Lies they told you in history class

Caverat

New member
Jun 11, 2010
204
0
0
I'm not sure how sugar coated my history education was, but we were taught about the genocide of the Beothuk. The first humans to settle Newfoundland in Canada, utterly wiped out to a person. I'm sure there are plenty of other atrocities committed in the name of queen and country in my homeland, but at least I remembered the name of the distinct people destroyed from my high school history classes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beothuk_people
 

mabrookes

New member
Dec 5, 2010
16
0
0
Housebroken Lunatic said:
Lex Hornman said:
Nazi's where evil bastards. A Nazi was a member of the Hitlers Nazi party. Now granted few exceptions where there but most Nazi's where trailed for crimes against humanity. Also Nazi party members where always had higher functions where it be the army of commercial life.

The people who where not so bad where plain germans who where not part of the nazi party. Like Normal Whermacht soldiers, or Luftwaffe pilots.

Just to clarify: The Nazi party was a political party. Nazi Germany is Germany ruled by Nazis.
Nazi Germany, still has normal nice Germans in it. Even people in Germany itself where against the nazi's.

This is why the Nazi's where evil rule generally applies. Just look at a nice WW2 movie sometimes you see Germans wearing the swastika on a red band usually around the arm. But not every German is wearing it especially Generals don't. That's because most generals where not part of the Nazi party.
If you're gonna say that Nazi's were all "evil bastards" then you can pretty much include a rather hefty chunk of the members of academic circles even outside of germany at that time (that includes americans, the british, the french etc.), because the very same race-bigotry and positive views of eugenics and "racial hygiene" was, to put it bluntly, quite a big fad among the scholars of the world at that time.

It's just that Hitler and his cronies put these academic theories into full blown practice. That doesn't mean that all Nazi's knew much better though. I mean the Nazi party was (for a time) THE ONLY party in all of germany, and it included thousands of party members.

Do you really think that all of them was just "evil bastards" plain and simple? Have you no respect or consideration from where they were coming from?

I doubt you yourself would've formed any "less evil" opinions if you were in their shoes and with their social conditioning. We're talking about an era where the academic elite actually promoted and seriously discussed euthanasia and sterilisation of people with genetic defects and "racial inferiority".

I doubt you'd be in a position today to question or argue against the theories that, oh let's say, Stephen Hawking puts out in modern times. But what you have to understand is that the "Stephen Hawking's" of that time was actually promoting and condoning the very ideals that Hitler pursued. Hitler was even inspired by them to begin with. Back then, all this was "science".

And you mean to tell me that all those commoners who "bought into it" were "evil bastards" for doing so? Seriously, try to think of how it would be like in THEIR shoes, and not just see the situation through your historically biased and hindsighted views.

Writing something off as "simply being evil" is anti-intellectual and stupid. It doesn't serve to increase yours or anyone elses understanding of what actually happened. It's just a gross over-simplification with no intellectual merit.
What are you talking about? In Britain the only paper that supported Nazi Germany was ridiculed by politicians, the public and in most academic circles. Of course there were people who supported these types of views in all countries; you're not making any kind of point by stating that. You are however talking nonsense by suggesting it was an accepted or widespread idea.

As for the science of "eugenics", it was barely considered in respected academic circles by this point and pretty much never supported in Britain (briefly by an extremely small number of politicians at the turn of the century who were completely defeated) and was never accepted in Britain ? unlike the US where a Eugenics program was still running in many states until the late 70s.
 

mabrookes

New member
Dec 5, 2010
16
0
0
Caverat said:
I'm not sure how sugar coated my history education was, but we were taught about the genocide of the Beothuk. The first humans to settle Newfoundland in Canada, utterly wiped out to a person. I'm sure there are plenty of other atrocities committed in the name of queen and country in my homeland, but at least I remembered the name of the distinct people destroyed from my high school history classes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beothuk_people
Did you actually read the link you posted, it does say that it is not known if a genocide took place, the theory of a genocide is the alternate one not the accepted one.
 

