Lies they told you in history class

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
thevillageidiot13 said:
I definitely see your point there, and I suggest we take this discussion away from the thread. It's always very intellectually stimulating to hear others' opinions and share my own. Agreed?
Thanks, but I said everything I felt the need to say on this particular subject. And I think we have remained on topic so far. PM me if you have more to add on The Pacific War that you think isn't history-class related.
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
It wasnt my history class, and it wasnt so much a class at all, but whiel i was in another country doing some foreign student in britain stuff i was talking to a friend about vietnam and I guess some history teacher there heard us. Now this man was rather drunk by this point (no we were not in a bar or pub or whatever) and decided to tell me that it was all the US's fault.

to which I only kinda looked at him and brushed it off and he said he should know, hes a history teacher. To which i turned and said thats funny, cause Im pretty sure france just dropped that shit on the western world after they decided to go for the colossal fuck up int hat region.

...

Yes, the US could have handled it better, but france started shit they clearly could not finish and left in such a hurry that someone needed to do something.
 

rayen020

New member
May 20, 2009
1,138
0
0
Sean951 said:
C2Ultima said:
That Pearl Harbor was a completely out of no-where attack by the Japanese for no reason whatsoever.

The U.S Government actually provoked Japan into it because we wanted to join the war to help Great Britain.
I don't think FDR was really trying to get Japan to attack the U.S. He was actually against [http://www.theamericancause.org/patwhydidjapan.htm] the oil embargo (not the greatest source, but I found others saying it too). Yes, FDR wanted to join the war, but not at the expense of being attacked so directly, and certainly not so cripplingly.
yeah actually Roosevelt wanted to sign a ceasefire agreement with japan and focus on germany. it wasn't completely out of no where and it was somewhat provoked, but japan's attack was premature and was supposed to be a blow against the other pacific power so no one could oppose their pacific expansion. They didn't really care about germany that much until the US was fighting. at least that been my understanding.
 

thevillageidiot13

New member
Sep 9, 2009
295
0
0
DarkArk said:
thevillageidiot13 said:
Was Japan's decision to attack Pearl Harbor as a retaliation to US embargoes disproportionate? Yes, probably.
There's no 'probably' about it. When you launch a war of blind aggression and then get boycotted of essential military materials, that doesn't give you any justification to go war against the nations boycotting you.

They had a reason but their reason was they felt they were in too deep to back out now. That's not a good reason.
Again, I'm not trying to justify or vilify the decisions/actions of either side with respect to either the embargoes or the Pearl Harbor Attacks. I was simply addressing the OP's question: lies that were presented to me in a History class. And I was told that the Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor out of the blue, for no reason whatsoever. Not even for a bad reason, but for *no reason.*
 

TonyVonTonyus

New member
Dec 4, 2010
829
0
0
I live in Quebec and the government has taught us that:

1:The english burned down Montreal
2:The english are horrible people
3:The english took our land
4:The english abused us for 300 years
5:The english part took in public executions

All fabrications made by the very french gouvernment of Quebec to make people hate Anglophones. They didn't make it up completely just twisted it so we can only see the negative because what really happened was:

1:The french burned down montreal in rioting against the english
2:The english haven't actually done anything bad to us
3:The england took the land from france whom willingly gave it to them after the war and who was in the first place taken from native americans.
4:They just happened to have more money therefore owned more businesses. The working conditions were attributed to it being IN THE 18TH CENTURY!!!
5:That they did, after the french lead a revolution against them.
 

Smerf

New member
May 4, 2011
177
0
0
Ambi said:
History = His Story (God's story aka the bible) and EVOLUTION IS A LIE

And I don't even know about 9/11, he confused the hell out of me.
the first part is true, but what about 9/11?
 

Sean951

New member
Mar 30, 2011
650
0
0
Yes, but, regardless, comparing the sacrifices Russia made in the fight against the Axis Powers to the sacrifices the U.S. made is like comparing a tank to a Styrofoam cup.

