succession ending --> Nassau Republic formed). With regards to slaves, sometimes they freed slaves, sometimes they "freed" them by conscripting them into their crews (you know, kind of like being a slave), sometimes they sold the slaves since they were valuable contraband, sometimes they fucking sank the ship with the slaves onboard. It had everything to do with the personalities of the crews/captains involved and whatever goals they had at the moment. There was no ideology tied to it whatsoever.

With Texas they like to play up the slavery angle of it, how it was basically a filibuster expedition that was successful. I used to believe that, but in time I've come back to realizing that while most of the Texans WERE duplicitous scumbags, Santa Ana still had it coming. Leaving aside that the largely non-slaving, Catholic, and Mexican Tejanos were also largely revolutionaries, Santa Ana had overthrown the old constitution (basically voiding any legitimacy his government had), and was fighting secession movements spanning all the way from Yucatan to Zacatecas to Rio Grande to New Mexico to California. His whole country was disintegrating. So even if slavery was a big chunk of why Texas existed, you can't just overlook that Santa Ana was so shitty his own people rejected him all over the place.




Spoiler: Ughubug's model of cyclical revisionism



I have had a tendency in my life - mostly my teenage years - towards revisionism, probably in large part just contrarian douchebaggery that also saw me embrace Alt-Right shit that I've mostly turned from in late college years. Despite that I don't regret any of it, because I have found that revisionism actually helps me to appreciate history much more and understand it better.

Firstly, revisionists tend to know more about their subject matter than casuals. There's lots of casuals who either don't care about history, or do care about it but are too lazy/unthinking to spend any time thinking through what they hear, so they just parrot whatever the dominant historical narrative is. I know people like this, who genuinely know a lot of stuff but also hold contradictory views (like American Revolution good, French Revolution bad, Lincoln good) because they just jerk off whatever looks the most traditional to them, even if tradition means totally different things in different contexts.

Anyways, the revisionist has to know a good chunk just to be a revisionist at all. Of course, much of what they learn will either be factually incorrect, misrepresented, or incomplete, but I still respect them. But, if a person reads generally and doesn't just read their revisionist circlejerk, they should eventually get enough knowledge for their revisionist viewpoint to collapse. (Mind, some revisionism is actually correct; McCarthyist revisionism, for example, is 100% true.)

Now, the cyclical part of this is that I tend to find that there's a journey where as you study the revisionist viewpoint you'll shift to backing the bad guy, but will eventually work your way back to supporting the good guy, except now with way more nuance and depth than the normal historical narrative goes. It's like Hegelian dialectics. Some examples from my studies:

AMERICAN REVOLUTION
- King bad because tax and no democracy 
- King not bad, tax imposed because colony started war, also offered representation in Parliament, also want kill Indian 
- King is bad, imperial troops not actually used to protect colonies, also colonies were basically self-governing so the King was kind of useless, was fucking them over in ways had never done before, colonies were like their own countries BEFORE British tightened down

AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
- South bad because slavery 
- South seceded over other things like tariffs and internal regulations, also North wanted South tariff money, also constitution gives right to secede, big government, Lincoln tyrant, North didn't care about slavery, South would have freed them all anyways.
- But no Southern state besides Georgia even mentioned tariffs in their secession documents, and can Lincoln really be called a tyrant when he let a contested election happen? Also, none of this big government stuff now had anything to do with political issues back then. Also Southerners had no respect for the Constitution when they suppressed free speech in their own states, they enshrined slavery in their Constitution, it was hugely profitable and they aggressively tried to impose it elsewhere. Yeah, the North had lots of racists, but they weren't really the ones in power. Also, is mild inconvenience for Whites nowadays worth having consigned Blacks to slavery back then?

TEXAN REVOLUTION
- Mexico bad because tyrant 
- How would you feel if a bunch of people crossed your border, agreed to assimilate and follow the laws of your land, didn't do any of that, and then revolted to claim your land from you?
- True, true, but as mentioned above, the whole fucking country of Mexico was in a state of war and had an unlawful government

CENTRAL POWERS IN WW1
- Germany bad because aggressor  but totes sad they were victimized at Versailles :'| Save democracy, over there
- Germany was not the aggressor, WTF are you talking about? Serbian terror attacks started the war and then entangling alliances caused the rest of it. The US got itself entangled through its favoritism and the war to save the world for democracy was total bullshit (Germany was a federal constitutional monarchy, the Russians were a de facto absolute monarchy).
- True, but the Ottomans committed the Armenian Genocide and the Germans invaded neutral Belgium: you don't just get to invade a neutral country for expediency. The Germans were awful nasty barbarians who had no regard for life, as seen in their disgusting behavior in both trench warfare and towards civilians. The Americans did involve themselves but Germany did itself no favors with retarded policies like their submarine warfare and Zimmerman Telegram, and had in fact been saber rattling at them and everybody else for years, if they existed nowadays they'd be viewed like China and Russia are. The Kaiser played the single largest role of anybody in helping the Bolsheviks come to power. The Germans were extremely vindictive at Brest-Litovsk. A total victory like in WW2 shows that you CAN punish a country, you have to break them completely. And why shouldn't Serbia be trying to liberate its countrymen occupied by a foreign monarchy? Fuck Germany, fuck France, fuck Russia, fuck all of them, they're all shit and had it coming except Belgium.

AMERICAN INDIANS
- American Indians were dindu nuffin noble savages that lived in peace >
- Lolbro, Indians stayed at war 24/7 with each other and ate people and were savages and stole the land from someone else
- Who cares if they're savages? They could be banging rocks together and wearing loincloths and they'd still have a right to exist on the land that's theirs by conquest (if you've held land for generations, it doesn't really matter where you got it from, it's all water under the bridge), and anyways they weren't, they had sophisticated political structures (Haudenosaunee, Haida) and architecture (Pueblo, moundbuilders) and very rich artwork/crafts (look up actual Indian clothing, pottery, totem poles, etc.). Also, which is worse, eating the heart of a respected slain foe to gain his courage, or having bears fight dogs to the death for fun? They had practices which are disgusting to us because we're raised to find it disgusting, but a ton of what Europeans did was disgusting. Treating women like cattle was disgusting. The Southeastern Indian had a much more humane treatment of their people, more equal, more fair, more human, than the Europeans. Their religion also had no moral content but it was way more fun than Jew-stick. If they'd been allowed to develop on their own long enough they could have made some amazing civilizations.

Edit: That rant got off topic, but I really would rather live with the Cherokee in the 1700s than live with Hwhyte people in the same time where the rich people treat you like shit and the preachers beat you down with a Bible. And a lot of people back then agreed, which is why they went to join those societies. That they didn't have big things like cathedrals didn't mean their day to day living standards were actually that bad, there wasn't a ton of difference in normal day to day life for an Indian farmer living in a longhouse, eating tasty cornbreads and bean-and-game stews, than there was for a yeoman farmer doing the same shit in a log cabin. Except the Indian got to live in a functioning anarcho-primitivist society that had progressive elements without being consumed by them.




Edit
Another thing that really annoys me that I see Right-wingers as well as Left-wingers throw around, for "pity us White folks" points, is anything to do with the Irish-Americans and indentured servants.
1) INDENTURED SERVANTS ARE NOT FUCKING SLAVES. It's an exploitative situation (indentured servants tended to be fatherless adolescents, and could get trapped by debt, it was kind of like the situation of being a company town worker), but even if we sometimes call things slavery as a metaphor, there is a world of difference between being legal property with no civil rights versus just being poor/stuck in a contract. They had a contract. They signed the contract. It paid for their very expensive passage, pretty much at the exact cost (shipping was competitive) of moving them, and if they didn't get the treatment they were due they could and frequently would successfully sue their masters. No other "Irish slavery" existed in America.

2) IRISH WERE ALWAYS WHITE
It was straight-up 4Chan-style Antebellum shitposting calling Irish non-White. They were always legally White, just considered socially inferior.

3) THE KNOW-NOTHINGS MAY HAVE HAD A POINT
This one is a lot more contentious and I'm not certain in this, but I think the Know Nothings, often played off as ignorant retarded xenophobes, had a point to their anti-Catholicism. Look at any other Catholic society in those days and you'll see Church fuckery at every level of politics, the Pope himself didn't necessarily steer it but the local clerics were very involved in places like France and Mexico, making it a huge political issue. As a minority in a country that had a history of Catholics persecuting them back home, I don't see it as irrational at all that the Know Nothings wanted to give a preemptive beatdown to the Papists, and I even believe that the fact they weren't shy about it may have been WHY that didn't happen in America and could be an example of what needs to be done to get the Muslims to assimilate, a good beatdown to make it clear they will never have the right to rule this place.


----------



## Red Hood (Jul 17, 2022)

Vlad Tepes' legacy being written by his enemies, the Saxons and the Hunyadi. Dude WAS brutal as fuck, but not outrageously moreso than anyone else in his time, and he took his actions for completely understandable reasons that are pretty patriotic.


----------



## Moja Zemlja (Jul 17, 2022)

The whole "we're a nation of immigrants" that gets uses when talking about the UK and US, the circumstances for each country obviously differs but it has the same kind of goal to push the idea that as a citizen and native of either country you can't argue against immigration.


----------



## JohnDoe (Jul 17, 2022)

The fucking Holohoax, that canard has been used as a cudgel to advance the genocide of White Europeans for nearly 100 years.


----------



## RangerBoo (Jul 17, 2022)

Trannies trying to rewrite Hindu history and culture saying that there were 3 genders in their culture. No there wasn't.
Also, Democrats trying to rewrite history saying that they were the ones who advocated for the freedom of slaves. They say this because former Union states tend to lean Blue in present time while Confederate states lean Red in the present. The fucking cope is amazing to see on sites like Twitter and Reddit.


----------



## Certified_Autist (Jul 17, 2022)

Almost anything related to Abraham Lincoln. I will preface this by saying that no, I'm not a butthurt lost causer, and yes, the South was largely fighting to keep slavery legal. This isn't about the Civil War, but about how Lincoln is portrayed today vs who he actually was.

Lincoln is used as a tool to teach modern 21st century values, and his role is quasi-religious. Slavery is treated like America's original sin, and Lincoln died to free us from that sin. There's a narrative that Lincoln spent his life opposing slavery on humanitarian grounds and that he was in favor of racial equality. That narrative is largely fictional.

The real Lincoln was a corporate railroad lawyer before entering politics. He openly said his primary motive in the Civil War was keeping the Union together, (this quote is commonly repeated by lost causers to claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery), and in the same quote said that he didn't particularly care about slavery beyond how it would affect American unity. He also considered whites to be superior and blacks to be inferiors, believed that equality wasn't possible, and integration was undesireable, and because of this wanted to send the freed slaves back to Africa. In line with this, his oposition to slavery (less staunch than often claimed) was less motiviated by humaitarianism and more motivated by a desire to protect the economic interests of ‘Free White Labour’. If you want to get a bit politispergy, he had one of the largest paramilitary organizations in America’s history(The Wide Awakes), who jailed journalists for reporting negative things.

THAT Lincoln, the man who made Trump look like a respecter of his critics, the man would be considered horrifically racist by today's standards, is so far away from the "Great Emancipator" Lincoln presented in the modern narrative, its absurd. The whitewashing of Lincoln is imo one of the best examples of revisionism in American history.

Like I said, I'm not a lost causer and the Confederacy had plenty of grounds for crticism, to put it mildly. That doesn't justify Lincoln being deified and protrayed in popular consciousness as a figure that he never was in reality.


----------



## Anime Tiddy (Jul 17, 2022)

The post WWII narrative that Hitler was totally militarily incompetent when in some instances he had the correct instincts and his generals complained.


----------



## SpergPatrol (Jul 17, 2022)

Certified_Autist said:


> Almost anything related to Abraham Lincoln. I will preface this by saying that no, I'm not a butthurt lost causer, and yes, the South was largely fighting to keep slavery legal. This isn't about the Civil War, but about how Lincoln is portrayed today vs who he actually was.
> 
> Lincoln is used as a tool to teach modern 21st century values, and his role is quasi-religious. Slavery is treated like America's original sin, and Lincoln died to free us from that sin. There's a narrative that Lincoln spent his life opposing slavery on humanitarian grounds and that he was in favor of racial equality. That narrative is largely fictional.
> 
> ...


I heard of some of this but mainly he went along with slaves being freed due to many of his fellow constituents were anti-slavery and without them, he couldn't get what he needed to be done or anything he needed approved.
I didn't know some of this but I did know that Lincoln didn't give two shits about freeing slaves, he only went along with it because people he associated with it wanted that to happen.
Oddly enough I learned that part in high school, they showed us real quotes from his associates and even showed us how little lincoln actually gave a shit about slavery.

Why make him this symbol now? He didn't even want to free the slaves if you look into it, his associate basically pressured him to sign that emancipation proclamation.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 17, 2022)

Crusade vs. Jihad, where one conquered a quarter of the world in thousands of battles and made coasts of europe unlivable because of the slave raids, and the other winning like 10 or 15 battles total and causing more damage inside europe than against the enemies it was supposedly against.


----------



## Wormy (Jul 17, 2022)

Lemmingwise said:


> Crusade vs. Jihad, where one conquered a quarter of the world in thousands of battles and made coasts of europe unlivable because of the slave raids, and the other winning like 10 or 15 battles total and causing more damage inside europe than against the enemies it was supposedly against.


Well duh, they couldn't even get to the Holy Land without deciding "Nah, fuck this, we're sacking the Rhineland because of JOOOOOOS"


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 17, 2022)

Wormy said:


> Well duh, they couldn't even get to the Holy Land without deciding "Nah, fuck this, we're sacking the Rhineland because of JOOOOOOS"


Let's give criminals a mandate to be forgiven their crimes by giving them weapons and telling them to go kill some people. What could go wrong?


----------



## Wormy (Jul 17, 2022)

Lemmingwise said:


> Let's give criminals a mandate to be forgiven their crimes by giving them weapons and telling them to go kill some people. What could go wrong?


Even better, LET"S GET THE KIDS IN ON IT TOO!

I love bringing up the Children's Crusade to Deus Vult types....


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 17, 2022)

Wormy said:


> Even better, LET"S GET THE KIDS IN ON IT TOO!
> 
> I love bringing up the Children's Crusade to Deus Vult types....


well you just did.


----------



## Dyn (Jul 17, 2022)

Rome being any less barbaric than their neighbours.


----------



## Mothra1988 (Jul 17, 2022)

JohnDoe said:


> The fucking Holohoax, that canard has been used as a cudgel to advance the genocide of White Europeans for nearly 100 years.


Yeah, furries and other autists pretending the holocaust didn't happen is pretty atrocious historical rivisionism used to attack white people who aren't as retarded.  Agreed.


----------



## Brain Power (Jul 18, 2022)

Salvador Allende being a good boy who dindu nuffin and Pinochet unjustly ending his good government.
And the whole thing about the "mapuche conflict". It was solved by Pinochet back then (he was even named their "Futa Lonco" aka their maximum authority) and the ones causing all the current shitshow don't even want to acknowledge that. Do you want to know why Araucanía and Bío-Bío regions tend to vote for the right? Because of him.


----------



## Kramer on the phone (Jul 18, 2022)

Certified_Autist said:


> Almost anything related to Abraham Lincoln. I will preface this by saying that no, I'm not a butthurt lost causer, and yes, the South was largely fighting to keep slavery legal. This isn't about the Civil War, but about how Lincoln is portrayed today vs who he actually was.
> 
> Lincoln is used as a tool to teach modern 21st century values, and his role is quasi-religious. Slavery is treated like America's original sin, and Lincoln died to free us from that sin. There's a narrative that Lincoln spent his life opposing slavery on humanitarian grounds and that he was in favor of racial equality. That narrative is largely fictional.
> 
> ...


meh, Lincoln was what Biden was today, a figurehead to keep the normies from realizing how nutty the party in power was, what Lincoln believed and what the GOP did over the next half century might as well be completely different. its literally like using Blue dog biden as proof that the dems aren't into CRT or trans rights or protecting the heckin niggerinos. 

that brings up a good point though, how often are we using the crazy shit politicans say once in a long career as proof of ideas they hold their entire life, we all know how we feel about biden now but in the 2100s how will they judge him? especially considering how different his views were in the 1980s vs now and what policies he's shoving down people's thorats.


Anime Tiddy said:


> The post WWII narrative that Hitler was totally militarily incompetent when in some instances he had the correct instincts and his generals complained.


another good one is how Hitler's book is so boring and dumb and we shouldn't read it. I heard plenty of kikes say that, same with his speeches which is why they never translated them on history channel.


----------



## ICametoLurk (Jul 18, 2022)

all the buildings currently at Teotihuacan are modern reconstructions and are just less than 100 years old and this fact is obscured or excluded from almost every article about the site

there seems to be some kind of connection between that project and the Mexican Revolution

https://www.iccrom.org/sites/defaul...2021-04/convern9_04_02_earroyoszetina_eng.pdf

Apparently in Mexico this revision was done under the direction of the Escuela Nacional Preparatoria which was a newly privatized college which began practicing destructive historical revisionism on basically every front imaginable. It wasn't just the ruins that were rebuild in some cases, it was national monuments that were "improved".


> In Mexico, the reconstruction of historical heritage coincides with what Nicholas StanleyPrice points out about the weight of the notion of national symbolic value for the recovery, reinterpretation, and reinvention of buildings, part of a political propaganda program that champions contemporary positions through the remembrance of convenient passages in history. The reconstructions that began in the decades of 1920-1930 were based rather on the idea of the defense of miscegenation as the foundational basis of Mexican society. The larger works of the post-revolutionary cultural project of José Vasconcelos resorted to the neo-Colonial style or alternatively contemplated the adaptation and reconstruction in style as a symbol of the hybrid nation, such as in the building of the Ministry of Public Education and the Colegio de San Pedro y San Pablo, to give paradigmatic examples



Basically all those ruins you see in Latin America that are fixed up was to make people race-mix so instead of separate races you had a BLOB whose only ties were to the Nation-State, which is a Spook (exists as much as a ghost). You know, so they don't have the problems that the Soviet Union had which was everyone was a nationalist in like Estonia, Ukraine, Lativa, and etc.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jul 18, 2022)

Moja Zemlja said:


> The whole "we're a nation of immigrants" that gets uses when talking about the UK and US, the circumstances for each country obviously differs but it has the same kind of goal to push the idea that as a citizen and native of either country you can't argue against immigration.


