Historical "facts" and popular representations of histrical figures that are wrong
- Thread starter GrimTuesday
- Start date
He was a racist in that he felt that blacks were inferior to whites and that he opposed interracial marriage. He said so in letters. He didn't HATE black people - he wanted freedom for them to, but he grew up in a time where people were taught that it was "obvious" that blacks were "inferior" to white people, so that's what he thought. You can't really blame him for that - you very rarely get entirely enlightened people in past societies. The vast, vast, vast majority of people in the US during the 1800s were racist and that's not surprising because that was the society they grew up in.DugMachine said:
Lincoln didn't hate blacks. But he didn't really respect them all that much either. Oh well - no one is perfect. I think we can forgive Abe. He was progressive FOR HIS TIME. He lived in the 1800s - it's a little bit harsh to judge him by 21st Century standards. For what it's worth, I still think he was the best damn President you Americans ever had.
Japan tried to negotiate a peace that would have allowed them to keep pretty much all of the land they had conquered before the outbreak of the war. The Allies refused (since they wanted unconditional surrender) and used the bombs as leverage. A captured American pilot, Marcus McDilda, also told his interrogators that the U.S was mass-producing atomic bombs and that Kyoto and Tokyo were the next targets. The Japanese government decided to surrender unconditionally instead of risk annihilation.Kathinka said:
Well, I've been to and seen structures built in the 1700's and 1800's and I'd have to say I disagree on some points. Some of the buildings had ceilings just barely higher than my head, and I'm 5'8", that and the furniture that is still there for the tourists to look at is very small.TheRightToArmBears said:
OK, I don't know where you're getting your facts from, but I feel duty bound to correct a few errors here:
V-2s, on the other hand, were true ballistic missiles. They would shoot down onto England at over three times the speed of sound. Nobody ever heard them coming, and there was never any warning. In fact the most ghostly thing about them is the impact and explosion would be heard before the approach of the rocket. Not all that many V-2s were launched though, compared to the mass produced and easy to launch V-1s.
Not to mention, Hitler's priorities ran "Leningrad first, Donetsk Basin second, Moscow third."
Also the seige was lifted: therefore the Germans never secured the city.
What you are describing isn't the V-2. you're talking about the V-1 flying bomb or 'doodlebug.' Those were the gyroscopic winged jet-propelled bombs that could be heard droning overhead, and when the engine cut out it plummeted to earth and exploded.Hero in a half shell said:
V-2s, on the other hand, were true ballistic missiles. They would shoot down onto England at over three times the speed of sound. Nobody ever heard them coming, and there was never any warning. In fact the most ghostly thing about them is the impact and explosion would be heard before the approach of the rocket. Not all that many V-2s were launched though, compared to the mass produced and easy to launch V-1s.
Arguable, on both points. Their aircraft were top-tier, but not necessarily best quality, especially as the strain on their industry from Allied Strategic Bombing became more and more critical. They had the first jet fighter to enter production, but other countries had the technology by then as well.
Again, arguable. Most countries' fleets were bigger, The Japanese had more powerful battleships, and Germany never finished building any Aircraft Carriers. The Japanese even developed more advanced submarines than the Germans.
Outright false. The Russians had the heaviest and most rugged tanks. The King Tiger could compete with them, but against the best the Soviets had it was still at a disadvantage.
Moscow is in Russia, as it is is the capital.
Nobody secured Leningrad 'after a few days'. The Germans encircled the city and began one of the longest and most destructively costly seiges in human history. at 872 days, it lasted two and a half years and caused the largest recorded single loss of life in any modern city: over one and a half million lives with a further 1.4 million attempting to escape under starvation and bombardment- yes, even more than Stalingrad.
Not to mention, Hitler's priorities ran "Leningrad first, Donetsk Basin second, Moscow third."
Also the seige was lifted: therefore the Germans never secured the city.
In Search of Username said:
I don't know where people actually get that misconception. At Little Bighorn he was history's biggest dumbass, but at Gettysburg he saved the Union line from a Rebel cavalry charge that would have won them the battle.
Machiavelli was not a scheming little rodent. Rather he was a typical career diplomat who just so happened to witness such intrigues. Later in life he wrote down what he saw and his theories that came about from them. The problem is, he wrote two major books and most people only bother to read one of them, i.e. the notorious one.
Ultimately what he wished to do was to compare despotic and republican forms of government. The Prince concerns the former, whilst 'Discourses on Livy' discusses the latter. It is simply incorrect to have read 'The Prince', and then claim understanding of Machiavelli and his motives. Since, what typically happens is that people seem to imagine 'The Prince' as a guide book on how to be evil.
It is nothing of the sort, rather it is a warning of the demands on any individual should they seek absolute power. He goes into great lengths to reveal the violence, deceit, and treachery required to acquire and maintain such authority.
Ultimately what he wished to do was to compare despotic and republican forms of government. The Prince concerns the former, whilst 'Discourses on Livy' discusses the latter. It is simply incorrect to have read 'The Prince', and then claim understanding of Machiavelli and his motives. Since, what typically happens is that people seem to imagine 'The Prince' as a guide book on how to be evil.
It is nothing of the sort, rather it is a warning of the demands on any individual should they seek absolute power. He goes into great lengths to reveal the violence, deceit, and treachery required to acquire and maintain such authority.
