Historical "facts" and popular representations of histrical figures that are wrong

[Chunga the Great]

...It is pretty obvious though that Japan was not going to surrender unconditionally and it came down to either invading the country or using the A-bomb....

...
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....

Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic
bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted
sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and
obviate the need for invasion.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported
by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is
the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and
in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have
surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if
Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been
planned or contemplated .

Blatant strawman and misinterpretation of my arguement, but I'll bite.

Yeah, Japan would have eventually surrendered unconditionally. AFTER Japan's infrastructure had been completely annihilated. AFTER there was even worse starvation than there was by the end of the war. AFTER tens, if not hundreds, of thousands had died from either the bombs themselves or the starvation. It would have taken far, far longer to repair Japan, both economically and socially, after its surrender if the U.S had just bombed it to oblivion. You don't stop starvation by showing up one day with a truck full of twinkies.

 

[BNguyen]

Depending on what you see as "history", Jesus Christ wasn't a handsome, white, long-haired, bearded man. He was middle-eastern and would have had darker skin. Not sure about the hair and handsomeness though.

I think the image of a white Jesus only exists in the minds of those from European descent, particularly Americans.

Kind of weird when you think about it. I mean, the guy kind of lived in the Middle East. Why would he be white >_>

because it was a time in which the Roman Empire extended into the Middle East, thus a good portion would have to be of Roman descent and be white, and it would be more than likely that Jesus would be white. After all, Jesus wasn't born into a slave family that and the Romans utilized slaves back then who were either not from a neighboring empire and were not Roman, i.e. white

No, no. Jesus had brown skin. The white Jesus is a myth.

if he was, then he probably wouldn't have had a large following of people in both the Roman's side and the Hebrew's side in that time period, seeing as how most slaves at the time came from Africa and the Middle East. He probably wouldn't have been able to walk around as freely as he did at the time then either.

 

[beastro]

...It is pretty obvious though that Japan was not going to surrender unconditionally and it came down to either invading the country or using the A-bomb....

...
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....

Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic
bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted
sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and
obviate the need for invasion.
Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported
by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is
the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and
in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have
surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if
Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been
planned or contemplated .

Blatant strawman and misinterpretation of my arguement, but I'll bite.

Yeah, Japan would have eventually surrendered unconditionally. AFTER Japan's infrastructure had been completely annihilated. AFTER there was even worse starvation than there was by the end of the war. AFTER tens, if not hundreds, of thousands had died from either the bombs themselves or the starvation. It would have taken far, far longer to repair Japan, both economically and socially, after its surrender if the U.S had just bombed it to oblivion. You don't stop starvation by showing up one day with a truck full of twinkies.

He also ignores the fact that preparation for the invasion by the Army was the massive seizure of food to support the suicide force. Anyone that could no longer contribute to the war effort was expected to starve and die to maintain that force long enough, Once food ran out, then it was expected by such men that the Japanese people would die to keep the remainder of the military alive for as long as possible.

This also doesn't touch on some of the final acts made by the Japanese government right up to the surrender such as completely debasing their currency to make sure that whatever money people had post-war would be a worthless to them as possible.

Some people seem to fail to comprehend just how suicidal the Japanese leadership was and that wound up being more important to their loyalty to their god-emperor in the end when he had the gall to spare their people more senseless misery and death.

The nukes saved fighting Allied servicemen lives.

The nukes saved Allied POW lives.

The nukes saved Far Eastern civilian lives.

The nukes saved Japanese lives.

They were an evil, but that war was downright evil and people I have the least sympathy for are those who began it, even though I still do have sympathy for them.

It was war, people had to die and some 200,000 dead was a cheap price to pay compared to the alternatives.

 

[beastro]

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.

He wrote the book for an Italian audience to solve a dire Italian problem: Italy disunity was causing never ending warfare and intrigue that was destroying Italy as a center of importance in Europe.

In his mind the Princely minster was a necessary evil to crush all those vying factions and finally reunite Italy before it was too late. His book and the whole world view he espoused was to accomplish that end, he never intended it to be applied to any other situations.

And then Italy became a puppet between France and the Hapsburgs, then a sideshow and took the long way around to unity only to become the weakest of the Great Powers half a millennium after his time.

 

[BNguyen]

Depending on what you see as "history", Jesus Christ wasn't a handsome, white, long-haired, bearded man. He was middle-eastern and would have had darker skin. Not sure about the hair and handsomeness though.

I think the image of a white Jesus only exists in the minds of those from European descent, particularly Americans.

Kind of weird when you think about it. I mean, the guy kind of lived in the Middle East. Why would he be white >_>

because it was a time in which the Roman Empire extended into the Middle East, thus a good portion would have to be of Roman descent and be white, and it would be more than likely that Jesus would be white. After all, Jesus wasn't born into a slave family that and the Romans utilized slaves back then who were either not from a neighboring empire and were not Roman, i.e. white

No, no. Jesus had brown skin. The white Jesus is a myth.

if he was, then he probably wouldn't have had a large following of people in both the Roman's side and the Hebrew's side in that time period, seeing as how most slaves at the time came from Africa and the Middle East. He probably wouldn't have been able to walk around as freely as he did at the time then either.