There was at some point a deliberate push to rebrand American identity around Ellis Island style immigrant stories instead of pioneers and colonists like it used to be.

Related to it is something not exactly revisionist but similar, the National mythos of the USA prioritizes colonial New England way more than the colonial South. The Pilgrims, for example, get way more play than Jamestown (a lot of people seem to think we’re all descended from the Pilgrims or that they were the first, if you’re not from out of that region THEYRE NOT YOUR HERITAGE), the first five Presidents we’re Virginian, the American Revolution was predecessed by an insurrection in North Carolina, and the war was decided by campaigns in the Carolinas and Virginia. It is like the collective memory at a national level totally shoved aside the entire colonial Southern experience and wrote over it a completely urban Northeastern perspective.


----------



## teriyakiburns (Jul 18, 2022)

"The EU prevented another war in Europe".

It did shit. The EU didn't even exist until Maastricht, when its institutions were formalised. It was a technocratic solution to prevent repeat of the great war by forcing artificial trade dependence between the nations of europe, but its kernel (the coal and steel union) wasn't implemented until the late 50s, when the problem had already been obviated by the destruction of intra-European trade barriers in the aftermath of world war 2. Everything it claims as its own achievement was done by others. ECHR? Not the EU. The European Space Agency? Absorbed by the EU when it became politically convenient. Increased intracontinental trade? The EEA and the EFTA, one or the other of which most of the early member states already joined before joining the then EEC. All the EU really does is act as a translation service for the various international standards committees, whilst also preventing its members having any say in the operation of those committees, outside of the EU common position.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jul 18, 2022)

Certified_Autist said:


> Almost anything related to Abraham Lincoln. I will preface this by saying that no, I'm not a butthurt lost causer, and yes, the South was largely fighting to keep slavery legal. This isn't about the Civil War, but about how Lincoln is portrayed today vs who he actually was.
> 
> Lincoln is used as a tool to teach modern 21st century values, and his role is quasi-religious. Slavery is treated like America's original sin, and Lincoln died to free us from that sin. There's a narrative that Lincoln spent his life opposing slavery on humanitarian grounds and that he was in favor of racial equality. That narrative is largely fictional.
> 
> ...


A sort of revisionist stance that's gotten really common is associating Confederate ideology with fascism (and also distancing it, which bland normie conservatives do too, from American republicanism and liberalism in general) just because it's racist, as if that were a necessary characteristic of fascism (it's not) or equivalent to it.

In reality, the closest equivalent to the Southern worldview was something like Roman republicanism (the existence of slavery makes liberty more meaningful, and slavery is necessary to sustain a leisure class capable of politicking; the Southern planter, who tended to dabble in law or medicine or military service, was more like the Roman aristocrat than anything else). The Union, on the other hand, had similarities to fascism with its strong Yankee nationalism, protectionism, corporatist (state subsidizes the industry, works with the banks) economy. There's a reason nationalists and fascists the world over admired Lincoln. It wasn't fascist, but if a person is going to slap retarded labels on things then it's the Union that fits it better, the Confederacy was its own bizarre and unique thing.

I've heard people talk about Southern ideology like they didn't understand liberalism, no they didn't misunderstand it you condescending twat, they had a completely different version of it.



SOME OTHERS
Again, not actual revisionism, but more like revisionism-by-omission: Jonestown gets a lot of play either as a Christian cult or as a generic cult, and in popular memory it's very rarely remembered as having been a Communist movement that fused with the San Francisco machine. I feel like it's sometimes used to make points about muh religion when it was in reality very little to do with Christianity or the Bible by the time it took off.

Popular memory also whitewashed the hippies completely, they had a very aggressive, violent, criminal tinge to them. Their peaceful nature was a pose, not reality.

The way Leftists have become associated with the party of science is baffling and probably driven mostly by dumbass creationists, because pretty much every fucking technology (especially agricultural) except green they've been opposed to, and they did nothing but bitch about the Space Race.

There seems to be this big shift to give Blacks credit for absolutely everything in music (like with everything else in this world), and also to cast it like some antagonistic thing that White musicians "stole" their music. Usually it's just jokes, implying there'd be some resentment about people like Elvis Presley, but I find it very disrespectful because those people got their music from hanging out with Blacks at a time when that was not approved of. It also dramatically understates the importance of the White instruments, music theory, and genres that enabled it and the huge Jewish role (you could probably argue jazz is as much Yiddish as it is Black).

Schrodinger's Racist, a phenomenon in which all the racism in the US exists in the South except for when it's politically important to remember that discrimination was widespread in the North too. (The North is not racist and the South is, except the country is entirely racist everywhere: the contradiction.) I rant about this frequently.

This obnoxious trend where people portray the Fifties black-and-white TV style family as socially dysfunctional and repressed MORE than the modern American family, it's like this form of projection where the modern man says "well if I can't see your degeneracy you must just be hiding it and even more degenerate than me."


----------



## The Great Chandler (Jul 18, 2022)

Whenever the medieval European times gets painted as a predominantly uneducated shithole were childhood did not exist and people were covered in turd smears with no hygiene whatsoever. Monty Python was making a joke, not a statement!


----------



## DJ Grelle (Jul 18, 2022)

Everything written by an anglo must be taken with the annual production of an entire salt mine. Their actions themselves aren't that much worse than other nations', but at least those others admit to it with a certain pragmatism. The anglo upper class cloak their duplicity and downright immoral behavior in "liberty" and "human rights". 

The equating of social progress with technical progress. Simply a baseless claim.

What the public thinks of as feudal government/structure is just the enlightenment spergout about it. Most of it is retarded and wrong. The idea that we are returning to a feudal system is retarded. 

Practically all colonialism was done with the support of a majority of the local population. It simply was not doable otherwise. The idea that the colonial europeans were some hate-filled bunch who were motivated solely by white supremacism is gigantic cope for the fact that europeans were just better rulers than a lot of the local chiefs and kings. Even today; western states are better organized than much of the rest of the world.


----------



## Prophetic Spirit (Jul 18, 2022)

Brain Power said:


> Salvador Allende being a good boy who dindu nuffin and Pinochet unjustly ending his good government.
> And the whole thing about the "mapuche conflict". It was solved by Pinochet back then (he was even named their "Futa Lonco" aka their maximum authority) and the ones causing all the current shitshow don't even want to acknowledge that. Do you want to know why Araucanía and Bío-Bío regions tend to vote for the right? Because of him.
> View attachment 3502293View attachment 3502294View attachment 3502321


I'm gonna add something interesting, now you're talking about that country:
Mapuches actually are genocidal pieces of shit, they're not from Chile, they're from Argentina.
Shit like that never gonna appear in nowadays historical books, but actually makes sense about why Pehuenches and Picunches (both actual native people from the central-south of Chile) doesn't even fucking exist in these days.


----------



## Penrowe (Jul 18, 2022)

The truth of the historical record that contributed greatly to uncle Adolf's animosity towards hebrews and resolve to invade the soviet union is something that is only ever accounted for in bits and pieces and to gain any sort of accurate insight you've got to read at minimum half a dozen works that each include some portion of the whole. I don't know if this is the result of outright deception or if it's just viewed as too much work to go through every major event of the early 20'th century but the end result is a monstrous lie by omission.

The russian revolution and the wars and famines that followed, the first world war and the german home front, the spartacist uprising, the failed bavarian soviet republic, to not include all of these events when retelling the history of the second world war is understandable but to not include any or at least make reference to them as a way for the reader to be able to understand _why_ the moustachio'd madman made the decisions he did is frankly unforgivable.


----------



## Brain Power (Jul 18, 2022)

Prophetic Spirit said:


> I'm gonna add something interesting, now you're talking about that country:
> Mapuches actually are genocidal pieces of shit, they're not from Chile, they're from Argentina.
> Shit like that never gonna appear in nowadays historical books, but actually makes sense about why Pehuenches and Picunches (both actual native people from the central-south of Chile) doesn't even fucking exist in these days.


Not even Argentina, they supposedly have more in common with tribes from _BRAZIL_. Not even their language is related to other ones from the area they claim they inhabited. Wallmapu never even existed, hell, I AM from center-south Chile and I never heard of that thing until I was a teenager. Hector Llaitul is not even mapuche, his last name is from another -che tribe. And picunches, the only time I read that name was in _Papelucho_, not even a history book.


----------



## Ser Prize (Jul 18, 2022)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> There was at some point a deliberate push to rebrand American identity around Ellis Island style immigrant stories instead of pioneers and colonists like it used to be.
> 
> Related to it is something not exactly revisionist but similar, the National mythos of the USA prioritizes colonial New England way more than the colonial South. The Pilgrims, for example, get way more play than Jamestown (a lot of people seem to think we’re all descended from the Pilgrims or that they were the first, if you’re not from out of that region THEYRE NOT YOUR HERITAGE), the first five Presidents we’re Virginian, the American Revolution was predecessed by an insurrection in North Carolina, and the war was decided by campaigns in the Carolinas and Virginia. It is like the collective memory at a national level totally shoved aside the entire colonial Southern experience and wrote over it a completely urban Northeastern perspective.


People always talk the hard working immigrant but forget the pioneers that broke land for those ports. I think it's because they want to sever all cultural ties, like they apparently did in Mexico.


----------



## Moja Zemlja (Jul 18, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> People always talk the hard working immigrant but forget the pioneers that broke land for those ports. I think it's because they want to sever all cultural ties, like they apparently did in Mexico.


Isn't it in part because of muh natives? People don't like the idea that the colonists and later Americans conquered the land and took it from the natives.


----------



## verissimus (Jul 18, 2022)

DJ Grelle said:


> Everything written by an anglo must be taken with the annual production of an entire salt mine.


I'd say it depends on whether the Anglo is an "academic" or not usually.  For example, I have read a few military history books written by English authors that were great.  Instead or pretentious prose, the authors usually settled for a little wit here and there and usually these writers tend to get right to the point.  Academic English writers tend to be the opposite and often clearly Left-wing.


----------



## Sage In All Fields (Jul 18, 2022)

People conflating the pre-Islamic Arab eunuchs with transgenders and making it seem like it continued to be an  accepted practice. Also the idea that one day people just woke up and decided to hate jews.


----------



## History Speaks (Jul 18, 2022)

World War II revisionism is pretty dumb. By which I mean the idea that the outbreak of war was the Western Allies' fault, or that the US (or Britain or France) should have stayed out of the war (I exclude Holocaust denial from this because it does not even deserve to be called revisionism).

WWII revisionists proceed by debunking wartime propaganda that historians have debunked long ago—e.g. the idea that the Nazis wanted war with Britain, France, and the US—and acting as if they have contributed some novel insight. Because they typically have not read any books—with a few exceptions—they act as if historians today believe Hitler wanted to conquer New York, because newspaper cartoons may have said this in 1942.

But they always ignore or obscure the fact that the Nazis did intend aggressive war and mass genocide in the East, not just of Jews but of gentile Poles and Russians, whom they considered sub-human. (By the way even in OT where the Nazis were defeated, they not only murdered 5 to 6 million Jewish civilians but murdered millions of Polish and Russians noncombatants, and enslaved or ethnically cleansed millions more. They razed hundreds of Polish villages and the Polish capital of Warsaw out of spite. For their plans - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost).

"Non-intervention" in WorldWar II by the West would have meant acquiescing to the destruction of multiple ethnic groups, the reintroduction of ethnic-based slavery in Europe, and many tens of millions of civilian deaths caused by Nazi racial mania. It also would have meant the entrenchment of Nazi dominance of continental Europe and Hitler getting nukes post-war. No thanks.

Also, though I do agree with revisionists that Hitler wanted to avoid war with the US and war could have been avoided if the US had not given massive material aid to the British, ultimately Hitler did (stupidly) declare war on the US after Pearl Harbor, so there was nothing left to do but destroy him at that point.


----------



## The-Patriarchy (Jul 18, 2022)

1619 project.


----------



## History Speaks (Jul 18, 2022)

Anime Tiddy said:


> The post WWII narrative that Hitler was totally militarily incompetent when in some instances he had the correct instincts and his generals complained.


And here we have (at best) a Fedora-tipper.

Hitler was a disastrous military commander. His LARPing as a warlord and refusing to allow a retreat from Stalingrad—because manliness—led to the destruction of an entire army.

In mid 1943 He sabotaged the construction of the jet-powered ME-262 as a fighter designed to shoot allied bombers. (It could have made a real difference in that regard, since it was the first jet-powered fighter aircraft, could therefore easily outperform the Allied fighters that escorted Allied bombers which as we all know decimated Germany.)  Instead he wanted to make it a bomber, because revenge, even though by the end of the war Luftwaffe was in no position whatever to wage a serious bombing campaign against Britain.

Declaring war on the United States was incredibly stupid. Yes the US was acting in a profoundly hostile fashion to Germany, with its massive shipments of critical material to the British and Soviets. But the only sane thing Hitler could do was sit down and tolerate this abuse, because a war with the manufacturing titan USA (ìn addition to Germany's ongoing, stalled wars with the USSR and Britain) would mean certain doom for Germany. Instead he got in a LARPy mood after Pearl Harbor and declared war on the US impulsively, without even negotiating with Japan first to get them to declare war on the USSR in return.

And do not forget invading Russia without adequate winter clothes, one of the normie few history memes that is basically accurate.

Hitler's generals were under no political pressure to portray him as a strategic idiot in their postwar memoirs—the typical propaganda image of him was that of a demonic genius, if they went with that line nobody would have been mad at them—but they consistently did portray him as a strategic idiot.


----------



## Radola Gajda (Jul 18, 2022)

The Great Chandler said:


> Whenever the medieval European times gets painted as a predominantly uneducated shithole were childhood did not exist and people were covered in turd smears with no hygiene whatsoever. Monty Python was making a joke, not a statement!


Yeah and for entire millenium everyone in Europe sat on their asses and did nothing to change it until glorious renesance happened .


----------



## The Ugly One (Jul 18, 2022)

American Indians being gud bois who dindu nuffin, just hanging around and being peaceful and nice until da eebul whyte man stole dey land.

Hitler having a couple big gambles that paid off doesn't negate the fact that he had a string of decisions after assuming command in '41, like Stand Fast at Stalingrad, attacking Kursk, fortress cities, Army Detachment Steiner, various Wunderwaffen, etc, that were objectively disasters that lost entire armies for absolutely zero gain. Among other things an actual professional would have done, you don't keep your forces committed long after it's clear your gamble isn't going to pay off, because you just end up with more body bags, more destroyed equipment, and worse morale.


----------



## DJ Grelle (Jul 18, 2022)

verissimus said:


> I'd say it depends on whether the Anglo is an "academic" or not usually.  For example, I have read a few military history books written by English authors that were great.  Instead or pretentious prose, the authors usually settled for a little wit here and there and usually these writers tend to get right to the point.  Academic English writers tend to be the opposite and often clearly Left-wing.


I'm not talking about politics, I'm talking about that special brand of chauvinism that only anglos seem to have. Perhaps an outcrop of their island mentality but for them the rule is that the anglos are the best in everything; and not just from a balkan-tier boasting. They actually, seriously believe it. Oh, other groups might have their own brand of chauvinism; I'm not denying that. But the levels the british (and by extension the americans) do it is disgusting once you realize it.



The Ugly One said:


> American Indians being gud bois who dindu nuffin, just hanging around and being peaceful and nice until da eebul whyte man stole dey land.
> 
> Hitler having a couple big gambles that paid off doesn't negate the fact that he had a string of decisions after assuming command in '41, like Stand Fast at Stalingrad, attacking Kursk, fortress cities, Army Detachment Steiner, various Wunderwaffen, etc, that were objectively disasters that lost entire armies for absolutely zero gain. Among other things an actual professional would have done, you don't keep your forces committed long after it's clear your gamble isn't going to pay off, because you just end up with more body bags, more destroyed equipment, and worse morale.


tbh the Stalingrad commitment was at first an attempt at a Rhzev style grinder, and when the encirclement was imminent, he was convinced by his generals that a counteroffensive was possible.


----------



## The Ugly One (Jul 18, 2022)

DJ Grelle said:


> tbh the Stalingrad commitment was at first an attempt at a Rhzev style grinder, and when the encirclement was imminent, he was convinced by his generals that a counteroffensive was possible.



By 1943, Goering and Paulus were  "convincing" Hitler by telling him whatever he wanted to hear, and Manstein had largely learned, if he wanted to keep any position at all, to try and figure out ways to make whatever it was Hitler wanted into somehow somewhat workable plans. If there's a Wehraboo narrative that Hitler totally would have retreated from Stalingrad if only it weren't those pesky generals ill-advising him, this is simply ignoring how he did things. Generals who told him what he didn't want to hear got tossed.  Breaking off the Siege of Leningrad and taking resources away from Moscow was already a bad idea, and giving up territory was a complete non-starter with Der Fuehrer.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jul 18, 2022)

Not historical revisionism, but more people just picturing things wrong, people (Americans specifically) have a habit of picturing monarchies, Medieval and Enlightenment, as totalitarian states.

Medieval kings often had less power than rulers now. The peasant could be subject to a very controlling lord, but the actual king tended to have a very weak position so monarchies were dominated by the feudal contract and the machinations of the nobility. 

The Enlightened despots were much less invasive in their citizens lives than any First World democracy is now.

Both of these have more to do with the prevailing technologies (how do you even try to govern people) than anything else.



I also think pretty much everything in the conservative reaction to the migrant caravans is absurd, especially this hysteria about “chaos” and “carnage” at an uncontrolled border, the US didn’t have a semblance of control when it was millions of screaming Eurotrash swarming in, and you used to be able to cross the Mexican border at will.


