Worst Case of Historical Revisionism?

[The Ugly One]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

1619 project.

What was revised?

 

[ICametoLurk]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Eydallur]

"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]

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]

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.

 

[Eydallur]

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.

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?

 

[George Floyd Sneed]

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]

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]

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.




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?

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]

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.