What? You know the Romans killed him, right? You know the Jews didn't like him saying he was the son of God, right? You know it wasn't until long after his death that Christianity began being a followed religion, right?

you do know that the Romans virtually owned that area where the Bible originated don't you? You do know he was Hebrew don't you? You do know that the Hebrews hated him because he wanted to change their outdated system and that the Romans only gave the Hebrews permission to crucify him, don't you? Just because a group of people wanted you dead later doesn't mean you were once one of them earlier. And what does Christianity being formed long after him dying have any relevance on his skin tone?

 

[BNguyen]

okay, it's late. I don't have any points to make toward the OP's thread, and it's obvious that Boudica wants to ignore facts and history in favor of what suits her viewpoints best. Either that or she's just trying to add nonsense to this thread in favor of it erupting in flames, so I'll just sit back and watch. I'm out

 

[Macgyvercas]

Linchon didn't give a fuck about slaves

I wouldn't go so far as to say that, but ending slavery certainly wasn't at the top of his priority list. The war started in 1861, and the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in 1863, primarily to ensure British and French neutrality and to give the North the moral high ground, thus keeping public opinion of the war high in the North.

 

[beastro]

You do know he was Hebrew don't you? You do know that the Hebrews hated him because he wanted to change their outdated system and that the Romans only gave the Hebrews permission to crucify him, don't you? Just because a group of people wanted you dead later doesn't mean you were once one of them earlier.

wut

I seriously have no idea what you are arguing. Jesus had brown skin. Jesus was a Jew. The Jews weren't pleased that a prophet of their God was hanging around in brothels and claiming to be both the son of God and God himself. Jesus was becoming popular and, like all the other messiahs of the time (there was a lot of them) the Romans were displeased with his growing fame and killed him. They killed a lot of supposed heathens.

What are you trying to argue? That Jesus was white because he lived in an area Rome claimed?

Why'd the Romans be killing fellow heathens when it was the Jews who were causing the trouble?

So sloppy you be silly goose~

 

[GrimTuesday]

Depending on what you see as "history", Jesus Christ wasn't a handsome, white, long-haired, bearded man. He was middle-eastern and would have had darker skin. Not sure about the hair and handsomeness though.

I think the image of a white Jesus only exists in the minds of those from European descent, particularly Americans.

Kind of weird when you think about it. I mean, the guy kind of lived in the Middle East. Why would he be white >_>

because it was a time in which the Roman Empire extended into the Middle East, thus a good portion would have to be of Roman descent and be white, and it would be more than likely that Jesus would be white. After all, Jesus wasn't born into a slave family that and the Romans utilized slaves back then who were either not from a neighboring empire and were not Roman, i.e. white

No, no. Jesus had brown skin. The white Jesus is a myth.

if he was, then he probably wouldn't have had a large following of people in both the Roman's side and the Hebrew's side in that time period, seeing as how most slaves at the time came from Africa and the Middle East. He probably wouldn't have been able to walk around as freely as he did at the time then either.

What? You know the Romans killed him, right? You know the Jews didn't like him saying he was the son of God, right? You know it wasn't until long after his death that Christianity began being a followed religion, right?

you do know that the Romans virtually owned that area where the Bible originated don't you? You do know he was Hebrew don't you? You do know that the Hebrews hated him because he wanted to change their outdated system and that the Romans only gave the Hebrews permission to crucify him, don't you? Just because a group of people wanted you dead later doesn't mean you were once one of them earlier. And what does Christianity being formed long after him dying have any relevance on his skin tone?

There is absolutely no evidence that Jesus was white. The fact is that he would have been ethnically Jewish, which would have at least somewhat resembled the skin tone of the Arabs or Persians. And don't go telling me that Jews were white, because what we think of as Jews are actually more of European stock because of the intermixing that comes with centuries of existence. Also, the Romans were actually quite open minded when it came to "race", it was seen as rather irreverent and would have been even more so irreverent in an area populated by ethnically Jewish people

 

[GrimTuesday]

You do know he was Hebrew don't you? You do know that the Hebrews hated him because he wanted to change their outdated system and that the Romans only gave the Hebrews permission to crucify him, don't you? Just because a group of people wanted you dead later doesn't mean you were once one of them earlier.

wut

"He was Hebrew. The Hebrews wanted him dead. He wasn't a Hebrew."

I seriously have no idea what you are arguing. Jesus had brown skin. Jesus was a Jew. The Jews weren't pleased that a prophet of their God was hanging around in brothels and claiming to be both the son of God and God himself. Jesus was becoming popular and, like all the other messiahs of the time (there was a lot of them) the Romans were displeased with his growing fame and killed him. They killed a lot of supposed heathens.

What are you trying to argue? That Jesus was white because he lived in an area Rome claimed?