----------



## Prophetic Spirit (Jul 18, 2022)

Brain Power said:


> Not even Argentina, they supposedly have more in common with tribes from _BRAZIL_. Not even their language is related to other ones from the area they claim they inhabited. Wallmapu never even existed, hell, I AM from center-south Chile and I never heard of that thing until I was a teenager. Hector Llaitul is not even mapuche, his last name is from another -che tribe. And picunches, the only time I read that name was in _Papelucho_, not even a history book.


At least i got the name in one of my old history classes, but only that; there's basically not info about how they're dissapeared. I'm assuming the time when the spanish conquerors came, a similar feeling of how they're found the Maya ruins can be replicated with both pehuenches and picunches. But who knows? So much spectulation and little backup for that idea.


----------



## History Speaks (Jul 18, 2022)

The Ugly One said:


> American Indians being gud bois who dindu nuffin, just hanging around and being peaceful and nice until da eebul whyte man stole dey land.
> 
> Hitler having a couple big gambles that paid off doesn't negate the fact that he had a string of decisions after assuming command in '41, like Stand Fast at Stalingrad, attacking Kursk, fortress cities, Army Detachment Steiner, various Wunderwaffen, etc, that were objectively disasters that lost entire armies for absolutely zero gain. Among other things an actual professional would have done, you don't keep your forces committed long after it's clear your gamble isn't going to pay off, because you just end up with more body bags, more destroyed equipment, and worse morale.


Hitler's big advantage early on was that he was the only guy at the table willing to put in all his chips. This worked out for him like it works out for many other reckless, compulsive gamblers - briefly raking it in before destroying himself and those around him.


----------



## SpergPatrol (Jul 18, 2022)

The-Patriarchy said:


> 1619 project.


What was revised?


----------



## ICametoLurk (Jul 18, 2022)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Medieval kings often had less power than rulers now. The peasant could be subject to a very controlling lord, but the actual king tended to have a very weak position so monarchies were dominated by the feudal contract and the machinations of the nobility.


Chess was made during that period and they had King as most important piece but the weakest piece, only better than a pawn.

According to Chess, The Queen Had All The Power.

Very Feminist. Like how Queen Jezebell according to the Bible ruled BOTH North and South Kingdoms...something not done since Solomon that had literal God Mode on.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jul 18, 2022)

SpergPatrol said:


> What was revised?


I'm not terribly familiar with it, but the 1619 Project presents American history like the colonies were created for the purpose of establishing a slave society and the Revolution to defend the slave society, neither of which is true. It presents slavery like its the cornerstone of all American society.


----------



## The Ugly One (Jul 18, 2022)

History Speaks said:


> Hitler's big advantage early on was that he was the only guy at the table willing to put in all his chips. This worked out for him like it works out for many other reckless, compulsive gamblers - briefly raking it in before destroying himself and those around him.



A major historical irony here is that Hitler and Stalin followed almost exactly inverse courses. At the beginning of the war, Stalin was in total control, and the Red Army suffered one disastrous defeat after another. By the end, he'd learned to let his generals be generals be generals, and they started building real victories. Hitler, by contrast, asserts greater and greater control, creating more and more catastrophic defeats. You even have each man issuing his own Not One Step Back order, the difference being Stalin eventually shelved his, while Hitler spazzed out harder and harder as Soviet troops advanced on Germany, relieving highly effective defensive commanders for the crime of tactical retreat.


----------



## Bonesjones (Jul 18, 2022)

The Ugly One said:


> A major historical irony here is that Hitler and Stalin followed almost exactly inverse courses. At the beginning of the war, Stalin was in total control, and the Red Army suffered one disastrous defeat after another. By the end, he'd learned to let his generals be generals be generals, and they started building real victories. Hitler, by contrast, asserts greater and greater control, creating more and more catastrophic defeats. You even have each man issuing his own Not One Step Back order, the difference being Stalin eventually shelved his, while Hitler spazzed out harder and harder as Soviet troops advanced on Germany, relieving highly effective defensive commanders for the crime of tactical retreat.


You mean in the beginning of the war the Nazis had more and better equipment and by the end of the war had entirely burnt it's own capacity to do anything, while the Soviets had huge factories of their own while using USA lend lease equipment as well.


----------



## The Ugly One (Jul 18, 2022)

Bonesjones said:


> You mean in the beginning of the war the Nazis had more and better equipment and by the end of the war had entirely burnt it's own capacity to do anything, while the Soviets had huge factories of their own while using USA lend lease equipment as well.


Yes, whose fault was it that Nazi Germany burnt its capacity to do anything at Kursk, Stalingrad, Moscow, and the Ardennes with utterly absurd orders? Hmmm.


----------



## Penrowe (Jul 19, 2022)

History Speaks said:


> "Non-intervention" in WorldWar II by the West would have meant acquiescing to the destruction of multiple ethnic groups, the reintroduction of ethnic-based slavery in Europe, and many tens of millions of civilian deaths caused by Nazi racial mania.


While nazi victory would have had that outcome, nothing of the sort formed the basis on which Britain and France declared war, both of which were governed by unapologetic white supremacists who saw zero issue oppressing their colonial subjects and even drafted them into their respective armed forces to serve as front line soldiers.
And using wikipedia as a source? To point and laugh is the only appropriate response to such idiocy.



> Hitler's generals were under no political pressure to portray him as a strategic idiot in their postwar memoirs


----------



## Mayor Adam West (Jul 19, 2022)

The Black Legend. Spain was actually one of the better colonial powers because at least they were Catholic. It's all just Anglo lies. #Spaindidnothingwrong #okmaybetheydidseveralthingswrongbutBritainwaswayworse


----------



## Iron Jaguar (Jul 19, 2022)

JohnDoe said:


> The fucking Holohoax, that canard has been used as a cudgel to advance the genocide of White Europeans for nearly 100 years.


Q: What's the difference between the Holocaust and a Holstein?







A: You can't milk a Holstein for 80 years.


----------



## Penrowe (Jul 19, 2022)

Since we're on the topic of WWII, german reliance on horses is something that is almost entirely omitted from the historiography of the war. Only a very small portion of german divisions were mechanized and rarely fully with almost all soldiers, their field guns and their logistical support being horse drawn beyond the rail trail heads. That's if you were lucky and didn't have to haul all your shit yourself. This was not just due to lack of trucks but also inability to adequately fuel the vehicles they did have. Germany started the war with a massive fuel deficit and never at any point gained a surplus. The victory over France if anything only made the situation worse for the germans since they now not only had to supply themselves with fuel (and lubricants) but also had to provide for the needs of Vichy France which became blockaded the same as the axis belligerents, even though they weren't technically part of the hostilities. They gained a lot of french trucks as war booty which accelerated their advance early during the Barbarossa campaign but after they broke down/emptied their tanks it was again nothing for the german lanser to do but march on foot.
Of all the accounts from german survivors of the Normandy landings, the one thing they always make mention of as their biggest shock (beyond the opening bombardment) was the one that came as they sat on the beach waiting for transport to POW camps in England and seeing only motor vehicles being unloaded. Trucks, dozers, tanks, half tracks, tractors, jeeps, all in a long unending line with not a single fucking horse drawn carriage anywhere. They're all unanimous in saying that's the moment they realized the war was over and there was no hope for Germany.



An addendum. Every primary source I've come across who was in or operating adjacent to Organisation Todt make specific mention that all manual labor involved in the construction of fortifications on the french channel coast was performed by slaves. Not just some or most, the totality of it. If you visit any one of the bunkers, trenches or tobruks that still litter the french coast it's guaranteed to have been constructed by slaves conscripted from the vast camp system in the east.



ICametoLurk said:


> According to Chess, The Queen Had All The Power.


Noblewomen often ran the household and took care of administrative matters. If there's any lesson to be learned from Stalin it is you better damn well make sure you can trust the person running the HR department. What better way than to wife them?


----------



## NeoGAF Lurker (Jul 19, 2022)

Most of the big ones had been covered but a big one was poor whites in America. When Nat Turner had his slave rebellion, he left poor white people alone because he said they were worse off than slaves. But modern day (((education))) assumes all white people benefited from slavery. To head off any criticism, there was a book called White Trash by some Jewess where she basically explained that even though poor whites have always been shit on by the rest of society, they should get fucked anyway. Funny enough is that she got shit for even mentioning there were wypipo who weren’t cotton plantation owners in the south. The Jews have a creepy obsession with white people and have to make sure they can’t have anyone acknowledge some wypipo have been dealt a shitty hand.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Jul 19, 2022)

Palestinians get the Native American treatment of being dindu nuffing, connected to the earth, peaceful savages, rather than never improving their land (that was in control of a different power entirely) and being constant aggressors who ended up fucking around and finding out. Likewise, Jews actually bought a good chunk of the country from the Palestinians and accepted the UN two country plan that primarily gave the Jews a desert. Only moving to conquering once being attacked.

Propaganda also tried to make Palestinians an actual peace partner while Israel is a constant aggressor, where they never had any pro-peace movement and they preferred to create a culture where your son is a saint for infiltrating a settlement and stabbing a baby.

Other Israeli revisionism is the Altalena Affair, where the (primarily leftist) newly established Israeli army sunk a ship with equipment for a different (right wing) Israeli militia due to fearing they'll be used to internal fighting. Coverage of it in Israel tend to ignore how immoral and criminal that act was and stick to the army version of "having no alternative", rather the more likely reason of not wanting competition.

Finally, and coupled with cult of personality (which I think is comparable to JFK in the States), Yitzhak Rabin is depicted as a person that was killed by right wingers and could have brought peace. While in actuality was killed by a usual schizo and had absolutely no way to bring peace (nevermind that a peace process that hinges on a single person is ridiculous).


----------



## Radola Gajda (Jul 19, 2022)

Penrowe said:


> Since we're on the topic of WWII, german reliance on horses is something that is almost entirely omitted from the historiography of the war. Only a very small portion of german divisions were mechanized and rarely fully with almost all soldiers, their field guns and their logistical support being horse drawn beyond the rail heads. That's if you were lucky and didn't have to haul all your shit yourself. This was not just due to lack of trucks but also inability to adequately fuel the vehicles they did have. Germany started the war with a massive fuel deficit and never at any point gained a surplus.
> Of all the accounts from german survivors of the Normandy landings, the one thing they always make mention of as their biggest shock (beyond the opening bombardment) was the one that came as they sat on the beach waiting for transport to POW camps in England and seeing only motor vehicles being unloaded. Trucks, dozers, tanks, half tracks, tractors, jeeps, all in a long unending line with not a single fucking horse drawn carriage anywhere. They're all unanimous in saying that's the moment they realized the war was over and there was no hope for Germany.
> 
> 
> ...


Yep There were only few tank/mechanized divisions in German army when compared to infantry and lot of these tanks were captured from Czechoslovakia, France...

And while early Barbarossa German casulties were low most of these were tank divisions so in 1942 Germans were able to launch only smaller offensive in south instead of one along entire frontline like in 41.

And even if Germans were able to get enough tank/mechanized production to have fully motorised army it would not help them , because what they are relearning today was true 80 years ago Europe needs imports of Black gold. And how to get it when UK rules the weaves and Soviets are only willing to sell only so much.


----------



## soy_king (Jul 19, 2022)

Mayor Adam West said:


> The Black Legend. Spain was actually one of the better colonial powers because at least they were Catholic. It's all just Anglo lies. #Spaindidnothingwrong #okmaybetheydidseveralthingswrongbutBritainwaswayworse


Spain had serious flaws in its colonial approach, but I will admit their autistic sperging and tabulation of blood purity ironically made racial issues less serious in Latin America than it is in Anglo America.

Probably the most egregious revisionism is that the Islamic Medieval period and Andalus in particular were these hyper progressive and enlightened places because they were slightly more tolerant than the Christians of the day. Yeah, a society that regularly engages in enslaving and trading non Muslim peoples and treating two specific non Muslim groups in their lands in a system essentially akin to Jim Crow is super tolerant, and the accomplishments of Ibn Sinna and other pseudo secular thinkers were consistently challenged by protofundamentalists who felt that any attempt at rationalism was an affront to Allah.


----------



## Shitposting boogeyman (Jul 19, 2022)

JohnDoe said:


> The fucking Holohoax, that canard has been used as a cudgel to advance the genocide of White Europeans for nearly 100 years.


The Alt Right has a bigger persecution complex than the Jews.


----------



## Bonesjones (Jul 19, 2022)

Penrowe said:


> They're all unanimous in saying that's the moment they realized the war was over and there was no hope for Germany.


There's a famous one about Hitler learning the USA could get a letter sent from Kansas to a solder in the front line of the war, and he knew he wasn't going to win no matter how much oil he had.


----------



## History Speaks (Jul 19, 2022)

Alt right self-pity is pathetic. The "white genocide" meme is pure self-pity.

I oppose race hatred, including race hatred against whites, which is somehow excused by the mainstream media and the cool kids these days, with all kinds of circular and false takes about how white people can be talked about in barbaric generalities because they have been so uniquely bad in history, or are all "in power."

But being bullied or shamed for being white, while bad, is not "genocide." Calling it "genocide" functions as an excuse not to do anything productive in response to it, i.e. rallying fellow citizens of all colors to oppose this stuff.

By the way the white population is not "shrinking" in the US. It merely appears to be shrinking because Levantine Americans, mixed Hispanics, some Jews, and other people the alt right would not consider to be white are no longer identifying as white because it is not advantageous anymore.


----------



## Chinggis Khan (Jul 19, 2022)

> Another thing that really annoys me that I see Right-wingers as well as Left-wingers throw around, for "pity us White folks" points, is anything to do with the Irish-Americans and indentured servants.
> 1) INDENTURED SERVANTS ARE NOT FUCKING SLAVES. It's an exploitative situation (indentured servants tended to be fatherless adolescents, and could get trapped by debt, it was kind of like the situation of being a company town worker), but even if we sometimes call things slavery as a metaphor, there is a world of difference between being legal property with no civil rights versus just being poor/stuck in a contract. They had a contract. They signed the contract. It paid for their very expensive passage, pretty much at the exact cost (shipping was competitive) of moving them, and if they didn't get the treatment they were due they could and frequently would successfully sue their masters. No other "Irish slavery" existed in America.



This is pretty dumb take on a thread about historical revisionism and to lead off with one of the largest MSM promoted / 1619 project revisionisms made to date.

Its true that initially in the early 1600s many expeditions had a handful of eager conscripts under allusions of gaining property after their time served, but this quickly disintegrated after stories of the new world started returning home.  Virtually 100% mortality rate for indentured servants by the 7 year period. Most died from starvation, exhaustion, or disease within the first year or two.  Often kept in conditions worse than slaves. Land was already appropriated out, so after the first few decades when servants actually reached their date of maturity, freed servants would very rarely gain any property. Instead they were illegal vagrants on every square inch of parceled land.  Outside the colony lands were treatied with the natives, who would likely gruesomely torture you if they caught you living off the land.  The Colonial administrators would also throw you in jail for violating their treaty with the natives.  The result is most freed servants found themselves either in debt again or charged with petty crimes, which would result in either another 7 year contractual obligation, or a punishment of “servitude for life”, ie: slavery. 

When these stories reached home it quickly became know that indentured servitude was a nightmarish hellscape leading to a guaranteed death sentence.  As a result voluntary conscripts disintegrated and traders began kidnapping young boys, raiding prisons, charging the poor with petty crimes, and forcing them into debt traps that would force their conscription into the new world. But most were simply kidnapped, none of this was ever a mutually voluntary affair. 

By the mid 1600s the whole of Ireland was in uproar and pressing to end this practice to little avail, and even many Protestants were protesting the English crown to take action, legislation was passed that was barely enforced, and kidnappers were rarely ever charged. But what really finally ended the practice were wealthy merchants who by the late 1600s were making so much money off the Africa slave trade they finally pushed out the petty kidnappers from their competition and finally the English government began taking severe actions against them. 

So there was a period of about 80 years where a very real Irish slave trade existed.  We can see this today in many Caribbean Santeria religions worshipping a st. Bridget. This is a uniquely Irish cultural phenomenon that could not possibly come from British or French slave masters. It comes from Irish slaves mixing with African slaves and syncretizing their cultures. As well as the number of Irish surnames among African slaves.  There was also the Irish Redleg community in Barbados, but most of the youth have long emigrated in the 20th century leaving a tiny elderly community behind. 

Even with the rosiest, ahistorical, revisionist claims about Irish slavery: *indentured servitude is still slavery*. It is clearly outlined as a form of slavery in the UN convention on slavery.  Not all slavery is chattel slavery. That’s why we call it “*chattel*  slavery”, otherwise we would just call it “slavery”. 

So by definition: Irish people were slaves. 

Interestingly, when the British first began taking slaves from Africa they didn’t have a legal codified slavery doctrine yet, so they simply began selling them as indentured servants.  It was a freed African servant who took one of _his_ African servants to court to have him codified as a “servant for life”, the first time this was used for a nonjudicial punishment.  A Google search reveals that there is a large amount of reeeing and historical revisionism over this case now. 

That said, Irish in America were always white, and by the late 1800s were largely a privileged and envied immigrant group in most US cities. Most “no Irish apply” signs were other immigrant groups bitter how the Irish took over the local government and unions and only hired and promoted their own

But the Irish were not very well treated in the period of 1600-1680 when these events occurred.  Qualitatively, The Irish experience in the colonies was far *worse *than the black African American experience in the US from 1776-1865.


----------



## Meat Target (Jul 19, 2022)

"McCarthy used HUAC to persecute poor Hollywood actors who dindu nuffin." 

how would _*Senator* _McCarthy be holding hearings in the _*House*_ Un-American Activities Committee? 
HUAC was initially formed in the late 1930s to sniff out Nazi sympathizers. 
The timeline doesn't fit. The Hollywood Ten controversy happened in the 1940s. 
McCarthy himself never went after Hollywood; he was searching for commie sympathizers within the military, the State Department, and the intelligence community
Hollywood unions did, in fact, sympathize with Communists. The reason Walt Disney is smeared as an "anti-Semite" is because he testified before HUAC against rabble-rouser Herbert Sorrell. 
Elia Kazan's award-winning film _On the Waterfront _is a parable of how he stood up to his commie colleagues, who denounced him as a "snitch" and a "stool pidgeon". He later said that by making that movie, he was "telling every one of them to go fuck themselves". 
Finally, the declassified Venona Papers proved that the booze-hound Wisconsinite tailgunner was right all along. The Soviets conducted all kinds of now-known fuckery that has burgeoned into the Clown World we live in today. 