If your implication was that the Soviet Union should somehow give America some of the credit for Allied success on the Eastern Front, then I reject your argument. Just because your Mom buys you football cleats, doesn't mean you should give her credit for winning the game for you. Should you thank her? Yes. Did she do any of the actual work that went into the victory? No.
Yes, but when mom not only bought your cleats, but also the shoulder pads, jerseys, footballs for the entire team, and then gave you scouting on the opponent, then you can indeed credit her with a portion of the victory.

I'm not saying the Russian's don't deserve credit, but I think it is fair to say that it would have gone differently if we hadn't given them tanks, planes, and jeeps, along with artillery, munitions, rifle, food, clothes...
 

Zetatrain

Senior Member
Sep 8, 2010
752
22
23
Country
United States
Housebroken Lunatic said:
Zetatrain said:
While I agree that cutting off oil and scrap metal definitely provoked Japan, saying that the US bullied Japan makes it sound like the US had no good reason to place the embargoes in the first place (which was to halt Japan's invasion of China and the surrounding nations).
What business of the U.S was it who Japan invaded or went to war against? Oh that's right! NONE!
Okay, assuming that the United States had no economic interests in China or the other nations (we at least sold military supplies to China) then yeah you could say they had no business. However, Japan's expansion throughout Asia was part of their Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, which if left unchecked, could have ended up threatening US interests in Pacific like the Philippines in the future. Also, while we certainly had no alliances with China or the other nations and the their benefactors (Britain, France, Netherlands, etc.)its my understanding we were at least on good terms with them, so naturally the US would be appalled by Japan's violent expansionism.

Regardless of whatever reason the US had for opposing Japan's expansion or whether or not they had any business to interfere, I agree that Japan was provoked by the US. However, I hardly see Japan as a victim of "bullying" since they started the whole war with China and the surrounding nations. It should also be noted that Japan claimed they had "divine right" to unify and rule all of east Asia under Japanese leadership.
 

Furioso

New member
Jun 16, 2009
7,981
0
0
Housebroken Lunatic said:
Zetatrain said:
While I agree that cutting off oil and scrap metal definitely provoked Japan, saying that the US bullied Japan makes it sound like the US had no good reason to place the embargoes in the first place (which was to halt Japan's invasion of China and the surrounding nations).
What business of the U.S was it who Japan invaded or went to war against? Oh that's right! NONE!
So you're saying we should have just been ok with their mass murdering of the Chinese and continue to supply them with the goods used to cause the slaughter? Yea it has nothing to do with who's "business" it was, we were not going to give them the oil to do it
 

thevillageidiot13

New member
Sep 9, 2009
295
0
0
Sean951 said:
Yes, but, regardless, comparing the sacrifices Russia made in the fight against the Axis Powers to the sacrifices the U.S. made is like comparing a tank to a Styrofoam cup.

If your implication was that the Soviet Union should somehow give America some of the credit for Allied success on the Eastern Front, then I reject your argument. Just because your Mom buys you football cleats, doesn't mean you should give her credit for winning the game for you. Should you thank her? Yes. Did she do any of the actual work that went into the victory? No.
Yes, but when mom not only bought your cleats, but also the shoulder pads, jerseys, footballs for the entire team, and then gave you scouting on the opponent, then you can indeed credit her with a portion of the victory.

I'm not saying the Russian's don't deserve credit, but I think it is fair to say that it would have gone differently if we hadn't given them tanks, planes, and jeeps, along with artillery, munitions, rifle, food, clothes...
I wasn't trying to make the point that America didn't do ANYTHING. When I said that the war (at least in Europe) could have been won without American help, I was talking about D-Day and the events that followed -- you know, the stuff where we actually started sending in troops and all. By that point in time, Nazi Germany had already been beaten back by the Soviet Union (and Russian weather), and morale was at an all-time low. America basically swooped in and (if you will let me use the term) KSed Britain and Russia.