Supertegwyn

New member
Oct 7, 2010
1,057
0
0
Octorok said:
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.
Gah! That video! My brain.... I think my IQ just dropped ten points!
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
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.
I phrased it to him in far less ambiguous terms:

"refusing to sell ammo to a mad gunman is hardly provocation for getting shot"

But the uncomfortable thing about Japan is it is still essentially the same regime. Nazis came to power in Germany and were something quite alien in their extremes and their ideology and establishment was almost completely destroyed in 1945 and built again from scratch.

But the Japan that invaded China, Malay Archipelago, Burma and almost invaded Australia... that's the same Japan that we have today, the same Japan as for hundreds of years. it's not like it was put under new management, part of the surrender treaty that was of contrast with the surrender of Germany was Germany kept and Army but lost its establishment. Japan kept its government but lost its army, and technically even today it does not have an army, only a "Self-defence force" that is just and oversized law-enforcement agency. A law-enforcement with battleships and attack helicopters.

Now how much was the Japanese Army making political decisions in WWII? Was it the servant of the state or was it its own master?
 

Twilight_guy

Sight, Sound, and Mind
Nov 24, 2008
7,131
0
0
You say lie I say it's a bad fucking idea to try and teach the target audience of that video, i.e.e third graders about the complex dickary that is history. These kids gets confused doing fraction, you want to explain complex political relationships and government issues, things few adults know? Why can't they simplify it a little to make it easier? You're the kind of asshole that make teacher have to tell kids about quantum mechanics in elementary school aren't you?
 

Sean951

New member
Mar 30, 2011
650
0
0
thevillageidiot13 said:
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?
I agree that the poorly planned invasion (lack of winter clothing etc.) was another part of the failed invasion of Russia, along with the brilliance of Zhukov, but I don't think the British played a larger role than the Americans when it came to fighting and dying. Omaha beach was the worst of the bunch, and it was the Americans who bore the brunt of the largest assault by the Germans on the Western front (Battle of the Bulge). The Americans also had a sizable force in the Pacific engaging in some of the worst conditions of the war, against an enemy that gave no quarter. The Eastern Front was probably worse, but not by much.

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.
Ya, the Civil War had some pretty terrible camps. I wouldn't say they were as bad as the Nazi's, but it wasn't for lack of trying.
 

Octorok

New member
May 28, 2009
1,461
0
0
Supertegwyn said:
Gah! That video! My brain.... I think my IQ just dropped ten points!
The worst has yet to come - Firstly, that is only a short clip of the full episode.

Secondly, it's meant to teach children about US history.

Thirdly, the series also covers 9/11 and the War on Terror, The End of Communism, and the American Revolution.

It's a little nauseating. It's trying to indoctrinate a generation with, for lack of a better word, propaganda.

Oh! I got a Fourth one! The animators responsible for that are not on Death Row. Seriously. I could do better in Microsoft Paint.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Glass Joe the Champ said:
Hey guys, I'm taking a US History Class right in high school and recently our teacher showed us this video from School House Rock (a series of educational videos for kids).

t[/youtube]

We then had to write an essay on why this video is stupidly inaccurate. (For example, I talked about how Euro-American relations were a lot more complicated than "America is awesome and England is full of dicks")

This is hardly the first time in class we've had to unlearn what is essentially propaganda we were taught as kids. It got me wondering if other schools/states/countries have the same kind of biases in the classroom.

So guys, what kind of lies, if any, did you learn in your history class?
Well I can understand how this doesn't sit well with liberals right now given how current politics are breaking down. That said, this is a pretty fair summary of events for the age group it's oriented at.

The bottom line is pretty much that England decided it wanted to rule the colonies without giving the colonies any kind of representation or say on policy, and due to the size and wealth of the colonies decided to treat them more or less like a giant piggy bank to support it's wars.