The only thing McCarthy did wrong is that he stopped.


----------



## TinCan Wizard (Jul 19, 2022)

Medieval Europe was a hellish place, everyone was an unwashed peasant with their clothes covered by dirt, and waste. Nobles were degenerate tyrants who murdered their peasants for shits and giggles every week. The outside was colored by a dark blue filter.

The so called ''''''Islamic Golden Age''''''. The Mongols did nothing wrong burning Baghdad to the ground.


----------



## The Ugly One (Jul 19, 2022)

History Speaks said:


> By the way the white population is not "shrinking" in the US. It merely appears to be shrinking because Levantine Americans, mixed Hispanics, some Jews, and other people the alt right would not consider to be white are no longer identifying as white because it is not advantageous anymore.



The white American birth rate is slightly sub-replacement, and as a shrinking proportion of American demographics, our political voice is increasingly getting drowned out. So our government increasingly becomes Third World kleptocracy.

White genocide is dumb and gay, but the demographic engineering is real and specifically intended to make our government unaccountable.



Meat Target said:


> Hollywood unions did, in fact, sympathize with Communists. The reason Walt Disney is smeared as an "anti-Semite" is because he testified before HUAC against rabble-rouser Herbert Sorrell.



The reason Disney was smeared as an anti-Semite is he was very aware that Hollywood Jews were largely Commie sympathizers and wanted to continually to push social, political, and sexual boundaries in movies, and wouldn't give them positions of influence in his company. His vision for Disney entertainment was to make childhood a more magical time, not to poz things out in the name of the dollar. If Hollywood Jews hadn't been a bunch of America-hating perverts, he wouldn't have been against them.


----------



## Ser Prize (Jul 19, 2022)

The Ugly One said:


> The white American birth rate is slightly sub-replacement, and as a shrinking proportion of American demographics, our political voice is increasingly getting drowned out. So our government increasingly becomes Third World kleptocracy.
> 
> White genocide is dumb and gay, but the demographic engineering is real and specifically intended to make our government unaccountable.
> 
> ...


Walt really should have become the anti-semite they said he was. Look at what the chosen did his company.


----------



## Penrowe (Jul 19, 2022)

History Speaks said:


> By the way the white population is not "shrinking" in the US. It merely appears to be shrinking because Levantine Americans, mixed Hispanics, some Jews, and other people are no longer identifying as white because it is not advantageous anymore.


>The white population is not shrinking
>All you have to do is include all these non-whites, see


----------



## 5000% Sure (Jul 19, 2022)

Super recent but the "Hatsune Miku created Minecraft" shit from 2019. Imo it was one of the first major examples of the sheer autism and childishness of twitter trannies at work and there's something about it that's just so unbelievably cringe and irritating beyond anything I've ever seen before. "Oh you don't like seeing faggots marching down the streets sucking each others' dicks? Well we're just gonna say an anime girl made your game instead of you, how about that?!"


----------



## Toolbox (Jul 19, 2022)

5000% Sure said:


> Super recent but the "Hatsune Miku created Minecraft" shit from 2019. Imo it was one of the first major examples of the sheer autism and childishness of twitter trannies at work and there's something about it that's just so unbelievably cringe and irritating beyond anything I've ever seen before. "Oh you don't like seeing faggots marching down the streets sucking each others' dicks? Well we're just gonna say an anime girl made your game instead of you, how about that?!"


Worst case as in pathetically unable to change a narrative, trying to meme a neon blue fictional weaboo character. This short lived 'joke' didn't even end up doing anything to the already depressed notch or the knowledge that he was mostly responsible for the game, as would make sense to anyone with above 50 iq points.


----------



## Save the Loli (Jul 20, 2022)

History Speaks said:


> But being bullied or shamed for being white, while bad, is not "genocide." Calling it "genocide" functions as an excuse not to do anything productive in response to it, i.e. rallying fellow citizens of all colors to oppose this stuff.


It's not genocide, but it's one of the stages of genocide. Whites are treated like Jews in 1920s Europe and are the most discriminated against group in the US (and most Western countries) despite being the majority. The George Floyd Riots were basically an anti-white pogrom.

Whites are anywhere between 4 and 6 on the classic Ten Stages of Genocide.

View attachment 3509280


History Speaks said:


> By the way the white population is not "shrinking" in the US. It merely appears to be shrinking because Levantine Americans, mixed Hispanics, some Jews, and other people the alt right would not consider to be white are no longer identifying as white because it is not advantageous anymore.


Pedro the brown construction worker will never be white, even if Juan the green-eyed Spanish-looking telenovela actor probably is.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jul 20, 2022)

Save the Loli said:


> It's not genocide, but it's one of the stages of genocide.


It's just straight up genocide though.




Memo fredrick jaffe from the 70s, who was vice president of planned parenthood:


----------



## Corpun (Jul 20, 2022)

Any sort of insertion of troonism/girl boss shit into ancient history. I find that shit more egregious than we wuz kamging. It seems every year now we dig up some tomb of someone from some past culture or civilization and it is used to say vikings were trannies or that the Neanderthals chopped dicks off because this skeleton has a female structure yet is buried with traditionally masculine items.

It can't be that this skeleton was a man that by some genetic fluke had bones similar to a woman's or that this is the wife or concubine of some chieftain, it has to be the person buried there was a troon or girl boss omg yass slay kween!

Remember when they were digging around Pompeii a few years ago and made casts of a hollow of two distinctly males holding eachother as they died. Everyone went omg they are gay lovers and the people studying it went with that. Of course it has to be they are gay, they can't be friends or brothers or father and son embracing in their final agonizing moments.

How about Cheddar Man? Would you believe it if I told you making him black was all speculation. It was, they had no genetic data to suggest he was black, some wokoid just did it anyways. Makes me glad Egyptians are so protective of their history when they make lifelike busts of mummies and shit they just give them a med/Arab look because in all likelihood Ancient Egyptians probably largely looked like meds or Arabs until you got into the Upper Nile.

I could make an anecdote about the accurate Jesus models making him look like a Palestinian but that basically falls under the same category of what Egyptians do where he probably also looked like a Med based on his Aramean origins.


----------



## Kramer on the phone (Jul 20, 2022)

ICametoLurk said:


> all the buildings currently at Teotihuacan are modern reconstructions and are just less than 100 years old and this fact is obscured or excluded from almost every article about the site
> 
> there seems to be some kind of connection between that project and the Mexican Revolution
> 
> ...


i'll defend it, before then the whites were roughly in the year 300 of constant indian attacks and were fucking fed up with it, the idea of "la raza" was creating to basically brainwash all the indians into believing that everyone was the same race, therefore they should stop trying to destroy everyone and everything. mind you unlike say the US where they did stuff like affirmative action in conjunction with the melting pot, the mexicans just left it at "la raza" and despite how the people in the media, in banking, in all the highest positions in the land were all clearly a different race than the plebs because of they were all part of the same race, the ones up top didn't have to fear getting killed as often. and once all those resources that used to be spent rebuilding and protecting from indian attacks suddenly could be used for other projects suddenly Mexico became near first world, literal major cities were founded and oil companies and mines and it coincided with a golden age that lasted a half century, all from just tricking the darkies into not committing crimes anymore. While that is obviously bad from a history basis, another century of Comanche-esque bullshit would have probably led to even more destruction. 

 it would also decrease racism, usually when the white landowners would fuck their redskin maids and produce a mixed child that the maid would be forced to raise, the kid would experience a lot of scorn, but if everyone is part of the same race he'd only have to be confronted with unconscious bias instead of racism. it also helps police investigations too. The officer legitimately pulled you over because you fit the description, or maybe he had a hunch. you'd be surprised how much better society runs when minorities can't use the race card to get out of everything.


----------



## CAPTAIN MATI (Jul 20, 2022)

Shitposting boogeyman said:


> The Alt Right has a bigger persecution complex than the Jews.


Imagine saying that the option to watch gay porn is worse than being hauled into a death camp with your whole family behind you.
Welcome to the altrait.


----------



## Shitposting boogeyman (Jul 20, 2022)

CAPTAIN MATI said:


> Imagine saying that the option to watch gay porn is worse than being hauled into a death camp with your whole family behind you.
> Welcome to the altrait.


On the alt right, all Porn is degenerate expect the type with Asian women or Catboys


----------



## Penrowe (Jul 21, 2022)

Corpun said:


> Makes me glad Egyptians are so protective of their history when they make lifelike busts of mummies and shit they just give them a med/Arab look because in all likelihood Ancient Egyptians probably largely looked like meds or Arabs until you got into the Upper Nile.


much of ancient egypt's nobility was hellenic, Cleopatra for example.


----------



## Maurice Caine (Jul 21, 2022)

Shitposting boogeyman said:


> On the alt right, all Porn is degenerate expect the type with Asian women or Catboys


I thought the alt-right died in 2018 when niggers like Gavin McInnes bailed from the public eye.


----------



## Panama (Jul 21, 2022)

That the FDR administration pulled the US out of the Great Depression with the passage of the New Deal, rather than prolonging and exacerbating the suffering of the American public to try and force a single party state with a dictator for life.


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Jul 21, 2022)

Probably the complete lack of mention of the Barbary slave trade in Muttmurican education.  It's particularly funny because it's even briefly mentioned in the very opening of the Marine Corps hymn, so you know a bunch of proud mutts have encountered it, but never took the time to actually look into it.  Other than that, probably the veneration of the great ejaculator Abraham Lincoln as anything more than a petty dictator who got (righteously) killed before he was able to solidify full control.  The dude no shit put down by military force a rebellion by about a third of the US population, completely altered the form of government in the US from a confederation of sovereign states to the current centralized government and then dumb mutts, later on, put his statue in a stony throne for it all while bitching about the kings of old being tyrannical oppressors. 

Other than that, probably the way the US revolution is presented.  The US revolution is always presented as some kind of struggle against the "tyrannical kings," but that's just silly if you examine the history with even a slightly objective lens.  Firstly, King George the 3rd was very limited in his actual authority by the time of the US revolution.  By 1650 the British Parliament was by far the most dominant force in the UK (they'd actually executed a king by this point against the will of the population) and absolutely had more reason to keep the US out of parliament than what King George III did since a US entry into parliament might have actually helped him by dividing the parliamentary factions.  So it was really a war between a want-to-be republic and a republic that was only on paper, not a republic.  Said want-to-be republic was also backed by a French King, who said want-to-be republic later betrayed in favor of a bunch of violent criminals who established one of the most dystopian regimes in history.

Edit:
Also, how many uprisings did the US put down by military force right after being established?




Uncle Schlomo would never have fucked over a bunch of veterans of the revolution to the point of causing them to fight back and then genocided them for it right?  That would have set a pattern of behavior, wouldn't it?


----------



## Scipio Americanus (Jul 21, 2022)

Penrowe said:


> much of ancient egypt's nobility was hellenic, Cleopatra for example.


Not ancient Egypt. Egyptian nobility only became ethnically Greek after Alexander's conquest. The further the Ptolemaic dynasty progressed, the less culturally Greek it became, since the dynasty made a large effort to integrate into the old paradigm of Egyptian nobility. I'd argue that their cultural Greekness is pretty on par with some 5th-generation American flaunting the fact that he's "39% Irish" on St. Paddy's Day.

The nobility of ancient Egypt wasn't exactly an ethnic monolith, either. Before Alexander, the Nubians and Persians conquered Egypt late in its history. @Corpun is probably right though, most of the people of the time that we would associate with Egypt (i.e. Lower Egypt) would look Mediterranean. Upper Egypt, especially the closer you get to Nubia, would start looking more and more sub-Saharan African.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Jul 21, 2022)

The removing of statues because they represent "wrongthink" is the biggest recent example I can think of.


----------



## Skitarii (Jul 21, 2022)

Brain Power said:


> he was even named their "Futa Lonco"


AUGUSTO FUTACHET???


----------



## LinkinParkxNaruto[AMV] (Jul 21, 2022)

Rome bad, their lions ate 6 gorillion ((cristians)) so subverting them then demonizing their native culture  was good!


----------



## Becky McDonald (Jul 21, 2022)

This has been a major argument from the bughive and their ilk these past few years, but the idea that American automotive manufacturers conspired together to rip the boxcars from the streets purely to sell cars.

Nope. Not true in the fucking slightest.

What actually happened was General Motors, Firestone Tires, and Standard Oil formed a syndicate together. Since GM had a lot of success manufacturing buses, they figured they could make a shitload of money by working together and selling fully-made, fully-furnished, fully-fuelled buses to various councils and municipalities. The way they probably presented it was something along the lines of "you can make us very rich and we can make you very rich by getting rid of your hard-to-maintain boxcars and selling you these buses which we'll maintain for you", and if you were a local government from the era struggling to maintain your public transport infrastructure or simply didn't like how much it cost you, the decision was a no-brainer.

The bughive has somehow twisted this into meanies representing Big Oil pressuring governments into removing boxcars so that personal transport could be foisted upon the population and make them very rich. The fact of the matter is cars didn't factor into it at any point. It was to sell buses fuelled on Standard Oil and running on Firestone tires. Break any part of that syndicate by driving a Ford on Goodyear tires and fuelled at Unocal 76, and the syndicate didn't get your money.

Most people who drove their own cars probably weren't the type of people to have used the boxcars to begin with, and wouldn't use buses either.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Jul 21, 2022)

Becky McDonald said:


> This has been a major argument from the bughive and their ilk these past few years, but the idea that American automotive manufacturers conspired together to rip the boxcars from the streets purely to sell cars.
> 
> Nope. Not true in the fucking slightest.
> 
> ...


If we're on the subject of cars, there are people who try to argue that the electric car was killed by evil car manufacturers and big oil, rather than them being a technological dead end that even a century later can barely compete with the convenience of half a century old car.


----------



## Corpun (Jul 21, 2022)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> If we're on the subject of cars, there are people who try to argue that the electric car was killed by evil car manufacturers and big oil, rather than them being a technological dead end that even a century later can barely compete with the convenience of half a century old car.


Electric Vehicles are somehow the future however even though most of them are ticking time bombs with the amount of lithium in the batteries.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Jul 22, 2022)

wtfNeedSignUp said:


> there are people who try to argue that the electric car was killed by evil car manufacturers and big oil





Corpun said:


> Electric Vehicles are somehow the future


I used to believe that because I believed the narrative that gasoline cars are "primitive" and electric cars are "the future", and Big Oil was holding the electric car back. When in reality, charging electric cars can have the same environmental impact as gas ones. And of course, electrics are more expensive to maintain than gas ones.



Thiletonomics said:


> A Canadian Tesla owner managed to drive 1 million miles in his 2013 Tesla Model S. However, it required 4 rear motor, and 3 battery replacements. [...] Combine that with the $19K price tag for each replacement battery, as well as the replacement motors, means that this guy spend $100K or more, just to keep this Model S running.


Not to mention gasoline cars can still outperform electric.

Any real future without fossil fuels could lie in "biofuel", since that seems to have similar energy density to gasoline.

(or maybe hydrogen fuel cells)


----------



## Skitarii (Jul 22, 2022)

LinkinParkxNaruto[AMV] said:


> Rome bad, their lions ate 6 gorillion ((cristians)) so subverting them then demonizing their native culture  was good!


Rome bad


----------



## Corpun (Jul 22, 2022)

ToroidalBoat said:


> I used to believe that because I believed the narrative that gasoline cars are "primitive" and electric cars are "the future", and Big Oil was holding the electric car back. When in reality, charging electric cars can have the same environmental impact as gas ones. And of course, electrics are more expensive to maintain than gas ones.


Not to mention the environmental impact of mining for the shit to make their batteries and everything. Environmentalists are useful idiots at worst and downright idiotic at best.


----------



## Wood (Jul 22, 2022)

ToroidalBoat said:


> (or maybe hydrogen fuel cells)


We see that you liked: Being in a lithium fire.
Based on your preferences you might also like: Putting a 10000psi hydrogen tank in your car.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Jul 22, 2022)

Wood said:


> Based on your preferences you might also like: Putting a 10000psi hydrogen tank in your car.


Yeah maybe that's not such a good idea.

(I can see why the hype in the '00s faded away.)


----------



## Lord High Admiral Spire (Jul 24, 2022)

Certified_Autist said:


> Almost anything related to Abraham Lincoln. I will preface this by saying that no, I'm not a butthurt lost causer, and yes, the South was largely fighting to keep slavery legal. This isn't about the Civil War, but about how Lincoln is portrayed today vs who he actually was.
> 
> Lincoln is used as a tool to teach modern 21st century values, and his role is quasi-religious. Slavery is treated like America's original sin, and Lincoln died to free us from that sin. There's a narrative that Lincoln spent his life opposing slavery on humanitarian grounds and that he was in favor of racial equality. That narrative is largely fictional.
> 
> ...


Read "Father Abraham: Lincoln's Relentless Struggle to End Slavery" by Richard Striner. It addresses a lot of what you say here. He was unequivocally opposed to slavery morally, at the very least, and stated it long before he became president. Lincoln might not have wanted an immediate emancipation, but he was absolutely committed to slavery's extinction:



> *March 1, 1859: Speech at Chicago, Illinois*
> 
> I do not wish to be misunderstood upon this subject of slavery in this country. I suppose it may long exist, and perhaps the best way for it to come to an end peaceably is for it to exist for a length of time. But I say that the spread and strengthening and perpetuation of it is an entirely different proposition. There we should in every way resist it as a wrong, treating it as a wrong, with the fixed idea that it must and will come to an end.



The reason he considered equality impossible is because America, both North and South, was racist as hell, and even abolitionists were not necessarily pro-black suffrage. The whole reason why John Wilkes Booth shot him is because he was willing to give intelligent blacks and soldiers the vote.