Ultimately, my point was that, if a nation's role in WWII could be compared to the roles on a football team, then Russia would be the offensive linemen putting in all the sweat, doing all the dirty work, and fighting in the trenches. America would be the rich kid who bought all the cleats and jerseys, but basically sat on the bench until the opponent was tired and exhausted from battling the Soviet Union, then decided to jump in and score the game-winning touchdown at the last minute.

Fact: The Soviet Union casualties were 50 times greater than the American ones.
 

Sean951

New member
Mar 30, 2011
650
0
0
thevillageidiot13 said:
Sean951 said:
Yes, but, regardless, comparing the sacrifices Russia made in the fight against the Axis Powers to the sacrifices the U.S. made is like comparing a tank to a Styrofoam cup.

If your implication was that the Soviet Union should somehow give America some of the credit for Allied success on the Eastern Front, then I reject your argument. Just because your Mom buys you football cleats, doesn't mean you should give her credit for winning the game for you. Should you thank her? Yes. Did she do any of the actual work that went into the victory? No.
Yes, but when mom not only bought your cleats, but also the shoulder pads, jerseys, footballs for the entire team, and then gave you scouting on the opponent, then you can indeed credit her with a portion of the victory.

I'm not saying the Russian's don't deserve credit, but I think it is fair to say that it would have gone differently if we hadn't given them tanks, planes, and jeeps, along with artillery, munitions, rifle, food, clothes...
I wasn't trying to make the point that America didn't do ANYTHING. When I said that the war (at least in Europe) could have been won American help, I was talking about D-Day and the events that followed -- you know, the stuff where we actually started sending in troops and all.

Ultimately, my point was that, if a nation's role in WWII could be compared to the roles on a football team, then Russia would be the offensive linemen putting in all the sweat, doing all the dirty work, and fighting in the trenches. America would be the rich kid who bought all the cleats and jerseys, but basically sat on the bench until the opponent was tired and exhausted from battling the Soviet Union, then decided to jump in and score the game-winning touchdown.

Fact: The Soviet Union casualties were 50 times greater than the American ones.
Russia has high casualties partially because of the lack of supplies and less than impressive leadership until Zhukov took over.

But yes, Russia could have won with or without D-Day, but without the supplies it would have been a bit different.
 

thevillageidiot13

New member
Sep 9, 2009
295
0
0
Sean951 said:
thevillageidiot13 said:
Sean951 said:
Yes, but, regardless, comparing the sacrifices Russia made in the fight against the Axis Powers to the sacrifices the U.S. made is like comparing a tank to a Styrofoam cup.

If your implication was that the Soviet Union should somehow give America some of the credit for Allied success on the Eastern Front, then I reject your argument. Just because your Mom buys you football cleats, doesn't mean you should give her credit for winning the game for you. Should you thank her? Yes. Did she do any of the actual work that went into the victory? No.
Yes, but when mom not only bought your cleats, but also the shoulder pads, jerseys, footballs for the entire team, and then gave you scouting on the opponent, then you can indeed credit her with a portion of the victory.

I'm not saying the Russian's don't deserve credit, but I think it is fair to say that it would have gone differently if we hadn't given them tanks, planes, and jeeps, along with artillery, munitions, rifle, food, clothes...
I wasn't trying to make the point that America didn't do ANYTHING. When I said that the war (at least in Europe) could have been won American help, I was talking about D-Day and the events that followed -- you know, the stuff where we actually started sending in troops and all.

Ultimately, my point was that, if a nation's role in WWII could be compared to the roles on a football team, then Russia would be the offensive linemen putting in all the sweat, doing all the dirty work, and fighting in the trenches. America would be the rich kid who bought all the cleats and jerseys, but basically sat on the bench until the opponent was tired and exhausted from battling the Soviet Union, then decided to jump in and score the game-winning touchdown.

Fact: The Soviet Union casualties were 50 times greater than the American ones.
Russia has high casualties partially because of the lack of supplies and less than impressive leadership until Zhukov took over.

