What are some silly things from history that people still believe?

>The German Revolution of 1919 lost Germany the war

>war ended in 1918 caused by a revolution that started in 1919.

I've seen it claimed more than once

>the Russian winter is what defeated Napoleon and his army
>Gandhi is the reason the British left India

This

>What are some silly things from history that people still believe?

The Jews' psycho-killing and rape manual is worthy of more veneration than anything or anyone in history. There is literally nobody who has existed or ever will exist who is too important to be killed/imprisoned/tortured if the psycho-killer manual dictates it.

youtube.com/watch?v=omRf4ZPXz6E

The nordic pagans mastered the technique of water purification until the catholic church banned it and forced everyone to drink alcohol.

Fuck off, JIDF

dubya dubya too in particular is the worst with this
>operation sealion ever having even a 1% chance of succeeding
>britain early in the war was alone, had no colonies or allies, and was being strangled by u-boats
>strategic bombing didn't effect the german economy
>hitler didn't listen to his generals
>invading in june 22 is "invading russia in the winter"
>germans didn't pack winter clothes
>rommel going for middle eastern oil
>two men for every rifle
>eastern front is only soviets vs germans, no allies on either side
>kursk was a huge defeat for german tanks
>soviets would have collapsed without lend lease
>soviets would have annihilated the germans without lend lease (there's a middle ground between these two)
>germans ever getting close to completing a nuke
>germany was running a peacetime economy until 1943/1944/whatever year
generally history channel/hearts of iron tier talking points

You seemed to have found yourself on the wrong board. Embarrassing.

>You seemed to have found yourself on the wrong board. Embarrassing.
Well yeah if he expected honesty then coming to Veeky Forums was a mistake.

my ancestors :)

>eastern front is only soviets vs germans, no allies on either side

My edgiest opinion is that Romania was the third most important Axis member

They certainly performed the best, even managing to give Manstein the shits by raising their own flag during the Sevastopol campaign

this is unironically correct though, considering the competition for third

He did lose due to the scorch earth tactics since this weaknened his army enough for everyone to pick up the rest of his army and batista bomb it.

Their contribution of oil was more valuable than any army.

Well I mean when your competitor is italy I mean it's a cheap bronze

>signififcant knowledge was lost in the Alexadria fire
>the Catholic Church was anti-science
To be fair, Cyril of Alexandria and his local church were incredibly anti-learning to the point of burning down the last vestiges of the library of Alexandria and murdering early scientists and philosophers using a line in the Bible which stated faith is superior to knowledge. The later Church reversed this idea, believing that knowing the universe and nature meant knowing God more.

>the Reformation was good
Good things came from it, like the Jesuits. It's just too bad that cunt Martin Luthor didn't let that lightning bolt kill him.

They would have been were it not for the coup.

No, fuck off. You aren't welcome here

I know being around liars isn't for me.

>Napoleon wasn't a loser

>Theodora was the sluttiest slut to ever slut
go away Procopius

>the reformation wasn't good
Begone papist scum

>Napoleon was an angry manlet/ Hitler of his time
>Grant was a Great General
>Lee was a great general
>Pearl Harbor was a national tragedy
>America has never lost a war
>Saddam was a horrific dictator/Iraq had nukes
>Liking traps is gay
>Asuka is better than Rei

>Racism was invented to justify colonialism
>Native Americans were genocided
>The Confederates were traitors

>I get to decide who can post on a public board
You have to go back

T-thanks anons

>Byzantium wasn't Rome

>>Native Americans were genocided
*genocides killed a large number of native Americans
natives were genocided all over the Americas, but they don't add up to the Robert Conquest tier numbers people cite

Just because the natives had virtually no immune system doesn't mean they were 'genocided'.

Only California's fucked up campaigns can be considered genocides in the legal sense

Yeah, what about it?

Didn't lend-lease only account for like 4% of Soviet industry production or something?

Lend lease was a big help for the Soviets when they were pushing the Germans back. However, the vast majority of lend lease happened after the soviets ground the Germans to a halt. Lend Lease didn't win the war for the Soviets, it just ended the war faster.

And 100% of Soviet domestic output of rubber
and 40% of Soviet output of Lead
and 37% of Soviet fuel output
And 33% of Soviet meat products
And 50% of soviet fats output
The 4% meme is just a way of downplaying the lendlease by ignoring the resources it had provided that were of critical shortage. Lendlease was mainly important when it came to the offensives Russia had pulled.

There's a misunderstanding with how LL benefitted the Soviets, logistically it was a god send allowing them to focus production on tanks and aircraft rather than trains and trucks and allowed more flexibility in supply

While the vast majority of deaths of Native Americans were in fact caused by disease that doesn't mean that there was no genocide.

There were incidents of entire tribes being eradicated by the early US government.

the reformation's militantly anti-catholic nature was inevitable given the way the catholic church had brutally suppressed numerous less violent reformist movements for centuries

>Gandhi is the reason the British left India
are you implying he was insignificant? I'm going to need you to back up this claim.

>Pearl Harbor was a national tragedy
how is this false? I've talked to many people who were alive during it, and the general consensus seemed to be that it was a day that changed everyone's lives.