> To persuade radicals that he took seriously their concerns that abolishing slavery was not enough and that more needed to be done, Lincoln publicly embraced limited black suffrage:
> 
> “It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. Still the question is not whether the Louisiana government, as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. The question is, ‘Will it be wiser to take it as it is, and help to improve it; or to reject, and disperse it?’ ‘Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union _sooner_ by _sustaining_, or by _discarding_ her new State government?’”
> 
> Lincoln had previously supported black suffrage in a private letter to Louisiana’s Governor Michael Hahn written in March 1864. Now he publicly endorsed the step. John Wilkes Booth was among the crowd who listened to Lincoln’s address. Hearing the call for limited black suffrage, Booth declared “that is the last speech he will ever make.” A conspiracy to assassinate Lincoln was already afoot. But Lincoln’s speech on 11 April, and his call for black suffrage, led to the tragic event of 14 April when Booth made good on his word.



The quote where Lincoln talks about not desiring equality stems from his opponent Stephen A. Douglas trying to bait him into saying that he supported racial equality, precisely because it would alienate him from the majority of abolitionist northerners, who were incredibly racist.

Here's the _entire _quote where Lincoln says his main aim isn't to destroy slavery:



> I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time _save_ slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time _destroy_ slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle _is_ to save the Union, and is _not_ either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing _any_ slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing _all_ the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do _not_ believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do _less_ whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do _more_ whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
> 
> I have here stated my purpose according to my view of _official_ duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed _personal_ wish that all men every where could be free.



The colonization of blacks abroad was most likely a political move done to assuage the fears of racist white Northerners in response to slaves freeing to Northern lines, He put on a show of supporting it, because it's literally a politician's job to be deceptive. While Congress appropriated $600,000 for colonizing blacks, less than 7 percent was actually used for it.

Here's a good article discussing it.

After his visit to the White House, Frederick Douglass said of Lincoln: “I was impressed with his entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race.”

And in his eulogy for Lincoln:



> Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man.
> [...] Any man can say things that are true of Abraham Lincoln, but no man can say anything that is new of Abraham Lincoln. His personal traits and public acts are better known to the American people than are those of any other man of his age. He was a mystery to no man who saw him and heard him. Though high in position, the humblest could approach him and feel at home in his presence. Though deep, he was transparent; though strong, he was gentle; though decided and pronounced in his convictions, he was tolerant towards those who differed from him, and patient under reproaches.
> [...] I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen.
> Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless.[...] Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.



Was he perfect? No. Was he racist? Quite possibly so. But so was just about everyone in the 1800s, apart from fringe radicals.

On a separate note, I think the worst case of historical revisionism is the idea that religion is the root of all the world's evil, when it's directly responsible for less than 7 percent of all wars, and less than a century of rule by atheist governments saw mass murders that make the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition and St. Bartholomew's Day massacre combined look like a kindergarten playground scuffle.


----------



## El Gato Grande (Jul 24, 2022)

Not so much a revision, but more a lack of perspective:

Not enough people appreciate how bloody and massive the eastern and Chinese fronts were in ww2.

Talking about 80% of German casualties being on the eastern front and the like is common in ww2 circles, but few come close to appreciating the scale. Both sides mobilized millions upon millions of men in a total war spanning hundreds of miles and massive battles on a scale not seen in any other conflict, in a brutal ideological conflict in which the winners would massacre the losers. The USSR lost 13-14% of its entire population, with many more wounded for life. The reason why Russians today have so much reverence regarding their ww2 vets is because it was truly an apocalyptic conflict in which they staved off an enemy that tried to genocide them. Pop WW2 history doesn’t truly grasp this, and is full of meme-tier depictions about tiger tanks, le Russian winter and “hurr durr Soviets dumb so germans mow them down and lose only because they ran out of bullets”

Ignorance on the Chinese theater is 10 times worse. It started in 1937, Japan fielded most of its army to fight them, both sides had huge troop numbers, and millions of civilians and soldiers died, and many of the worst war crimes happened there—yet you hardly hear about it. The KMT lost millions of men trying to defend their country against an enemy that would  brag about murdering your civilians in newspapers and drop bioweapons on your cities for shits and giggles, suffered immensely from lack of industry and internal power games, only to slip immediately into a civil war where the people who did 10% of the fighting took advantage of their weakened state, defeated them, and proceeded to write themselves as the sole resistors of the Japanese. If you like reading about scorched earth tactics and infantrymen and civilians alike dying horribly the Second-Sino-Japanese war is your oyster.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jul 24, 2022)

mr.moon1488 said:


> Probably the complete lack of mention of the Barbary slave trade in Muttmurican education.  It's particularly funny because it's even briefly mentioned in the very opening of the Marine Corps hymn, so you know a bunch of proud mutts have encountered it, but never took the time to actually look into it.  Other than that, probably the veneration of the great ejaculator Abraham Lincoln as anything more than a petty dictator who got (righteously) killed before he was able to solidify full control.  The dude no shit put down by military force a rebellion by about a third of the US population, completely altered the form of government in the US from a confederation of sovereign states to the current centralized government and then dumb mutts, later on, put his statue in a stony throne for it all while bitching about the kings of old being tyrannical oppressors.
> 
> Other than that, probably the way the US revolution is presented.  The US revolution is always presented as some kind of struggle against the "tyrannical kings," but that's just silly if you examine the history with even a slightly objective lens.  Firstly, King George the 3rd was very limited in his actual authority by the time of the US revolution.  By 1650 the British Parliament was by far the most dominant force in the UK (they'd actually executed a king by this point against the will of the population) and absolutely had more reason to keep the US out of parliament than what King George III did since a US entry into parliament might have actually helped him by dividing the parliamentary factions.  So it was really a war between a want-to-be republic and a republic that was only on paper, not a republic.  Said want-to-be republic was also backed by a French King, who said want-to-be republic later betrayed in favor of a bunch of violent criminals who established one of the most dystopian regimes in history.
> 
> ...


Who gives a shit about the Barbary slave trade? What relevance does it have to American history or life beyond one tiny overseas intervention?

I do dislike Americans for thinking they invented everything (like nobody had constitutions, representative government, legislatures, or federalism before the USA).


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jul 24, 2022)

El Gato Grande said:


> Not so much a revision, but more a lack of perspective:
> 
> Not enough people appreciate how bloody and massive the eastern and Chinese fronts were in ww2.
> 
> ...


Ever read Shanghai: Stalingrad on the Yangtze?

I haven't, but it's on my list whenever I can get around to it.


In fact, you've turned me on to some huge revisionism, can't believe I didn't think of this one.

*THE MYTH OF THE COMMUNIST PARTISAN*
I was taught in school, and saw in many other places, claims that the Communist partisans (in China, France, Yugoslavia, etc.) did everything while the Rightists (Mihailovich, Kuomintang, etc.) did nothing.

Long story short, it turns out this is age-old Leftist projection, because in reality the Communists spent most of their time sitting on their asses shooting at each other and their Rightist "allies," while the Rightists did everything. The reason historians ended up shilling the Communists is that the Communists in the State Department would straight up lie in all their reports to get more aid to Tito and Mao. It is one of the greatest injustices I've seen in misapplied credit.


----------



## Shidoen (Jul 24, 2022)

Treating the confederate generals like shit despite their previous dutiful service to the Union but playing up Sherman as some kind of martyr for burning Atlanta.


----------



## Elbow Greased Strength (Jul 24, 2022)

Shidoen said:


> Treating the confederate generals like shit despite their previous dutiful service to the Union but playing up Sherman as some kind of martyr for burning Atlanta.


It's also dumb because national reconciliation after the War basically ended the sectarian conflict. Lee and Jackson were American icons just like Grant and Sherman.

I feel like anyone who is assmad about something that happened 160 years ago (many of whom were not even in this country at the time, myself included) need to take a step back and consider what they are doing with their lives.


----------



## Shidoen (Jul 24, 2022)

Elbow Greased Strength said:


> It's also dumb because national reconciliation after the War basically ended the sectarian conflict. Lee and Jackson were American icons just like Grant and Sherman.
> 
> I feel like anyone who is assmad about something that happened 160 years ago (many of whom were not even in this country at the time, myself included) need to take a step back and consider what they are doing with their lives.


That’s why I proudly fly both colors, as both helped changed our nation either way. No political party or spectrum shall control what both of those nations have provided.


----------



## Elbow Greased Strength (Jul 24, 2022)

Shidoen said:


> That’s why I proudly fly both colors, as both helped changed our nation either way. No political party or spectrum shall control what both of those nations have provided.


The biggest problem is none of these assholes have ever spent any time actually learning the history around the Civil War and its aftermath and seem to think they know better than the people who actually fought it.  They want to punch down on some old baddie to make themselves feel better about their shit lives.

I've been to Gettysburg, Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg and Antietam multiple times and there has never been a moment when I didn't feel respect for the Confederate soldiers and their leaders. They were honorable men who fought for a cause they believed in to the bitter end and rather than pursue ruthless justice we sought reconciliation. 

There has never been a nation on Earth that handled the end of its civil war with so much compassion and civility as the United States of America. God, I love this country and know now more than ever how lucky I am to live here.

Do I think some of the South's motivations were misguided or morally wrong? Yes, I do, but I also recognize that I am thinking with the benefit of hindsight. I do not live in the antebellum United States and can't really understand these issues as people thought of them at the time.


----------



## Certified_Autist (Jul 24, 2022)

@Lord High Admiral Spire



> Read "Father Abraham: Lincoln's Relentless Struggle to End Slavery" by Richard Striner. It addresses a lot of what you say here. He was unequivocally opposed to slavery morally, at the very least, and stated it long before he became president. Lincoln might not have wanted an immediate emancipation, but he was absolutely committed to slavery's extinction:





> *March 1, 1859: Speech at Chicago, Illinois*
> 
> I do not wish to be misunderstood upon this subject of slavery in this country. I suppose it may long exist, and perhaps the best way for it to come to an end peaceably is for it to exist for a length of time. But I say that the spread and strengthening and perpetuation of it is an entirely different proposition. There we should in every way resist it as a wrong, treating it as a wrong, with the fixed idea that it must and will come to an end.


I never said Lincoln was totally anti-slavery, I said he was willing to compromise on slavery if it meant keeping the Union together.




> The reason he considered equality impossible is because America, both North and South, was racist as hell, and even abolitionists were not necessarily pro-black suffrage.


This is true- in fact from many of his own statements you can see he may have himself been pro-abolition but not pro-suffrage.

An excerpt from a speech he gave at one of the Lincoln-Douglas debates (I know you mentioned it in your comment, I'll address that below, just including the actual text for those who might not have seen it)

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing.






						Fourth Debate: Charleston, Illinois - Lincoln Home National Historic Site (U.S. National Park Service)
					






					www.nps.gov
				






> To persuade radicals that he took seriously their concerns that abolishing slavery was not enough and that more needed to be done, Lincoln publicly embraced limited black suffrage:
> 
> “It is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. Still the question is not whether the Louisiana government, as it stands, is quite all that is desirable. The question is, ‘Will it be wiser to take it as it is, and help to improve it; or to reject, and disperse it?’ ‘Can Louisiana be brought into proper practical relation with the Union _sooner_ by _sustaining_, or by _discarding_ her new State government?’”
> 
> ...


And was his willingness to give them the vote out of genuine belief in equality? Or was that political pandering designed to create a new loyal voting bloc? Before answering, keep in mind Lincoln (as you said yourself) was a politician first and foremost.



> The quote where Lincoln talks about not desiring equality stems from his opponent Stephen A. Douglas trying to bait him into saying that he supported racial equality, precisely because it would alienate him from the majority of abolitionist northerners, who were incredibly racist.


I will say this in the most respectful way possible.

Excusing Lincoln's statement by saying he was "baited" or was "trying not to alienate voters" is a cope, and, with all due respect, a rather stupid cope.

As a comparison, you will never see a pro-Lincoln acolyte say that Jefferson Davis was "baited" into giving the Cornerstone Speech because someone asked his opinion, or that he had to say it to "not alienate voters" in the South.

This is not an attack on you specifically, but on the Lincoln revisionists in general. The level of excuses revisionists use to explain away Lincoln's racist statements is never applied to other figures who said racist things while opposing Lincoln- showing that such excuses are not made in good faith but are ideologically driven by a desire to sanitize Lincoln's image.

This is a microosm of what grinds my gears about the pro-Lincoln narrative.

It was a public political debate, Douglas asked a question about racial views, and Lincoln clearly answered it. Just because his answer is not in line with modern sensibilities doesn't mean he was "baited" or that he was "trying not to alienate voters".  (the latter excuse being particularly absurd given his abolitionist views already alienated many voters). Those are excuses applied long after the fact.

As you pointed out, abolitionsim was popular in the North, but the North was also quite racist. Lincoln being a Northerner would be aware of this, and possibly have this attitude himself. Therefore, if Lincoln was making a speech to a Northern crowd, and said both pro-abolitionist stuff and racist stuff, it would be logical. But that's not what the revisionist Lincoln narrative claims- the revisionists assume, based on modern sensibilities, that Lincoln only believed the abolitionism but not the racism. Which is a patently inconsistent standard that is allowed to persist for the sake of pro-Lincoln revisionism.



> Here's the _entire _quote where Lincoln says his main aim isn't to destroy slavery





> I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time _save_ slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time _destroy_ slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle _is_ to save the Union, and is _not_ either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing _any_ slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing _all_ the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do _not_ believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do _less_ whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do _more_ whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
> 
> I have here stated my purpose according to my view of _official_ duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed _personal_ wish that all men every where could be free.


So he claims to be personally abolitionist, while also claiming he would willingly allow slavery to continue (presumably indefinitely) if it meant preserving the Union? That's both self-contradicting, and a very "politician" way of putting things, trying to satisfy both sides at once.



> The colonization of blacks abroad was most likely a political move done to assuage the fears of racist white Northerners in response to slaves freeing to Northern lines,


This may be one motive, but Lincoln also advocated deportation as a way to improve wages for white laborers in his 1862 State of the Union. 

Logically, there is neither more nor less of it. Emancipation, even without deportation, would probably enhance the wages of white labor, and very surely would not reduce them. Thus the customary amount of labor would still have to be performed—the freed people would surely not do more than their old proportion of it, and very probably for a time would do less, leaving an increased part to white laborers, bringing their labor into greater demand, and consequently enhancing the wages of it. With deportation, even to a limited extent, enhanced wages to white labor is mathematically certain. Labor is like any other commodity in the market—increase the demand for it and you increase the price of it. Reduce the supply of black labor by colonizing the black laborer out of the country, and by precisely so much you increase the demand for and wages of white labor.



> He put on a show of supporting it, because it's literally a politician's job to be deceptive.


This is a foolish line of argument- you could say the exact same thing about every single one of his pro-abolition statements. How do you know that he actually supported abolition, or suffrage, and wasn't just saying it to get northern votes and black votes? You're claiming all of his racist statements weren't his actual views but were just pandering to "racist northern" voters- but you're simultaneously claiming the opposite regarding the non-racist statements.

This is what bothers me about the whole revisionist idea of Lincoln as a "Great Emancipator"- the Great Emancipator myth was created by assuming that he meant some things he said, and didn't mean other things he said. And which things he actually "meant" is pretty much interpreted in whatever way makes Lincoln look good by modern standards. Its an incredibly dishonest way of presenting an already complex individual.

Also, as an aside- saying that Lincoln was a typical "deceptive" politician is 100% true. I'm glad you said that because that very statement contradicts the sanitized "Honest Abe" image that is so often presented in the pro-Lincoln narrative.




> While Congress appropriated $600,000 for colonizing blacks, less than 7 percent was actually used for it.
> 
> Here's a good article discussing it.


Not sure how this in particular pertains to Lincoln, but it sounds like an interesting read.  The site you linked to isn't loading for me, so I'll give it a try later. Wonder how much the money was being misspent/embezzled, and if would validate the old adages about Congress being useless.



> After his visit to the White House, Frederick Douglass said of Lincoln: “I was impressed with his entire freedom from popular prejudice against the colored race.”
> 
> And in his eulogy for Lincoln:


This is literally the classic "he had a black friend who likes him, so he isn't racist" argument 



> Was he perfect? No. Was he racist? Quite possibly so. But so was just about everyone in the 1800s, apart from fringe radicals.


Two responses:

1) that sentence directly contradicts the claims you made earlier that Lincoln wasn't racist and supported equality

2) That sentence roughly sums up my point in my original comment. Lincoln wasn't some outstanding moral crusader- he was a northerner who expressed typical northern views on race and slavery. He was also politician who said things as neccesary to get votes. His assassination made him into a perceived martyr, and because of his martyr status he became a disproportionately lionized figure. As a result his legacy and personal image were heavily revised after the fact to hide/downplay inconvenient elements.



> On a separate note, I think the worst case of historical revisionism is the idea that religion is the root of all the world's evil, when it's directly responsible for less than 7 percent of all wars, and less than a century of rule by atheist governments saw mass murders that make the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition and St. Bartholomew's Day massacre combined look like a kindergarten playground scuffle.


That is a valid point.



Elbow Greased Strength said:


> It's also dumb because national reconciliation after the War basically ended the sectarian conflict. Lee and Jackson were American icons just like Grant and Sherman.
> 
> I feel like anyone who is assmad about something that happened 160 years ago (many of whom were not even in this country at the time, myself included) need to take a step back and consider what they are doing with their lives.


Very true, especially the second sentence. Its especially bad online with historically illiterate zoomers, half of them just robotically repeat lyrics to "Union Dixie" ad infinitum and spam the same exact Sherman memes, combined with insuffereable moralistic grandstanding. The other half get unironically MATI over the March to the Sea and are insufferably uptight about anyone criticizing a Confederate figure while treating the Antebellum South with absurdly rose tinted goggles. And neither side can tell you anything about the actual war or battles or tactics or economy themselves because, again, historically illiterate retards.