Things only tend to get complicated when you consider the simple fact that England was involved in fighting on a lot of fronts at the time. Paying taxes was not paticularly unfair given that it was being used to cover the military protecting the colonies. Taxes were pretty high all around, and while the colonies were being squeezed harder than most places, it wasn't exactly a situation with England as a whole living like a group of fat cats. Had England given the colonies representation equal to their wealth, it would have played havoc with the power structure in England, and also cut them out of money they wanted to rely on. There was also the threat of colonial expansion compared to how England was already divided and there was a set number of voices present there that would never increase, fair colonial reprensation might very well have seen England being ruled from America in the long term, and the leadership DID apparently think that far ahead.

The situation IS a bit more complicated than presented there, as there is a differant side of the story based on nessecity. However the bottom line is that the revolution DID start because of England demanding taxes, and while it provided services it didn't give the colonies a say in the goverment, how that tax money would be used, or even any input on what was going to be taxed and for how much. Truthfully had England given the American colonies representation within the goverment, history might have played out differantly, that empire might still be dominating the globe today as with American resources their war machine would have fared a lot better. Of course it's probably also true that the empire would probably be being ruled largely from the Americas, at least geographically.
 

Jimmybobjr

New member
Aug 3, 2010
365
0
0
C. Cain said:
Jimmybobjr said:
There were lots of bias in the way we were taught history. Most of which were removed in high school.

There are a few- One, That Adolf Hitler was 1) a German 2) Completely insane 3) The most evil man on earth ever 4) completely ruined Germany forever. All of those i now see as face (Although he comes close in #2 and nearly #3)

And two; That Stalin was 1) Communist 2) Unaminously hated by the russian people 3) Completely ruined the entirety of russia forever 4) Not as evil as Hitler and 5) That Stalin was his real name.

(#1 is really a technicality- he wasnt Communist, he was Stalininst. Which isnt Socialist either, #2 He was liked by a large group of Russians- Although this was also a result of Propaganda. Beside this, they liked Stanlin better than they did Tsar Nicholas the 2nd. #3 If anything, Stalin saved russia. If Stalin hadnt done what he had, Germany would have certainly annihalated Russia in 1941, and from that, won the war. 4# in my opinion, Stalin was worse. Adolf Hitler had a reason to Massacre the Jewish people- even if it was a incredibly weak reason- But Stalin had very little reason. But this is down to personal preference. #5 Stalin was his revolutionary name.)
I shall ignore most of your post. That's just too much to get into right now. Let's just concentrate on the following: It can be argued that Hitler was German. Yes, I know he was born in Austria. Yes, I know he aquired 'German' citizenship later in his life. How can he be German, then?

Simple. Back then Austria was considered to be German. In the same manner as Bavaria, the Rhineland or Prussia were considered to be German. Granted they weren't in the political entity that was the German Empire/ Weimar Republic, but they didn't have a distinct cultural identity. This identity developed mostly after WWII.
But, Hitler was Born a Austrian, right? Thats what im arguing.
 

Rblade

New member
Mar 1, 2010
497
0
0
The Dutch involvement in indonesia is ussually kept completely silent. It's not something we are very proud of but a lot of human rights where violated and we never really learn anything about it in school.

Slavery is ussually pointed at as a neglected event in history but silent wars like the one I mentioned tend to get erased the most, I got told a reasonable amount about the horrors of slavery.
 

C. Cain

New member
Oct 3, 2011
267
0
0
Jimmybobjr said:
But, Hitler was Born a Austrian, right? Thats what im arguing.
Yes. But that distinction is, for the time, meaningless legalese.

It's like the distinction between East and West German during the Cold War. Sure, one was a citizen of the FRG and the other of the GDR but both were German.
 

Jimmybobjr

New member
Aug 3, 2010
365
0
0
C. Cain said:
Jimmybobjr said:
But, Hitler was Born a Austrian, right? Thats what im arguing.
Yes.
Thats what im arguing. I dont care about the rest, this is what im saying. Yes, Hitler was born in Austria, not Germany.

Forget it, i dont want to argue about this sort of thing, its pointless.
 

GWarface

New member
Jun 3, 2010
472
0
0
ThatLankyBastard said:
I had a sub once that said the Holocaust was fake...