Actually, they killed him because he was a rabble rouser and a threat to both the Jewish status quo, as well as the Roman status quo, it had little to do with his growing fame, so much as the fact that he was preaching sedition. Its the same as what the Catholic Church tired to do with Martian Luther and would have had it not been for his friends the German Barons, who wanted more power for themselves and saw the Lutheran faith as a way to get out from under the thumb of the Catholic Holy Roman Empire.

 

[FluffyWelshCake]

That Hitler was an atheist. He blatantly said that atheists were a plague on Germany, and was raised and remained a Catholic until his death. Makes sense considering his anti-semitism and the fact that the Catholic Church still taught that all Jews were inherently guilty of killing Jesus up to 1962. Hitler being an atheist is a blatant lie made up in an attempt to fob off the most evil man in history on atheism. I'll accept that Stalin and Mao were atheists, but not Hitler.

 

[beastro]

Why'd the Romans be killing fellow heathens when it was the Jews who were causing the trouble?

So sloppy you be silly goose~

No no no, you see, to a Roman, the Jews were heathens, with their bizarre monotheism. Their culture didn't even include Juno, Apollo, or Minerva. How blasphemous.

Heathen in the older sense of the word is interchangeable with Pagan.

 

[Stasisesque]

You do know he was Hebrew don't you? You do know that the Hebrews hated him because he wanted to change their outdated system and that the Romans only gave the Hebrews permission to crucify him, don't you? Just because a group of people wanted you dead later doesn't mean you were once one of them earlier.

wut

"He was Hebrew. The Hebrews wanted him dead. He wasn't a Hebrew."

I seriously have no idea what you are arguing. Jesus had brown skin. Jesus was a Jew. The Jews weren't pleased that a prophet of their God was hanging around in brothels and claiming to be both the son of God and God himself. Jesus was becoming popular and, like all the other messiahs of the time (there was a lot of them) the Romans were displeased with his growing fame and killed him. They killed a lot of supposed heathens.

What are you trying to argue? That Jesus was white because he lived in an area Rome claimed?

Galilee was an Aryan region at the time (beginning over half a century before Jesus' birth, that's at least a generation), hence the argument Jesus could have been white. Generally these arguments are dismissed because they were shared by Nazi propagandists.

All scholars have been able to agree on is the fact he was Jewish. As this is passed down the mother's side, and it is accepted that Mary was a Jew, this is accurate. It's more than possible Jesus was of mixed race.

 

[beastro]

That Hitler was an atheist. He blatantly said that atheists were a plague on Germany, and was raised and remained a Catholic until his death. Makes sense considering his anti-semitism and the fact that the Catholic Church still taught that all Jews were inherently guilty of killing Jesus up to 1962. Hitler being an atheist is a blatant lie made up in an attempt to fob off the most evil man in history on atheism. I'll accept that Stalin and Mao were atheists, but not Hitler.

Hitler was an ardent opponent of Catholicism because he knew how much of a problem they were from being raised one.

As I said about him, religion meant nothing, for or against, whatever could be done to get people hooked on Nazism to be his pawns and stroke his God complex.

He used it when it benefited him, threw it away when it no longer did or became a problem. Had atheism provided to be of use to him at some point or another he'd have gladly embraced it, just so long as he got to stroke his wounded ego.

 

[Barciad]

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.

He wrote the book for an Italian audience to solve a dire Italian problem: Italy disunity was causing never ending warfare and intrigue that was destroying Italy as a center of importance in Europe.

In his mind the Princely minster was a necessary evil to crush all those vying factions and finally reunite Italy before it was too late. His book and the whole world view he espoused was to accomplish that end, he never intended it to be applied to any other situations.

And then Italy became a puppet between France and the Hapsburgs, then a sideshow and took the long way around to unity only to become the weakest of the Great Powers half a millennium after his time.

With Cavour being that 'Prince'. Yet the problem being, though the north (Piedmont, Lombardy, Venice etc) was increasingly modern and well developed, the south was another matter. The Kingdom of Naples was an incredibly backward region, whatever way one would look at it. Socially, economically, politically. I once remember some person compared it to contemporary Egypt. Thus, Italy was never had the unity and strength that the other great powers would possess.

 

[TheBelgianGuy]

Why'd the Romans be killing fellow heathens when it was the Jews who were causing the trouble?

So sloppy you be silly goose~

No no no, you see, to a Roman, the Jews were heathens, with their bizarre monotheism. Their culture didn't even include Juno, Apollo, or Minerva. How blasphemous.

Heathen in the older sense of the word is interchangeable with Pagan.

The Romans allowed every culture in their Empire to worship whatever God or Gods they wished.
The problem was the Jews with their mono-Theism would not recognize the divinity of the Emperor, which is what got them into trouble repeatedly.


Maybe you all should take a history lesson, with the exception of Boudica. Seriously.

Jesus was not white. There is no reason whatsoever to conclude this, except your own racist bias.