But yes, Russia could have won with or without D-Day, but without the supplies it would have been a bit different.
Sorry, you just mentioned a lack of supplies, but earlier, your argument was that Russia was generously-supplied by the U.S. Clarify?
 

tseroff

New member
Jun 8, 2009
206
0
0
Glass Joe the Champ said:
Xmaspast said:
Don't forget that the Lusitania was carrying ammunition. They never told us that in school. They always tried to make it seem like the Germans just upped and sank an ocean liner for the hell of it.
As proof of ignorance, I didn't know that till you posted that. You re-learn things everyday I guess.
Yep. Germany issued a declaration saying something along the lines of, "Any ships that enter this area will be sunk. Especially if we suspect they're carrying arms." Something like that. And a) there were, what, three Americans on board? and 2) the Lusitania was not just "carrying" ammunition, it was loaded. The ship exploded when it was hit by a torpedo. The ship EXPLODED. It was soo packing.

Also, the US was really looking for an excuse to get into the war.

OT:
Elementary school:
1. Columbus discovered America. My uni professor clarified that, saying, "Columbus is responsible for bringing knowledge of the Americas to Europe and starting the interaction between the continents." I think students could understand that in elementary school.
2. The Crusades were Christians liberating Jerusalem. (Not even close.)
3. The Civil War was fought over slavery. (Fixed in High School.)

High School:
1. Pluto isn't a planet.
2. Palestine is a country.
3. Gandhi was a pacifist.
 

Sean951

New member
Mar 30, 2011
650
0
0
thevillageidiot13 said:
Sean951 said:
thevillageidiot13 said:
Sean951 said:
Yes, but, regardless, comparing the sacrifices Russia made in the fight against the Axis Powers to the sacrifices the U.S. made is like comparing a tank to a Styrofoam cup.

If your implication was that the Soviet Union should somehow give America some of the credit for Allied success on the Eastern Front, then I reject your argument. Just because your Mom buys you football cleats, doesn't mean you should give her credit for winning the game for you. Should you thank her? Yes. Did she do any of the actual work that went into the victory? No.
Yes, but when mom not only bought your cleats, but also the shoulder pads, jerseys, footballs for the entire team, and then gave you scouting on the opponent, then you can indeed credit her with a portion of the victory.

I'm not saying the Russian's don't deserve credit, but I think it is fair to say that it would have gone differently if we hadn't given them tanks, planes, and jeeps, along with artillery, munitions, rifle, food, clothes...
I wasn't trying to make the point that America didn't do ANYTHING. When I said that the war (at least in Europe) could have been won American help, I was talking about D-Day and the events that followed -- you know, the stuff where we actually started sending in troops and all.

Ultimately, my point was that, if a nation's role in WWII could be compared to the roles on a football team, then Russia would be the offensive linemen putting in all the sweat, doing all the dirty work, and fighting in the trenches. America would be the rich kid who bought all the cleats and jerseys, but basically sat on the bench until the opponent was tired and exhausted from battling the Soviet Union, then decided to jump in and score the game-winning touchdown.

Fact: The Soviet Union casualties were 50 times greater than the American ones.
Russia has high casualties partially because of the lack of supplies and less than impressive leadership until Zhukov took over.

But yes, Russia could have won with or without D-Day, but without the supplies it would have been a bit different.
Sorry, you just mentioned a lack of supplies, but earlier, your argument was that Russia was generously-supplied by the U.S. Clarify?
They were heavily supplied by the U.S. and I think that they would have done much worse without those supplies.
 

TheDarkestDerp

New member
Dec 6, 2010
499
0
0
Abe Lincoln was a big hero freeing the slaves out of the goodness of his big ol' god-lovin' red white and blue heart. That was a pretty good one.
 

thevillageidiot13

New member
Sep 9, 2009
295
0
0
Sean951 said:
thevillageidiot13 said:
Sean951 said:
thevillageidiot13 said:
Sean951 said:
Yes, but, regardless, comparing the sacrifices Russia made in the fight against the Axis Powers to the sacrifices the U.S. made is like comparing a tank to a Styrofoam cup.