There is value in actual fact-based academic debate on the topic. But you put it perfectly- being assmad (on either side) about shit that you never experienced is dumb and pointless


----------



## The Gifted Kid (Jul 25, 2022)

Not so much revisionism but the constant downplaying of the atrocities committed by communists and socialists.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (Jul 25, 2022)

The Gifted Kid said:


> Not so much revisionism but the constant downplaying of the atrocities committed by communists and socialists.


I guess all those atrocities don't look good for the image of "progress" commies now want to maintain.


----------



## SpergPatrol (Jul 25, 2022)

The Gifted Kid said:


> Not so much revisionism but the constant downplaying of the atrocities committed by communists and socialists.


That is historically being revised as I have even seen people downplaying incidents where communism outright failed and re-writing it blaming some other thing for why it failed or events that occured during it.

It is literally an ideology that has survived due to revisionist propaganda.


----------



## DJ Grelle (Jul 25, 2022)

Something small and very autistic; but...

In many medieval movies, the courtyards of castles are always caked in a thick layer of mud. Most courtyards weren't covered in stone or some other surface hardening material, so a bit of mud is realistic in case of rain or snow.
But the type of mud is unrealistic. It's always some thick, heavy forest mud, while the yard of a castle would consist of a heavily compacted layer of sand and dirt courtesy of hundreds of people walking over it every day.

So in reality, courtyard mud would be a thin, watery slick. It would not cake on in thick chunks, it would be a thin and tan layer that quickly dries out into some crusted on sand. Not some mire of leaves and sticks resulting in a dark brown mass.


----------



## Sneed’s Fuck and Suck (Jul 25, 2022)

The Holocaust.


----------



## LeChampion1992 (Jul 25, 2022)

The history of the ku klux klan, The history of reconstruction, as well as why the South had been purposely kept poorer then north pre WW2. 

Sherman's march is very much whitewashed as well as the asymmetrical and sectarian nature of the conflict during the civil war is largely forgotten for the large scale battles of Antietam, Gettysburg and bull-run. 



DJ Grelle said:


> Something small and very autistic; but...
> 
> In many medieval movies, the courtyards of castles are always caked in a thick layer of mud. Most courtyards weren't covered in stone or some other surface hardening material, so a bit of mud is realistic in case of rain or snow.
> But the type of mud is unrealistic. It's always some thick, heavy forest mud, while the yard of a castle would consist of a heavily compacted layer of sand and dirt courtesy of hundreds of people walking over it every day.
> ...


People forget that some of the more developed castles eventually are essentially large cities with rudimentary plumbing, stone pavement, as well as wooden flooring in some of the early and later castles.


Ohh also WW2 is probably one of the most revisioned war that people have to forget it's more like several dozen wars going on all at once that are all connected together. One famous Nazi scene is actually of Yugoslavia with Croatian ustasche killing a Serbian women. The eastern front has more battles and wars then one realized. Yugoslavia was less under German occupation and more Germans were in Yugoslavia but they're knee deep in a civil war.

In China the civil war and Chinese Japanese war had ended up taking tens of millions of lives many of these bodies all belonging to all sides.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jul 25, 2022)

Elbow Greased Strength said:


> The biggest problem is none of these assholes have ever spent any time actually learning the history around the Civil War and its aftermath and seem to think they know better than the people who actually fought it.  They want to punch down on some old baddie to make themselves feel better about their shit lives.
> 
> I've been to Gettysburg, Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg and Antietam multiple times and there has never been a moment when I didn't feel respect for the Confederate soldiers and their leaders. They were honorable men who fought for a cause they believed in to the bitter end and rather than pursue ruthless justice we sought reconciliation.
> 
> ...


Not to detract from your point but just as a fun aside, Switzerland waged, in that time period, a civil war much more humanely. The TLDR is that the Catholics wanted to split from the Protestants and form a secessionist state (the Sonderbund). However, the commanders wanted to minimize unnecessary death and suffering, so they laid out very clear rules of engagement, made sure they had good hospitals set up, and so on. As a result the Swiss had very low death tolls.

The Swiss situation was exceptional and says more about the character of Swiss people, but it does form a terrible contrast with the nasty attitude of Sherman (who I personally don’t take at his word about hating that style of warfare) and the complete disregard for both civilian and soldier suffering in both sides.

I think it says a lot though that Lincoln allowed a free wartime election, allowed the rebels to go home with only prosecutions for top civilian leadership, and basically was ready to just let the rebels rejoin society. In very few other places would the defeated be treated that mercifully.


----------



## ICametoLurk (Jul 25, 2022)

Corpun said:


> Not to mention the environmental impact of mining for the shit to make their batteries and everything. Environmentalists are useful idiots at worst and downright idiotic at best.


Guess where most of it is in the World?

South America. Land of Cocaine, Banana Republics, and having the wrong political opinion means you get boiled in hot water and raped by dogs.


----------



## Penrowe (Jul 25, 2022)

Shidoen said:


> That’s why I proudly fly both colors, as both helped changed our nation either way. No political party or spectrum shall control what both of those nations have provided.


I don't agree with the cause of the confederacy but as an old stock revolutionary american I can at least appreciate the sentiment.


----------



## Shidoen (Jul 25, 2022)

Penrowe said:


> I don't agree with the cause of the confederacy but as an old stock revolutionary american I can at least appreciate the sentiment.


All they did was have the same values as the Union but still wanted some slaves. I mean, any war before that had slavery involved.


----------



## MirrorNoir (Jul 25, 2022)

Brain Power said:


> Salvador Allende being a good boy who dindu nuffin and Pinochet unjustly ending his good government.
> And the whole thing about the "mapuche conflict". It was solved by Pinochet back then (he was even named their "Futa Lonco" aka their maximum authority) and the ones causing all the current shitshow don't even want to acknowledge that. Do you want to know why Araucanía and Bío-Bío regions tend to vote for the right? Because of him.
> View attachment 3502293View attachment 3502294View attachment 3502321



For what it's worth, most modern day takes/exploration of the Pinochet Coup will mention explicitly:

1. Allende took his own life out of a selfish desire of wanting to martyr himself, rather than being arrested if not executed by the military coup.

2. Pinochet himself was not part of the original conspiracy and joined it very late in the planning stage

3. Pinochet only became the guy in charge of Chile BECAUSE the other military officers that were involved in the coup were incompetent/were only in it to remove Allende and wanted a status quo reset to right before Allende's election. Pinochet was the only one who saw that they needed to rip out the communist faction stem and root and do it NOW, or else there would be violent retaliation against them the second the communists took over again (as far as Chile going full fascist under a communist regime that would use Allende's "execution" as the excuse to go full Stalin on anyone right of Mao) if they won back power in democratic elections.

4.  That Allende's policies were pretty god-awful in execution and alienated a huge chunk of the people and that the military, like today in America which was it's own little subculture world largely isolated from the liberal commie/socialist elite and their poor fag brownshirt brigade, where it was one of the few places normal people in Chile could get ahead and a make a life for themselves and that they were appalled at the way Allende was constantly sucking the dicks of the heads of other Communist countries and asking those dictators for advice for how to further entrench communism into Chile so that it could irrevocably take over the place and the communist government never voted out of power.

5. That Pinochet and the other collaborators in the coup would never of gotten the balls to move against Allende unless they knew 100% they had US support, with the Kissinger and the "Chicago Boys" (right wing capitalist types who saw Chile as a petri dish to experiment with extreme forms of Randian economic models).


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jul 25, 2022)

LeChampion1992 said:


> The history of the ku klux klan, The history of reconstruction, as well as why the South had been purposely kept poorer then north pre WW2.
> 
> Sherman's march is very much whitewashed as well as the asymmetrical and sectarian nature of the conflict during the civil war is largely forgotten for the large scale battles of Antietam, Gettysburg and bull-run.
> 
> ...


Speaking of guerrillas, both popular Northern and Southern memory completely shoved aside the Southern Unionists, I think mostly because it was convenient to both's self-images.

Huge numbers of Union soldiers, not just from Kentucky and West Virginia, were Southern; every Southern state except South Carolina furnished at least one White unit. One estimate I've seen is 100,000, plus 125,000 Kentuckians, which is small relative to the 2.1 million total Union soldiers but significant compared to 1 million Confederates total. Many top-ranking Union officers were either actual Southerners or at least had some history of being born in/living in the South, most significantly Zachary Taylor (Anaconda Plan, Virginia); Admiral Farragut and Lincoln were also born in Tennessee/Kentucky, but neither can really be called Southern culturally.

The entire Ozarks (spilling over into Missouri) and Cumberland Plateau were guerilla warfare shitshows, mainly Unionist, with other Unionist guerillas in the rest of Nickajack. Newton Knight's successful insurrection in southern Mississippi that had seized several counties by itself by the end of the war.

Somewhere along the way, Appalachia began to get the opposite of whitewashed, like blackwashed, with Confederate identity to the point where nowadays I see more Confederate flags there than anywhere else.



The part about WW2, it's a real shame (and this kind of goes for everything involving any famous war) how much the heroic fighting outside of Western Europe was downplayed. The French Resistance got lots of play in the public imgaination while doing fuck-all, while like you said, Yugoslavia was a huge deal, was basically the Peninsular War to Hitler's Napoleon (and how often do you even hear people reference the Peninsular War?). Much less the efforts of Slavic separatist partisans in Eastern Europe fighting both the Germans and Soviets, or the fighting of the Polish Underground State (much more remarkable than the French), or the Cretans. But 99% of media is just the same Band of Brothers/Enemy at the Gates/[insert rare Japan/Pacific movie] treatment.

On the other hand, people bag on the French so much while completely forgetting their glorious military heritage up to that point, and forgetting that the Germans rolled over everybody really fast, the only people they didn't roll over were the Soviets because they were too big to do in a few weeks. The French isn't some colossal fuckup so much as it's just the usual thing happening when one group of people figure out how to do something (mechanized combined arms warfare, in this case) before anybody else does, no different from Macedonians or Mongols or, for that matter, Napoleonic French sweeping everything before them.


----------



## MirrorNoir (Jul 25, 2022)

Meat Target said:


> "McCarthy used HUAC to persecute poor Hollywood actors who dindu nuffin."
> 
> how would _*Senator* _McCarthy be holding hearings in the _*House*_ Un-American Activities Committee?
> HUAC was initially formed in the late 1930s to sniff out Nazi sympathizers.
> ...



Clarifying and correcting some bits:

Hollywood Ten was late 1940s and early 1950s and were led by Dalton Trumbo. Trumbo was a true believer Commie with a hard on for the Soviet Union. He was anti-war, going so far as to write the nightmare fuel themed Johnny Got His Gun to create a generation of peacenik pacifists but yanked it out of circulation/store shelves the second Russia got invaded becuase Trumbo didn't give a fuck about stopping Hitler until his beloved Soviet Union got invaded and then was pro war and pulled Johnny because it was one of the cornerstones of the anti-war pacifist movement in the United States at the time and even reported fans who wrote him asking if he had copies of Johnny Got His Gun squirreled away that he would be willing to sell to fans to the FBI for treasonous behavior. And only brought it back into print in the 1960s when he was broke and not getting movie work anymore and wanted to capitalize on the book's reputation as the closest thing to a real life "The King In Yellow" among the anti-Vietnam War movement. 

Also, the Hollywood Ten was part of big conspiracy plot; they were working with anti-McCarthy/anti-HUAC lawyers who felt "HUAC was unconstitutional" and just needed a lawsuit to point it out and shut it down. Hence the Hollywood Ten making asses out of themselves when they testified and getting sent to jail, so their lawyers could appeal their convictions and kill HUAC. The movie even outright shows that Trumbo had to promise to pay one of the Hollywood Ten's medical bills to get him to participate in the scheme. 

Also, Trumbo was a complete true believing fanatic and little Hitler in Hollywood, which was why Hollywood was eager to backstab him and blackball him/make him humiliate himself working as a "front" for other writers. Trumbo and his fellow commies hijacked control over the Writers Guild, who had the major Hollywood studios by the balls in that they could only buy scripts from members of the Guild. Trumbo explicitly banned anyone right of Stalin from being a member of the Guild and purposely squashed ANY film scripts from being made showed that the Soviet Union was a hellish dystopia and that Stalin had a body count kill count on par with Hitler. Combined with the fact that Trumbo was also a MASSIVE bully who basically created the modern day celebrity "struggle session" where anyone who showed the LEAST BIT of free independent thought were unable to get work in Hollywood as a writer until they debased themselves in front of Trumbo and the rest of his cronies in the Guild. 

Even the Coens recognized this in "Hail Ceaser"; showing the bad guys in that film as the Hollywood writers and the leader of the group (the young writer with the mustache and buddy holly glasses) being the mirror image of Dalton Trumbo, even if he had a different name for legal reasons. 



SpergPatrol said:


> What was revised?


Among other lies spewed by the 1619 Project

1. America's birth year wasn't 1776, but 1619 because black people are superior to white people and it's "birth" should be when Black people first came to America since "black lives > white, Native American, Hispanic, Asian lives". 

2. America was founded to protect slavery because the founding fathers owned slaves 

3. EVERY, and I mean EVERY aspect of American society from the police to prisons and ANYTHING black people hate, was founded abecause of slavery and to put down/torment black people.

4. Basically white people and democracy is evil and irrevocably tainted and explicitly stating in text that "The 1619 Project" is phase one of a "Void Century" scheme that black supremacists have been waiting eons for, to allow them to rewrite history/erase history of America's founding so they can canonize the blood libeling of white people and turn America into a black supremacist dictatorship.


----------



## Uriah (Jul 25, 2022)

That the Enlightenment was good.


----------



## MuuMuu Bunnylips (Jul 25, 2022)

_ Any_ historical revision is the worst History isn't something you just paint over.


----------



## Oilspill Battery (Jul 25, 2022)

The idea that Achilles and Patroclus were lovers. You see this shit all over reddit and tumblr and even sometimes in irl and its unbelievably frustrating to see alphabet degnerates try to rewrite history to retroactively justify their fetishes.

In the original text of Illiad, there's not a single mention of achilles and patroclus being lovers. A text so detailed and it was used by Heinrich Schliemann to find the real life location of troy. I see people say in one breath "Ancient greece was alphabet paradise!" and the other say "Homer left their relationship out due to prejudice." Both of these are bullshit, he didn't include it because its not a thing.

But even ignoring that, Achilles fell in love with Deidamia and had Neoptolemus as a son and in some versions was so madly in love that he raped her. 

The only reason Achilles wanted to withdraw from the war in the first place is because Agamemnon dishonored him by demanding he hand over his concubine (Briseis) to him. Why the fuck would he even need a concubine if his "lover" was literally in the same tent?

Ontop of that after patroclus died, Achilles coped by falling in love with and marrying a Trojan princess called Polyxena and in some versions died because he shared his heel secret with her which is how the trojans found out about it.

And finally, as per the Argonautica AND Hesiod, Medea and Achilles were married in the Elysian fields and rule toogether over the black sea on the white isle over other dead heroes.

ONTOP of ALL that, Patroclus was older than Achilles and Achilles was a demigod. No matter which way you slice it them being lovers is either hubris against your elders or hubris against the gods.

Achilles isn't gay and he isn't "bi", and while we're at it no, ancient greece isn't a gay paradise. Teachers would have intercrural sex with students a practice which was controvertial even at the time. 

Masters would occasionally rape slaves and being penetrated was dishonorable, relationships between adult men were also inconceivable.


If anyone tells you achilles and patroclus were a couple they're full of shit regurgitating tumblr tier (literally) revisionism.


----------



## Uriah (Jul 25, 2022)

Oilspill Battery said:


> The idea that Achilles and Patroclus were lovers. You see this shit all over reddit and tumblr and even sometimes in irl and its unbelievably frustrating to see alphabet degnerates try to rewrite history to retroactively justify their fetishes.
> 
> In the original text of Illiad, there's not a single mention of achilles and patroclus being lovers. A text so detailed and it was used by Heinrich Schliemann to find the real life location of troy. I see people say in one breath "Ancient greece was alphabet paradise!" and the other say "Homer left their relationship out due to prejudice." Both of these are bullshit, he didn't include it because its not a thing.
> 
> ...


Do you think that Achilles and Patroclus were real people?


----------



## Oilspill Battery (Jul 25, 2022)

Uriah said:


> Do you think that Achilles and Patroclus were real people?


Irrelevant. The epic cycle is the most culturally and historically significant collection of texts in all of western literature. 

Revisionism of the illiad is just as awful (if not worse due to the affomentioned significance) as all other types of historical revisionism.

Gilgamesh isn't real but revising his epic to claim he was a black trans woman all along is equally attrocious.


----------



## BiggerChungus (Jul 25, 2022)

American Revolution gets revised a lot, at least here. The Founding Fathers and the Continental Army's leaders were a bunch of corrupt assholes who did some really questionable shit, and George and the Brits weren't nearly as tyrannical as we like to pretend they were.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Jul 25, 2022)

Oilspill Battery said:


> The idea that Achilles and Patroclus were lovers. You see this shit all over reddit and tumblr and even sometimes in irl and its unbelievably frustrating to see alphabet degnerates try to rewrite history to retroactively justify their fetishes.
> 
> In the original text of Illiad, there's not a single mention of achilles and patroclus being lovers. A text so detailed and it was used by Heinrich Schliemann to find the real life location of troy. I see people say in one breath "Ancient greece was alphabet paradise!" and the other say "Homer left their relationship out due to prejudice." Both of these are bullshit, he didn't include it because its not a thing.
> 
> ...


Wasn’t Greek homosex something of a Classical innovation that came along after the Chad superstraight Mycenaeans?


----------



## Uriah (Jul 25, 2022)

Oilspill Battery said:


> Irrelevant. The epic cycle is the most culturally and historically significant collection of texts in all of western literature.
> 
> Revisionism of the illiad is just as awful (if not worse due to the affomentioned significance) as all other types of historical revisionism.
> 
> Gilgamesh isn't real but revising his epic to claim he was a black trans woman all along is equally attrocious.


No, the most culturally and historically significant collection of texts in all of western literature are the Bible and Plato's writings.