Spartans were awesome.
No, they weren't. They were the real life Proud Warrior Race Guys, with all the associated flaws taken up to eleven.
No, they weren't. They were the real life Proud Warrior Race Guys, with all the associated flaws taken up to eleven.
Oh, sorry. Missed the joke.Dr. McD said:
Also, Serbia caused WW1. Germany was just fufilling treaties.
personally speaking, not sure if it's entirely correct but, I'd prefer someone who has actually worked in business rather than politics getting our economy back up and running. Obama has done very little in the way of helping the people, having just mostly traveled around and done apologies to numerous countries, and add to the fact that technically, he really isn't an America seeing as how he was born in Hawaii and Hawaii isn't technically a state, rather, through a chain of underhanded tactics, the US forcibly acquired Hawaii and illegally turned it into a state, going against the UN charter article 73. In 1999, Bill Clinton officially signed a document denying the United States' rights to claim ownership of Hawaii, so officially, Obama might have been born by American parents but because he was born in Hawaii, that makes him Hawaiian, not American, and therefore not capable of holding the title of American President.Ljs1121 said:
Kings Henry VII and Charles II also deserve a lot more credit than what they were ever given. Henry VII was simply the smartest man ever to sit on the English throne. Like Octavian, he was fortunate in his timing (i.e. come along at a period in a civil war when most of the other players were already dead), but he took his opportunity brilliantly. His consolidation of his hold on the throne choked out any chance of the war reigniting.
He decisively crushed baronial power once and for all, and shifted his support base towards the nascent Parliament. In order to enrich the country and move it away from purely agrarian and primary industries, he enacted a series of mercantile policies to create, from scratch, an English manufacturing industry. It was just a shame that his son was a paranoid lunatic.
Charles II on the other hand could be called the first modern monarch. In that he recognised that there were legal and constitutional limits on his power and that he would have to work within them. More than that, he had to bend to popular attitudes and beliefs. Though he was of Catholic persuasion, he kept this neatly under his hat. He might have liked the idea of absolute kingly authority (like his French contemporary Louis XIV), but that kind of attitude was what led you to having your head chopped off.
Plus, he recognised that the British people wanted a bit of fun and to get away with the drab religious zealotry that had dominated the past 150 years. Thus, he was able to die peacefully in his bed, remaining king till the day he died. Most unlike the fates of either his father or his brother. Thus it could be said, come the settlement of 1688, and the final defeat for divine right, it was Charles provided the blueprint for what would replace it. I.e. a Constitutional Monarchy, a system that has to this day, been copied the world over.
He decisively crushed baronial power once and for all, and shifted his support base towards the nascent Parliament. In order to enrich the country and move it away from purely agrarian and primary industries, he enacted a series of mercantile policies to create, from scratch, an English manufacturing industry. It was just a shame that his son was a paranoid lunatic.
Charles II on the other hand could be called the first modern monarch. In that he recognised that there were legal and constitutional limits on his power and that he would have to work within them. More than that, he had to bend to popular attitudes and beliefs. Though he was of Catholic persuasion, he kept this neatly under his hat. He might have liked the idea of absolute kingly authority (like his French contemporary Louis XIV), but that kind of attitude was what led you to having your head chopped off.
Plus, he recognised that the British people wanted a bit of fun and to get away with the drab religious zealotry that had dominated the past 150 years. Thus, he was able to die peacefully in his bed, remaining king till the day he died. Most unlike the fates of either his father or his brother. Thus it could be said, come the settlement of 1688, and the final defeat for divine right, it was Charles provided the blueprint for what would replace it. I.e. a Constitutional Monarchy, a system that has to this day, been copied the world over.
I'd go with Austria-Hungary. They should have realised that annexing the recently independent Bosnia would cause trouble. I mean, do you think that people living there, having just gained their freedom from the Turks, would just accept Germanic overlords? They really should have known better.Hellcat 13 said:
But the Serbs hired the guy to kill Arch-Duke Ferdinand hoping to provoke the Austria-Hungarian Empire, and in the end cause it's destruction.Barciad said:
the reason we can't reach perfection is because it means having no problems with one's self or one's environment, and because human desire always makes us strive to want more than we can realistically acquire we shall never attain perfection. If we can get rid of our environmental problems, highly unlikely, and can find some middle ground to meet for human differences, also unlikely and practically impossible because there will always be someone who doesn't like something about a person or group of people, then we can be perfect, but as long as we're going to be idealistic, maybe the economy will fix itself and there won't be any debt between nations sooner than we think, and maybe oil will turn out to be a renewable resource, and that diseases are just a figment of our imaginations and negative human emotions are caused be thetons and can be gotten rid of by forking over thousands of dollars.Boudica said:
Note: I'm not saying being idealistic is wrong but at least think about what is possible to get to rather than fighting nature and turning people into something not human. The fact is that humans are stupid and will always go after what satisfies them the quickest rather than the long-run which is why we typically end up with crappy governments and wars. And besides, we've only advanced technologically, not evolved into something than what we were 2000 years ago; I mean, as a species, we've barely gone beyond what we were 10,000 years ago in terms of how we think and act towards one another.