If your implication was that the Soviet Union should somehow give America some of the credit for Allied success on the Eastern Front, then I reject your argument. Just because your Mom buys you football cleats, doesn't mean you should give her credit for winning the game for you. Should you thank her? Yes. Did she do any of the actual work that went into the victory? No.
Yes, but when mom not only bought your cleats, but also the shoulder pads, jerseys, footballs for the entire team, and then gave you scouting on the opponent, then you can indeed credit her with a portion of the victory.

I'm not saying the Russian's don't deserve credit, but I think it is fair to say that it would have gone differently if we hadn't given them tanks, planes, and jeeps, along with artillery, munitions, rifle, food, clothes...
I wasn't trying to make the point that America didn't do ANYTHING. When I said that the war (at least in Europe) could have been won American help, I was talking about D-Day and the events that followed -- you know, the stuff where we actually started sending in troops and all.

Ultimately, my point was that, if a nation's role in WWII could be compared to the roles on a football team, then Russia would be the offensive linemen putting in all the sweat, doing all the dirty work, and fighting in the trenches. America would be the rich kid who bought all the cleats and jerseys, but basically sat on the bench until the opponent was tired and exhausted from battling the Soviet Union, then decided to jump in and score the game-winning touchdown.

Fact: The Soviet Union casualties were 50 times greater than the American ones.
Russia has high casualties partially because of the lack of supplies and less than impressive leadership until Zhukov took over.

But yes, Russia could have won with or without D-Day, but without the supplies it would have been a bit different.
Sorry, you just mentioned a lack of supplies, but earlier, your argument was that Russia was generously-supplied by the U.S. Clarify?
They were heavily supplied by the U.S. and I think that they would have done much worse without those supplies.
I just did some quick research, and I did find that Stalin credited the American lend-lease program as playing a big role in Allied Victories. I concede that point to you. I believe we've found a certain degree of common ground: the United States played more of a supporting role throughout the brunt of the fighting in Europe, giving supplies and aid to Britain and Russia. However, ultimately, it was Russia and (to a certain extent) Britain doing most of the fighting and dying against the Nazis, and it was largely the failed attempt at invading Russia that crippled the Nazi forces, allowing the Allied Powers (including the U.S.) to rally and strike a decisive victory. And, despite what Hollywood and certain outlets of the American media might have you believe, America tends to overplay its actual fighting-and-dying role in the war, as most of that was done by the Russians.

Can we agree on these conclusions based upon the discussion we just had?
 

Tselis

New member
Jul 23, 2011
429
0
0
I was raised in Georgia (USA). What we were taught, and more importantly, what we weren't taught about the civil war was jaw dropping. The concentration camp that was as bad as anything the Nazi's had, and was IN my home state was just glossed over. The reasons for the war, and so many other things were just taught differently than the facts. Now that I'm an adult, it's shocking to me that it was allowed, and still is.
 

Octorok

New member
May 28, 2009
1,461
0
0
Dimitriov said:
That school house rock video actually made me feel physically ill: I can't remember the last time I saw such a smug self-righteous piece of... propaganda aimed directly at children.
I'll confess, I have yet to read all 9 thread pages, so I don't know if anyone has linked you to this, but...


According to this video, The British Empire, France or the Soviet Union didn't actually do anything ever and America is the greatest and totally declared war on the Japanese and Nazi Germany and won all by itself and ARRARRGH MY MIND.

See that? That's basically the same propaganda that the Soviets taught, just in reverse.

On Topic : Well, we didn't really get much propaganda, except possibly in the form of Pro-Scottish Independence stuff, but really, that was way back in the Wars of Scottish Independence, not the Jacobite rebellion or anything.

You could say "propaganda" in that we didn't learn how shitty our country was during, say, WW1, but we didn't learn anything good either.