----------



## BiggerChungus (Jul 25, 2022)

Certified_Autist said:


> THAT Lincoln, the man who made Trump look like a respecter of his critics, the man would be considered horrifically racist by today's standards, is so far away from the "Great Emancipator" Lincoln presented in the modern narrative, its absurd. The whitewashing of Lincoln is imo one of the best examples of revisionism in American history.
> 
> Like I said, I'm not a lost causer and the Confederacy had plenty of grounds for crticism, to put it mildly. That doesn't justify Lincoln being deified and protrayed in popular consciousness as a figure that he never was in reality.


I'm a "lost causer" myself, as in I'd have supported the CSA and admire Jefferson Davis, but even with that aside, I think it's objectively true that the main role of the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't freeing slaves, something a lot of the Union's leadership admitted they didn't care too much about, but about stating the war's goal as the liberation of Southern slaves as a political maneuver to keep Britain and France from intervening on the Confederate side, since any direct involvement would from then on be a direct condoning of slavery to the rest of the world at the time. Not that I'm saying ending slavery was bad or something, but it's almost never mentioned how diplomatically-motivated the act was, and instead it's used to portray Lincoln, the man who said whites and blacks would never be equal, as a kindly saint. At most you'll get "oh, and it also discouraged European intervention, so that was an extra bonus!" as if it wasn't the main point.


----------



## DJ Grelle (Jul 26, 2022)

The idea that the ACW was revolutionary in the field of war-fighting. That it announced the beginning of trench warfare and was a kind of proto-ww1. That europeans did not learn the lessons from that war.
The european military attaches in america correctly observed that the american forces at the beginning of the war were badly equipped, badly trained and badly led. Just a few years later, the franco prussian war would see more men mobilized in a smaller theatre of war with a better application of modern tech and it resulted in a quick, maneuvre-based warfare.

Second, the two weapons that made trench warfare a possibility did not exist during the ACW. These are the indirect firing, long range artillery piece and the machine gun. 

The ACW was bloody, but this was because most of the generals were napoleon-boos who thought élan and massed charges were a great idea.


----------



## BiggerChungus (Jul 26, 2022)

DJ Grelle said:


> The idea that the ACW was revolutionary in the field of war-fighting. That it announced the beginning of trench warfare and was a kind of proto-ww1. That europeans did not learn the lessons from that war.
> The european military attaches in america correctly observed that the american forces at the beginning of the war were badly equipped, badly trained and badly led. Just a few years later, the franco prussian war would see more men mobilized in a smaller theatre of war with a better application of modern tech and it resulted in a quick, maneuvre-based warfare.
> 
> Second, the two weapons that made trench warfare a possibility did not exist during the ACW. These are the indirect firing, long range artillery piece and the machine gun.
> ...


If I remember right, some European observers compared the Union and Confederate armies to actors in a play about war rather than soldiers, basically second-rate imitators of European tactics. The ACW definitely saw some military innovations, but its importance gets overstated a lot, and in terms of conventional warfare and army organization, we were still way behind the other world powers at the time, and still were until about 1942.


----------



## El Gato Grande (Jul 26, 2022)

A list of (IMO) more historical revisions and misconceptions. I can go into more detail in my opinion if anyone is interested.

*WW1 Happened for stupid reasons.*
Many people believe WW1 was an unreasonable and easily avoidable conflict, especially compared to the more “black and white” morality of WW2. However the European powers of the early 1900s had a perfect reason to be at each other’s throats—the mutual threat they posed to each other.

France was terrified of Germany, because Germany was bigger and shared a land border so they allied with Russia, which Germany was terrified of just as the French were of them. The ottomans were threatened by the Russians, which drove elements of their government to the central powers camp. England (which lived and died by its navy as an island nation) felt threatened by Germany’s attempt to compete with then at sea, and was ready to back anyone anti-German to reduce the prospect of a reverse Trafalgar. Europe was split between 7 big countries who were all independent of each other and had the capability to throw millions of men at each other so naturally the prospect of a power struggle was everyone’s primary concern. If you didn’t make military alliances or mobilize before your enemies you ran the risk of having enemy troops in your capital in a month. Europe was full of tension for years before WW1, with the Balkan wars, anger over German and Russian victories in past wars, and the scramble for Europe. Once the mobilization started in 1914 a domino effect occurred with all the major powers trying to pre-emptivley mobilize and attack each other while most of the leaders didn’t actually want war. It’s a consequence of a multi-polar world which we can return to if/when the US isn’t the sole hegemon anymore.

*Blitzkrieg was a radically original strategy:*
Yes and no. Germany’s use of tanks and motorized units for maneuver warfare, combined with successful use of air support was very organic, decisively defeating Polish, French and Russian armies, but many armies were developing mobile warfare doctrines in the interwar period at least to some degree—they largely failed to implement it instead of being too dumb to entertain the prospect. The Red army developed “deep battle” doctrine in the inter war period which called for heavy use of mobile units to exploit the enemy rear and decisively collapse their line, but many of the generals who developed it got purged and they were in no shape to do it in the early years of WW2. Even in Germany itself most of what noob historians call “blitzkrieg” was based on pre-ww1 Prussian maneuver warfare doctrine designed to win tactical victories on the (mostly) flat lands of Central Europe.

*The 13 Colonies were badass during the American Revolutionary War:*
Obviously this is mostly from the US educational system. While the revolution was impressive in that it managed to keep going despite the problems it had and made one of the richest nations in the world give up, the Redcoats had a lot of disadvantages which makes American victory less impressive. Britain, unlike the revolutionaries, had to ship men, supplies and information across the Atlantic before the time when sailing technology reached its height. The British government was in a gridlock, and their army wasn’t in the best state either. It goes without saying that the colonists had a huge home field advantage. Britain also wasnt trying to fight a total war so instead of throwing in everything they had they retreated/agrees to peace when it got too expensive for them.

*Tsarist Russia Deserved the Bolsheviks*
Tsarist Russia had a lot of problems but it had good qualities as well. Many of its people lived as miserable peasants, but it saw successful industrialization in some of its core regions, and was able to compete with the Western Europeans in many fields. Around 1900 IIRC they had the 3rd largest navy (on paper at least) despite being an almost landlocked country. It was also a huge source of culture, and had high birth and industrialization rates before WW1 and 1917. Instead of taking a nuanced view on Imperial Russia people try to depict it as a cartoonishly corrupt and backwater region, often making the communists look more agreeable.




DJ Grelle said:


> The idea that the ACW was revolutionary in the field of war-fighting. That it announced the beginning of trench warfare and was a kind of proto-ww1. That europeans did not learn the lessons from that war.
> The european military attaches in america correctly observed that the american forces at the beginning of the war were badly equipped, badly trained and badly led. Just a few years later, the franco prussian war would see more men mobilized in a smaller theatre of war with a better application of modern tech and it resulted in a quick, maneuvre-based warfare.
> 
> Second, the two weapons that made trench warfare a possibility did not exist during the ACW. These are the indirect firing, long range artillery piece and the machine gun.
> ...


Im inclined to disagree. ACW wasn’t radically different from previous wars, but it was a precursor of things to come. You do have a point in the Franco-Prussian war validating a lot of European ideas, but I think WW1 could’ve been less painful if more of the European advisors sent there took more notice of how much more lethal rifles had become instead of thinking that French bravery or Prussian tactical genius would make them exempt from situations like the siege of Petersburg.

*Everyone who appeased Hitler should burn in hell with him.*
Appeasement policies were generally poor ideas because of the 48 laws of power and Hitler being a geopolitical pitbull, but considering the time it’s easy to understand why England didn’t immediately declare war on Germany in the name of democracy. Many found it reasonable Germany would stop after regaining what they lost after WW1. Hitler actually had some international clout before tensions rose. Most of all people were terrified of another European war after how horrible WW1 had been, and wanted to avoid it if at all possible. Once Germany broke the Munich agreement and took all of Czechoslovakia the future allies realized it wasn’t going to work and began preparing for fight Germany instead of begging them to stop.


----------



## Penrowe (Jul 27, 2022)

BiggerChungus said:


> American Revolution gets revised a lot, at least here. The Founding Fathers and the Continental Army's leaders were a bunch of corrupt assholes who did some really questionable shit, and George and the Brits weren't nearly as tyrannical as we like to pretend they were.


Brits were mostly incompetent and failed to recognize that their partial reliance on local militiamen during the preceding french and indian war only buoyed the colonials spirit of self reliance and independence from a mother country where they had no parliamentary representation.
When the later punitive acts were passed to punish the bostonian asbos while also failing to take decisive action against the most antisocial of their number they made revolution an inevitability.

If only there was some clever italian chap who could've explained the importance of interdependence and how vulnerable their position was.


----------



## BiggerChungus (Jul 27, 2022)

Penrowe said:


> Brits were mostly incompetent and failed to recognize that their partial reliance on local militiamen during the preceding french and indian war only buoyed the colonials spirit of self reliance and independence from a mother country where they had no parliamentary representation.
> When the later punitive acts were passed to punish the bostonian asbos while also failing to take decisive action against the most antisocial of their number they made revolution an inevitability.
> 
> If only there was some clever italian chap who could've explained the importance of interdependence and how vulnerable their position was.


Definitely the Brits could've done better, but what's most often portrayed as "brave freedom fighters rebelling against cruel tyrannical overlords" was much more like "the colonial administration is incompetent, the regular colonists feel neglected, and the elite colonists take advantage of the situation."


----------



## Penrowe (Jul 27, 2022)

BiggerChungus said:


> Definitely the Brits could've done better, but what's most often portrayed as "brave freedom fighters rebelling against cruel tyrannical overlords" was much more like "the colonial administration is incompetent, the regular colonists feel neglected, and the elite colonists take advantage of the situation."


Oh absolutely. A diplomatic settlement would have been far better than the tragedy of a brother war (and subsequent conflicts) not to mention getting the fucking french involved.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Aug 1, 2022)

@Chingis Khan

In response (late) to your argument, is it possible you're talking more about the Caribbean market? Because I've read some on the American market for indentured servants and most of those people weren't Irish (though I get why you focused on that, the Irish slaves thing) in the first place and certainly most of them survived the experience, generally into freedom too.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Aug 10, 2022)

Lots of Europeans already think Americans are douchey for playing up the American Revolution as a hugely important event over the French Revolution and ignoring long European heritages of republicanism, but apparently Americans are ALSO douchey for ignoring the long history of colonial independence movements in Latin America BEFORE the American Revolution.

Apparently (because I only learned this recently) the Spanish Empire had big problems with uppity encomenderos who felt that they owned their land more than the Crown (because the encomenderos WERE the conquistadors and their descendants). Very little feeling of loyalty, when the Crown would threaten their right to exploit Indians they'd flip out and either threaten to secede but get purged over it (New Spain, mid-1500s), or actually for real secede and then get put down (Peru, mid-1500s).

Blew my mind that there were, in the first generations, already serious attempts at colonial revolt. It's just that these were revolts of the elite and they didn't work out.


----------



## Corpun (Aug 10, 2022)

Shidoen said:


> Treating the confederate generals like shit despite their previous dutiful service to the Union but playing up Sherman as some kind of martyr for burning Atlanta.


I think those people should be required to sit down and watch reunions of Civil War vets at battlefields like Gettysburg. There are no enemies or Union troops singing Union Dixie as they harass the southerners as racist slave owners, just old veterans of an old war who shared more in common with each other than anyone else could. It's why my biggest gripe with Confederate statue and memorial demolition is when it is to the common soldier, or a class of soldiers form a university. Those men did nothing to deserve villainization other than fighting for the side that conscripted them or told them it was their duty due to tyranny of the federal government or something,


----------



## Ser Prize (Aug 11, 2022)

Oilspill Battery said:


> The idea that Achilles and Patroclus were lovers. You see this shit all over reddit and tumblr and even sometimes in irl and its unbelievably frustrating to see alphabet degnerates try to rewrite history to retroactively justify their fetishes.
> 
> In the original text of Illiad, there's not a single mention of achilles and patroclus being lovers. A text so detailed and it was used by Heinrich Schliemann to find the real life location of troy. I see people say in one breath "Ancient greece was alphabet paradise!" and the other say "Homer left their relationship out due to prejudice." Both of these are bullshit, he didn't include it because its not a thing.
> 
> ...


A lot of "Ancient greece was an alphabet paradise" revisionism started with Oscar Wilde, who peddled that myth hard.


----------



## Otterly (Aug 11, 2022)

Genetic revisionism. One example is the reconstructions of cheddar man in the uk having very dark skin. This is one of those things that has become self referencing in the literature but there’s no solid evidence for it at all.
   Background: they found a human skeleton in cheddar gorge in the uk and it’s almost ten thousand years old (9100 or something.) When they examined it’s DNA, they also looked at the DNA of the locals who had a provable long family history of living there for a TV project, and found, to their astonishment (and clear annoyance) that a bloke who lived up the road was an almost exact match at the loci they looked at.
   Why annoyance? Well someone previously talked about the ‘nation of immigrants’ thing that’s constantly pushed on the brits, and this directly contradicts that. It implies that there have been groups living in Britain for thousands of years, rather than us all being only a mix of people washing up in our shores. 
   To make it worse, they did a facial reconstruction of the skeleton and made it very dark skinned. Blue eyes but extremely dark and with a wider nose than the skull really has. There’s no real solid evidence for that skin colour - it’s a guess, and their justification for it genetically was sketchy. 
   This has now been reference in the literature so many times that people now say it’s proven that early western hunter gatherers were almost black, but there is NO solid or conclusive evidence of this at all. We can’t tell what their skin colour was, it’s not like eyes where you can have a very accurate guess, or you can see clear phenotype/skin correlation ;eg African type skull shape is almost totally certain to be dark.) it’s a piece of revisionism that’s always bothered me because it’s a twisting of the field I work in.
   See also: Tarim basin mummies. Tall, over six foot, pale skin, red or blonde hair, skull features not entirely western modern but a strong mix of western/eastern and the wool in their clothes is from sheep with Western European dna. These mummies are memoryholed by china becasue they destroy the idea that the Han have been in charge forever.
   It makes me very much more open to thinking that very little of our history is accurate. All of it is spin in some way.


----------



## Kermit Jizz (Aug 11, 2022)

> Question is what is the outright atrocious case of people rewriting history you have seen that can be proven?


Gamer gate


> Why do you think they re-wrote it in that way?


Political/Journalistic benefit


> And worst part is it actually convincing anyone?


Yes


----------



## TypicalSemite (Aug 11, 2022)

Wikipedia is proof that even if history is written by the victors the ones putting it on paper are definitely losers.


----------



## Stan (Aug 11, 2022)

History Speaks said:


> Hitler's big advantage early on was that he was the only guy at the table willing to put in all his chips. This worked out for him like it works out for many other reckless, compulsive gamblers - briefly raking it in before destroying himself and those around him.





History Speaks said:


> Alt right self-pity is pathetic. The "white genocide" meme is pure self-pity.
> 
> I oppose race hatred, including race hatred against whites, which is somehow excused by the mainstream media and the cool kids these days, with all kinds of circular and false takes about how white people can be talked about in barbaric generalities because they have been so uniquely bad in history, or are all "in power."
> 
> ...


My favorite kind of historical revisionism is when wignats pretend that Ancient Greeks and Romans somehow count as “white”, and that they always thought Germans, Irish, Slavs, and Italians are white. It’s amusing to see them pick and choose and pretend Cyrus the Great was white or that Caesar was somehow the same race as the Gauls and the Germans. 

My least favorite kind of historical revisionism is when Democrats act like theirs has always been the party most interested in advancing civil rights for black people, when it was actually the party of southern whites who wanted to keep Jim Crow in place. That wasn’t very long ago but they really don’t want to remember.


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Oct 4, 2022)

Stan said:


> My least favorite kind of historical revisionism is when Democrats act like theirs has always been the party most interested in advancing civil rights for black people, when it was actually the party of southern whites who wanted to keep Jim Crow in place. That wasn’t very long ago but they really don’t want to remember.


I've never seen this as anything other than a strawman. I'm sure there's tons of rank-and-file who out of just ignorance aren't aware of their history but I've never seen an educated Democrat fail to draw a distinction between 1860s Democrats and modern Democrats, where I do see lots of mainstream Republicans mindlessly worship all Republican party politicans.


----------



## The Nothingness (Oct 4, 2022)

That Ukraine is not a corrupt Eastern European country and a great US ally.

Oh, did you mean historical revisionism that isn't recent?


----------



## Dude Christmas (Oct 4, 2022)

JohnDoe said:


> The fucking Holohoax, that canard has been used as a cudgel to advance the genocide of White Europeans for nearly 100 years.


Shut the fuck up furfaggot.


----------



## Save the Loli (Oct 5, 2022)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> I've never seen this as anything other than a strawman. I'm sure there's tons of rank-and-file who out of just ignorance aren't aware of their history but I've never seen an educated Democrat fail to draw a distinction between 1860s Democrats and modern Democrats, where I do see lots of mainstream Republicans mindlessly worship all Republican party politicans.


Also because its often followed by one of the rallying cries of today's intellectually bankrupt conservatism "Democrats are da REAL RAYCISS". Republicans are so scared of appearing racist that they can do nothing to try and refute accusations of racism or even ask why being a little bit racist is the end of the world. All they can do is punt the race football back to the blue team. Sad!


----------



## Homoturk (Oct 5, 2022)

muh Armenian genocide
I don't get how people unironically believe the collapsing Ottoman Empire which was losing on all fronts and had exausted it's manpower could remove 2 gorillion Armenians who dindu nuffin. There were ethnically targeted massacres, of course, but they were done by irregulars, of both sides. I don't get why people are fixated on Armenians, shit we have done in Bulgaria and other Balkanites done to us and eachother is much worse than this. Maybe it's because the Armenian lobby never shuts the fuck about it.

Edit: Also journos and academics here describing the Turkish National Movement as muh bad peepo who genocided gorrilions disgusts me. The press (and academia) really are scum.