Like the poor gnostics, although their military retardation has to be taken into account.

>saddam wasn't a horrific dictator
tell that to the thousands of Kurdish civilians he massacred

And(likely) hundreds of thousands of Irakis he killed.

>breaking away from your country so that you can continue to own other humans
>then fire on a military installation owned by your former country without a declaration of war
>this does not make you a traitor
fascinating

I was thinking more like the Hussites and Cathars.

>cathars
Which are the poor lads I was refering to.

Cathars were fucking retarded though
>Dude birth is immoral
>We should all just die

Why the fuck are Americans so dramatic about these things? So what if an island got raided? You guys firebombed 90% of Japan and nuked two of their cities, you don't see them bitching about it for all eternity.
Shit you guys did it with 9/11 too, 3000 people died and you convince half the world to accept your nanny-state cuckery and to fight some muslims you funded to begin with for over a decade now.

Every day there's a "mass" shooting with all major news networks jacking it off for weeks on end when 10 people were shot and half were injured because you niggers can't aim for shit.

global rule 3 is enforced on this board, please delete your post

Go fuck yourself, Satan.

And they did. Mission accomplished...?

>if your enemies don't kill you, you lose

Donatist revival when?

>breaking away from your country
Legally.

>so that you can continue to own other humans
Nothing to do with the question of treason.

>then fire on a military installation owned by your former country without a declaration of war
As a sovereign country, they could do that. Not treason.

>if your enemies don't kill you, you lose
Were Cathars the Trudeau of the time?

there is no legal justification for secession, and the CSA did not have a moral cause to justify themselves

wrong board friend

It's a fake quote but pretty funny.

What about state rights?

what about them?

>state rights include bombing federal forts

Didn't they secede due to not wanting a federal government to dictate what the state can and can't do?

>Cyril of Alexandria
isn’t he Orthodox?

No, they seceded before the federal government could outlaw slavery, then the CSA constitution gave less rights to the states than the USA constitution did.

Case in point in the USA prior to the ratification of the 13th amendment in December 1865 which outlawed slavery nationwide, it was up to each state to legislate on the question of slavery. In the CSA constitution states did not have the authority to outlaw slavery and were required by law to keep it legal.

So much for states rights.

>To be fair, Cyril of Alexandria and his local church were incredibly anti-learning to the point of burning down the last vestiges of the library of Alexandria and murdering early scientists and philosophers using a line in the Bible which stated faith is superior to knowledge. The later Church reversed this idea, believing that knowing the universe and nature meant knowing God more.
I'll take two tickets to "things that never happened", thanks.

I'm no American but I always assumed the war was over state rights. Interesting information, friendo.

It was long before the Eastern Schism, never mind the Patriarch spergout.

Nobody has an immune system strong enough to protect them from bullets or fire.

No worries, figured you were a southern revisionist. God knows we have plenty of them.
The primary documents about why secession happened make it very clear, since most states issued a declaration of secession, which surprise surprise put concerns over abolition front and center as their primary justification.

The issue stemmed from the fact that the way the US government is set up each state gets 2 senators regardless of population, and once the issue of nationwide abolition started to emerge in the 1820s it was noted that by chance there were exactly as many slave states as there were free states, meaning any pro or anti-slavery legislation would be deadlocked. Over the next few decades it was attempted to manage this by only admitting a free state with a slave state to maintain that balance, but in the 1850's it became increasingly clear that this was not a long term solution because some slave states had significant abolitionist movements, and some states that were admitted as free states had factions that wanted the state to legalize slavery, but any alteration of these deals would destabilize the whole system, which was in fact what happened in 1857 when the supreme court destabilized it with the blatantly pro-slavery Dred Scott decision that said the federal government had no authority to dictate if territories came in as free or slave (and it also said that freed black people could never be US citizens)

The 1860 election was a complete shitshow because southern democrats didn't like the candidate the democratic party was fielding so they decided to break away and field their own meme candidate, which split the vote and allowed Lincoln, a republican, (which was a fringe party at the time) to win. It was part of the republican party manifesto that they were committed to the eventual peaceful abolition of slavery nationwide. Although Lincoln himself promised he was not going to force the issue this was not good enough for the South.

You clearly haven't seen Jojo.

True Romance scenario of Sicily's history - black moor invasion and the mass rape of its inhabitants. Many Americans actually believe this, and not even ironically.

The Khazarian hypothesis for the origin of Ashkenazi Jews. Even though there is very little to support it, there are still historians who subscribe to it. The Judaized berber theory being the Sephardic counterpart. Still held by conspiracy theorists, a few historians, and some individuals on both the far left and far right.

Interestingly both of these historical myths cause so many arguments that mentioning them can still bring about heated and inflammatory debate.

I think one thats gotten hostile reaction is that the Classical Greek phalanx was nothing more than a slightly organized mob. The myth, of course, is that the Greek phalanx consisted of a formation of highly drillled citizen militias. From reading the sources, however, you find an untrained, undisiplined formation who is thrown into chaos by basic milotary manouvers, who doesnt know how to march in step and who only performs the most crudest of tactics, charging at everything.

All of these yeah

The Spartiates and Thebans were drilled but they were the exception.