...

...I'm not joking...
Not to start a war or anything, but there is compelling evidence that suggests that there wasnt killed nearly as many Jews as history would like us to think..

Especially that the gas they used to kill people in the camps, Zyklon-B, would leave blue stains on the walls in the rooms it was used (it was a pesticide first used to kill lice)..
NO blue stains or even traces of the gas was found in the gas chambers in Dachau, Mauthausen or Auschwitz..

Also, the 870,000 Jews that was killed in gas chambers and burried in a mass grave at Treblinka? Yeah, ground penetrating radar has found no traces of a massgrave, down to 30 meters.. None whatsoever..

Im not saying no jews was killed, or that the germans wasnt "hunting" them.. But when we talk about lies becomming mainstream knowledge, i think the Holocaust is a good place to start..
 

Tanis

The Last Albino
Aug 30, 2010
5,264
0
0
How about Egypt is full of white people?

No, seriously, it's like every damn 'history' book or movie/toon I was all those Egyptians were as white or whiter than me (and I make Casper looked like freaking, IDK, Biggie).
 

jultub

New member
Jan 18, 2010
451
0
0
GWarface said:
ThatLankyBastard said:
I had a sub once that said the Holocaust was fake...

...

...I'm not joking...
Not to start a war or anything, but there is compelling evidence that suggests that there wasnt killed nearly as many Jews as history would like us to think..

Especially that the gas they used to kill people in the camps, Zyklon-B, would leave blue stains on the walls in the rooms it was used (it was a pesticide first used to kill lice)..
NO blue stains or even traces of the gas was found in the gas chambers in Dachau, Mauthausen or Auschwitz..

Also, the 870,000 Jews that was killed in gas chambers and burried in a mass grave at Treblinka? Yeah, ground penetrating radar has found no traces of a massgrave, down to 30 meters.. None whatsoever..

Im not saying no jews was killed, or that the germans wasnt "hunting" them.. But when we talk about lies becomming mainstream knowledge, i think the Holocaust is a good place to start..
Not to be that guy, but since you're telling us all that something considered common knowledge is false, could you throw a few verified sources of this our way while you're at it?
 

GWarface

New member
Jun 3, 2010
472
0
0
jultub said:
GWarface said:
ThatLankyBastard said:
I had a sub once that said the Holocaust was fake...

...

...I'm not joking...
Not to start a war or anything, but there is compelling evidence that suggests that there wasnt killed nearly as many Jews as history would like us to think..

Especially that the gas they used to kill people in the camps, Zyklon-B, would leave blue stains on the walls in the rooms it was used (it was a pesticide first used to kill lice)..
NO blue stains or even traces of the gas was found in the gas chambers in Dachau, Mauthausen or Auschwitz..

Also, the 870,000 Jews that was killed in gas chambers and burried in a mass grave at Treblinka? Yeah, ground penetrating radar has found no traces of a massgrave, down to 30 meters.. None whatsoever..

Im not saying no jews was killed, or that the germans wasnt "hunting" them.. But when we talk about lies becomming mainstream knowledge, i think the Holocaust is a good place to start..
Not to be that guy, but since you're telling us all that something considered common knowledge is false, could you throw a few verified sources of this our way while you're at it?
Well, for a start you can try and find some info on Richard Krege.. He was the guy that did the ground and soil tests at Treblinka in 1999..
 

C. Cain

New member
Oct 3, 2011
267
0
0
Jimmybobjr said:
Thats what im arguing. I dont care about the rest, this is what im saying. Yes, Hitler was born in Austria, not Germany.

Forget it, i dont want to argue about this sort of thing, its pointless.
Very well. Let's move on, then.
 

cthulhumythos

New member
Aug 28, 2009
637
0
0
i was taught early on that the reason the americans won the revolution was because our strategy was to hide in the bushes and run around whilst the redcoats would slowly march in unison out in the open.
turns out we actually got our asses handed to ourselves on many occasions and it wasn't until the french came over and taught us how to be proper troops that we started to actually do well.