----------



## AgendaPoster (Oct 5, 2022)

Homoturk said:


> muh Armenian genocide
> I don't get how people unironically believe the collapsing Ottoman Empire which was losing on all fronts and had exausted it's manpower could remove 2 gorillion Armenians who dindu nuffin. There were ethnically targeted massacres, of course, but they were done by irregulars, of both sides. I don't get why people are fixated on Armenians, shit we have done in Bulgaria and other Balkanites done to us and eachother is much worse than this. Maybe it's because the Armenian lobby never shuts the fuck about it.
> 
> Edit: Also journos and academics here describing the Turkish National Movement as muh bad peepo who genocided gorrilions disgusts me. The press (and academia) really are scum.


If we accept that Serbs genocided 7K Muslims at Srebrenica than we will sure as fuck accept that Turks have genocided 2M Armenians.
Shit happens, but it is Turks that came uninvited in the area and chimped out in the Balkans, so obviously we impaled some of you to keep you away.


----------



## Homoturk (Oct 5, 2022)

AgendaPoster said:


> If we accept that Serbs genocided 7K Muslims at Srebrenica than we will sure as fuck accept that Turks have genocided 2M Armenians.
> Shit happens, but it is Turks that came uninvited in the area and chimped out in the Balkans, so obviously we impaled some of you to keep you away.


>doesn't disprove my arguments
>proceeds to instead spout nationalist babble when their entire shitty nation was ruled by us for 400 years
like clockwork


----------



## Toolbox (Oct 5, 2022)

Homoturk said:


> muh Armenian genocide
> I don't get how people unironically believe the collapsing Ottoman Empire which was losing on all fronts and had exausted it's manpower could remove 2 gorillion Armenians who dindu nuffin. There were ethnically targeted massacres, of course, but they were done by irregulars, of both sides. I don't get why people are fixated on Armenians, shit we have done in Bulgaria and other Balkanites done to us and eachother is much worse than this. Maybe it's because the Armenian lobby never shuts the fuck about it.
> 
> Edit: Also journos and academics here describing the Turkish National Movement as muh bad peepo who genocided gorrilions disgusts me. The press (and academia) really are scum.


which genocide is real then? are they all just gayops in your eyes? The armenian genocide has never had nearly as much publicity as the holocaust or even earlier soviet stuff. Does every country just have a stupid good photo editing, historical document fabricating, shilling team?


----------



## Uriah (Oct 5, 2022)

Homoturk said:


> muh Armenian genocide
> I don't get how people unironically believe the collapsing Ottoman Empire which was losing on all fronts and had exausted it's manpower could remove 2 gorillion Armenians who dindu nuffin. There were ethnically targeted massacres, of course, but they were done by irregulars, of both sides. I don't get why people are fixated on Armenians, shit we have done in Bulgaria and other Balkanites done to us and eachother is much worse than this. Maybe it's because the Armenian lobby never shuts the fuck about it.
> 
> Edit: Also journos and academics here describing the Turkish National Movement as muh bad peepo who genocided gorrilions disgusts me. The press (and academia) really are scum.


"It did not happen, but they deserved it."


----------



## Homoturk (Oct 6, 2022)

Toolbox said:


> which genocide is real then? are they all just gayops in your eyes? The armenian genocide has never had nearly as much publicity as the holocaust or even earlier soviet stuff. Does every country just have a stupid good photo editing, historical document fabricating, shilling team?


Genocide is the* intentional* destruction of a people—usually defined as an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group—in whole or in part.
If you read my post, you would know that my main argument was that the Ottoman Empire had already exhausted most of it's resources and thus could not have *intentionally* killed 2 million people by state apparatus. Most of the killings were done by irregular militias of *both sides* against militias and civilians because most of the soldiers were busy fighting on other fronts. The army fighting on the Caucasian front couldn't have killed 2 gorrillion people when they had suffered disaster in Sarıkamış.
Armenian diaspora won't shut the fuck about it. And it was good propaganda to carve up the Empire into non-existance in the treaty of Sevre. That's literally the only reason why we still have it on our minds, unlike what we did in Bulgaria or somewhere else, because those nations have an actual identity other than being ((((genocided))))


Uriah said:


> "It did not happen, but they deserved it."


I wish it were real, not because I want people to die, but because Armenians would finally shut the fuck about it (because they would be actually dead)


----------



## Corpun (Oct 9, 2022)

Homoturk said:


> muh Holocaust
> I don't get how people unironically believe the collapsing Third Reich which was focusing all it's resources on war and had begun losing the war could remove 6 gorillion Jews (and  millions more gypsies, faggots, etc) who dindu nuffin. There were ethnically targeted massacres, of course, but they were done by irregulars and local anti-semites. I don't get why people are fixated on Jews, shit done in Russia and other fronts is much worse than this. Maybe it's because the Jewish lobby never shuts the fuck about it.
> 
> Edit: Also journos and academics here describing the NSDAP as muh bad peepo who genocided gorrilions disgusts me. The press (and academia) really are scum.


----------



## 74164978231 (Oct 9, 2022)

ICametoLurk said:


> all the buildings currently at Teotihuacan are modern reconstructions and are just less than 100 years old and this fact is obscured or excluded from almost every article about the site


Sounds a lot like Hawaiian history. Go over there and they love to talk about how King Kwhatever was an amazing man because he "united"(its truly hard to translate the level of satire used when speaking that to text) the islands and formed the Kingdom of Hawaii.

They completely utterly ignore talking about that event was only made possible because he was the first to purchase enough of the whiteman's firearms and have a huge military advantage over his sharktooth'd club wielding neighbors. Also they completely ignore the insanely barbaric Hawaiian cultural customs that where bedrocks of Hawaiian society prior to the white man showing up with Christianity such as;

slavery
human sacrifice
extreme gender segregation
extreme social castes
extreme laws such as instant death for trying to steal the King's "mana"

etc.


----------



## TheRetardKing (Oct 9, 2022)

Never pull a 4Kids and replace the guns with walkie-talkies. 
YOU'LL BE MOCKED FOR IT.


----------



## byuu (Oct 9, 2022)

That the fall of the Weimar Republic was because of trannies.


----------



## Kenya Jones (Oct 9, 2022)

That the Nazi's were technologically advanced.


----------



## Narcotics (Oct 10, 2022)

The conquest of Mexico by the spaniards.

The classic native american treatment of dindu nuffin spiritual aztecs that were massacred in cold blood by the spanish catholic colonizers. When the reality was that the aztecs were so brutal and merciless with their bordering neighbours (tlaxcaltecas never forget) that the instant the opportunity arrived for them to strike back they took it instantly, even if it came from weird, pale and metalic men.
And so the barely few hundreds of spaniards with the help of thousands of angry natives hungry for revenge (and smallpox) destroyed the aztecs, and in return some arrangements were made for the remaining natives to stay around, then comes the whole religious conversion stuff and the independance 200  years later but that's another story.


----------



## Chugger (Oct 10, 2022)

Armenian genocide denial in these circles is funny since it's basically proven by German documents 

amusing discussion I had here: https://twitter.com/rickshawhaw/status/1546865681328754688


----------



## Mnutu (Oct 10, 2022)

Chugger said:


> Armenian genocide denial in these circles is funny since it's basically proven by German documents
> 
> amusing discussion I had here: https://twitter.com/rickshawhaw/status/1546865681328754688


That’s just a part of the thousand year reich plan; affirm and believe every other genocide so that slowly it normalizes and minimizes the holocaust to the point it becomes a historical footnote.

Hitlers machinations are proceeding as planned.


----------



## Grand Wizard Wakka (Oct 10, 2022)

byuu said:


> That the fall of the Weimar Republic was because of trannies.


Gays, Jews, Pedophiles, Al Bhed and other degenerates also contributed.


----------



## byuu (Oct 10, 2022)

Grand Wizard Wakka said:


> Gays, Jews, Pedophiles, Al Bhed and other degenerates also contributed.


Yeah, that was people's biggest worry during Weimar. It was a fun stable prosperous time except for faggots ruining it by being gay and shit.


----------



## Return of the Freaker (Oct 10, 2022)

byuu said:


> Yeah, that was people's biggest worry during Weimar. It was a fun stable prosperous time except for faggots ruining it by being gay and shit.


----------



## HodgePodgeRogerDodger (Oct 11, 2022)

Kenya Jones said:


> That the Nazi's were technologically advanced.


In some areas, yes. They were fairly advanced with rockets and submarines. The British beat them to radar and machine computing. Fun fact: odds are that faggot never broke Enigma and some Spaniard gave them the codes after the Poles stole a few of them and gave them stolen codes. British Intelligence was fucking useless for most of the war and involved people literally giving them shit. 

They lacked mass manufacturing capability and lacked American Banker’s who would bet on them. Same shit in WWI, American Bankers pressured Wilson into the war when their investment almost failed.


----------



## God of Nothing (Oct 11, 2022)

That conflicts are morally justified or morally reprehensible rather than the result of clashing desires/interests between human beings.


----------



## byuu (Oct 11, 2022)

Return of the Freaker said:


> View attachment 3729379


They also burned works by Kästner, Kafka, Lessing, Freud,  Einstein, Tucholsky, Brecht, Mann, Hemingway, London, ...


----------



## Save the Loli (Oct 11, 2022)

Homoturk said:


> muh Armenian genocide
> I don't get how people unironically believe the collapsing Ottoman Empire which was losing on all fronts and had exausted it's manpower could remove 2 gorillion Armenians who dindu nuffin. There were ethnically targeted massacres, of course, but they were done by irregulars, of both sides. I don't get why people are fixated on Armenians, shit we have done in Bulgaria and other Balkanites done to us and eachother is much worse than this. Maybe it's because the Armenian lobby never shuts the fuck about it.
> 
> Edit: Also journos and academics here describing the Turkish National Movement as muh bad peepo who genocided gorrilions disgusts me. The press (and academia) really are scum.


They put out propaganda encouraging jihad against Christians and sure enough a bunch of Armenians died and they put some others in refugee camps in the Syrian desert where they all starved.

What people never mention is that a bunch of the massacres were done by the Kurds but the Kurds have been made into dindu nuffins because the US/Israel designated them as allies because of Saddam and the Assads.


God of Nothing said:


> That conflicts are morally justified or morally reprehensible rather than the result of clashing desires/interests between human beings.


Here's an easy counterexample. Keffals, a self-professed communist groomer, wants to use illegal methods (DDoS, libel, tortious interference) to take down Kiwifarms, a self-professed free speech site which lacks illegal content because users are allowed to freely express themselves.


----------



## God of Nothing (Oct 11, 2022)

Save the Loli said:


> Here's an easy counterexample. Keffals, a self-professed communist groomer, wants to use illegal methods (DDoS, libel, tortious interference) to take down Kiwifarms, a self-professed free speech site which lacks illegal content because users are allowed to freely express themselves.


Keffals is the result of extreme libertarian and post-modern ideology. He desires to fuck children. It astonishes me and countless other users of this site that people support him. We cannot change that reality though. Even though we do view him as immoral, he and his supporters view us as immoral. The act of sexually abusing a child disgusts us for a variety of reasons, morally and otherwise. In traditional and conservative ideology, engaging a minor sexually is wrong because they are physically and mentally incapable of processing sexual stimuli. We have statistics and common knowledge that child abusers have a variety of issues and behaviors that disturb societal cohesion and stability. Their victims are the same. 

We want a stable society and they want a society where they can do whatever they want. Each thinks they're right. What matters is who's left standing. There will still be people who think we're evil for daring to disrupt that degenerate's grooming operation. Long after we're dead and buried, there'll be some fucking pederass looking back on history and saying that prick was right. And there's going to be someone there rightfully calling him a faggot.

If your morals are based in what's considered legal, you might have a different problem entirely.


----------



## Kenya Jones (Oct 11, 2022)

HodgePodgeRogerDodger said:


> In some areas, yes. They were fairly advanced with rockets and submarines. The British beat them to radar and machine computing. Fun fact: odds are that faggot never broke Enigma and some Spaniard gave them the codes after the Poles stole a few of them and gave them stolen codes. British Intelligence was fucking useless for most of the war and involved people literally giving them shit.
> 
> They lacked mass manufacturing capability and lacked American Banker’s who would bet on them. Same shit in WWI, American Bankers pressured Wilson into the war when their investment almost failed.


Don't forget that the Brits beat the Germans in regards to the turbojet.


----------



## Michael Wade (Oct 12, 2022)

History Speaks said:


> Hitler's generals were under no political pressure to portray him as a strategic idiot in their postwar memoirs—the typical propaganda image of him was that of a demonic genius, if they went with that line nobody would have been mad at them—but they consistently did portray him as a strategic idiot.


The truth lies somewhere in between.    Hitler early on had great instincts and went against his generals when they recommended caution,  but victory over France blinded him,  because he viewed France as the largest obstacle to his plans.    It was after all the enemy he fought so hard against in WW1, if they fall this easily surely everything else will follow.


Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> The Swiss situation was exceptional and says more about the character of Swiss people, but it does form a terrible contrast with the nasty attitude of Sherman (who I personally don’t take at his word about hating that style of warfare) and the complete disregard for both civilian and soldier suffering in both sides.


Everything Ive read indicates Sherman's very real regret for doing it.  It's telling that longstreet practically died at his funeral because he wouldn't wear a hat in the rain.  (He got Pneumonia)


Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> The part about WW2, it's a real shame (and this kind of goes for everything involving any famous war) how much the heroic fighting outside of Western Europe was downplayed. The French Resistance got lots of play in the public imgaination while doing fuck-all, while like you said, Yugoslavia was a huge deal, was basically the Peninsular War to Hitler's Napoleon (and how often do you even hear people reference the Peninsular War?). Much less the efforts of Slavic separatist partisans in Eastern Europe fighting both the Germans and Soviets, or the fighting of the Polish Underground State (much more remarkable than the French), or the Cretans. But 99% of media is just the same Band of Brothers/Enemy at the Gates/[insert rare Japan/Pacific movie] treatment.


Man Yugoslavia had some insane stuff going on at the time.  We are talking about an area that was so much of  an ethnic and religious clusterfuck that the local communists were practically the cleanest ones in the room and the nazis did not have the dirtiest hands.

  Tito is a guy that deserves more character examination for his incredible tactics and actions.  Im not gonna say he was perfect but he is probably the closest thing you can actually compare to a benevolent dictator.  At the very least he was the only other communist leader with the balls to stand against Stalin in Europe.   Of course as soon as he died everything went to hell because there was no clear line of succession.


HodgePodgeRogerDodger said:


> British Intelligence was fucking useless for most of the war and involved people literally giving them shit.


They were overrated in what they could and could not do, but id say they had better track records of gaining and acting  upon information then most.

 The Russians  literally had the best possible intelligence in the world, but it was completely useless most of the time because Stalin barely trusted them. For example, It's a common romantic misconception that the soviet spy in japan Richard Sorge, sacrificed his life to give info that enabled the Russians to back away from Serbia, but Stalin was already moving his troops before he sent the info.  He died for nothing.  Stalin only started trusted his intel late in the war around 1943 or so, and it wasn't as effective as it could have been because the earlier purges had severed most lines of communication between their agents in Germany.  (It's worth noting that america and Britain routinely shared intelligence with Russia, but Russia NEVER exchanged the same courtesy.)

America was pretty good, but their specialty was in invention, intel gathering and estimating information.  (how much explosives do you need to blow up a bunker, what is the range of a machine gun nest etc)  Really it was the combo of america and Britain that made for the perfect intel force in the war.

Germany had the WORST intel guys.  They would routinely fuck up ops and get themselves captured and or subverted as double agents.  Most the time they got the best intelligence they could from sending somebody to go down and buy the local newspapers and travel bouchures.  Some have attributed this to the leader the Abwehr being a sympathizer of the allies, but no, he really was just that incompetent and self serving.

France had all of their intel guys in germany captured before the war started because the Janitor of the french consolidate was a  German spy who broke into the safe and acquired the info.



My personal contribution is the common misconception that Russia was able to win the war  against  Germany on its own.    Complete horseshit,  they BADLY needed land lease resources from the Americans and brits early on.  It's even admitted  by the soviet  foreign minister Molotov in his diary, that without those weapons,  food, oil, vehicles and equipment there was a real chance they could have lost the war.  This was delivered at a not inconsiderable cost to the convoys that made the trek over to Russia either, as germany threw a lot of planes and U-boats at the problem.   If Germany had put more pressure and was able to capture the ports history might have been changed.
​


----------



## Tour of Italy (Oct 12, 2022)

@Michael Wade



> My personal contribution is the common misconception that Russia was able to win the war against Germany on its own. Complete horseshit, they BADLY needed land lease resources from the Americans and brits early on. It's even admitted by the soviet foreign minister Molotov in his diary, that without those weapons, food, oil, vehicles and equipment there was a real chance they could have lost the war. This was delivered at a not inconsiderable cost to the convoys that made the trek over to Russia either, as germany threw a lot of planes and U-boats at the problem. If Germany had put more pressure and was able to capture the ports history might have been changed.



I literally opened this thread to post this. Something like 95% of Soviet railway infrastructure developed during the war came from the US. Stalin himself is on the record as saying the USSR would have crumbled without lend-lease.

That said, I have about as the same amount of patience for people who think the US won the war by itself. The advantage of having a vast manufacturing base that was essentially immune to disruption can’t be overstated, but liberating Western Europe without literally millions of Wehrmacht soldiers being tied up in the east would have been a very different proposition.

The truth is in the Goldilocks zone between the idea that the Soviets won the war single-handedly and the idea that the US and UK did all the heavy lifting,

Except in the pacific that is. China fucking owes us, and it bothers me how much this is lost in current discourse.

The IJN didn’t sink itself.

The Royal Navy did not have a carrier arm large enough to do more than protect Australia after losing most of the UK’s mainland interests. There’s a popular misconception that Russian generals solved all their problems by throwing men into the grinder, but it’s hard to view  US Admirals in the Pacific was as doing anything other than the same thing but with money.

There were talented leaders, sure, but almost as many fleet carriers rolled off US slipways in 1944-1945 as existed in the entire world in 1941.


----------

