Historically inaccurate facts they teach at schools

not OP here, but Waterloo was a huge mess and eventhough anglo culture made it sound like it was a british victory, in reality it's probably everyone (even the French) but England's victory. Because between the royalists that defect and give Napo's plans to Wellignton, half of the French army that was slacking, the Belgians who account for the most dead soldiers in the allied army and the Prussians that saved the day, everyone was fighting Napoleon. Except the Brits, who were looking from afar as usual.

>it's probably everyone (even the French) but England's victory
w e w
e
w

if by win you mean defeating the opponents no

if by win you mean profit the most then definitely

Pearl harbor was a complete surprise

>the pilgrims got along with the natives in the Americas

It was actually discovered by proto Europeans aroumd 25,000BCE, and we have arrowheads to prove it.

independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/new-evidence-suggests-stone-age-hunters-from-europe-discovered-america-7447152.html

it was actually the irish

Charge of the light brigade cavalry in the Crimean War was a heroic and noble deed, worthy of respect and our memory.

In reality it was a colossal fuckup, caused by bad chain of command, which sacrificed seasoned troops and gained nothing.

>You people went to some shit schools.

Probably just that the people posting in this thread are in the age group that's not too far removed from primary education but have enough secondary knowledge to look back on it and criticize. Basically the same group those "lies your teacher told you" books are marketed toward.

We all go through it. Just the "a little bit of knowledge can be a terrible thing" stage.

>Hitler was a bad guy

The Germans were the aggressors in world war 1.

They invaded Belgium, which is the start of the "world war" stage of the war. Before that it was Austria bullying Serbia, while the big players armed themselves just in case.

Russia and France were in it before the Brits, and I would say Russia and France slugging it out with Austro-Hungaria and the German Empire constitutes a world war.

> muh Solutreans

Go back home, /pol/. That shit's been debunked for years. Convergent evolution works with technology as well.

The Treaty of Versailles was the main/ pretty much only reason for World War 2.

At least i was talking about my primary school experience, yes, it was more or less okay in favor of simplifying at high school and uni

But i hate how at primary school, the teachers make a black and white cartoon fairy tale with bad and good guys

It wasn't?

It wasn't. The reparations were cancelled before Hitler took over. The country dealt with the hyperinflation in the twenties and experienced stability and growth. The military limitations were broken with no response from the allies, the same with the reoccupation of the Rhineland. The Great Depression was a much more potent factor in the outbreak of the war. Furthermore look at the ideological basis for the war on part of Germany - it was conceived as a campaign of eastward expansion. Hitler & co. were not actively looking for a fight with the chief powers behind the Treaty, France and Britain. Not in the same way they had been wanting to turn their attention east, that is.

>The Great Depression was a much more potent factor in the outbreak of the war.
* in the rise of nazism, to be precise.

Just look at the years when the Treaty would have been in full swing, when at least some reparations were being paid, when the French occupied the Ruhr, when hyperinflation was at its worst. Where are the war hawks? Where are the nazis? Where is the "WW2 is definitely coming and it's literally caused by this guise" factor? Nowhere, that's where.

We're lucky to learn about Waterloo or even Napoleon for that matter here in Burgerland

>The assassination of Franz Ferdinand was the cause of WWI

>at least he showed to the whites that theres a fucking continent on the west
so did vikings. norwegian kings were fully aware of vinland, they just didn't care that much about it.

>the holocaust actually happened

It was probably a good thing Blucher turned up late, rather than early. If he'd arrived earlier then Napoleon would have had enough fresh troops and cavalry to fight a rear guard action all the way into France which would have been much more costly

Yep, this is my pick. We learn this in the Netherlands.

Probably because you had to travel through 2 remote islands to get there.

Yea it couldve been something else like I dunno, some dutch guy fucking a germans pig

>It was Asians
Kill yourself, chink

Actually the blacks were the first people to colonize and modernize America because they wuz conquistadors and sheit

there just wasn't anything worth going. greenlanders visited it sometimes only because it was the closest place for them to get any timber.

Wait, people actually teach that? I thought it was a symbol for military incompetence

>Napoleon was a bloodthirsty tyrant, litteraly Hitler of the XIXth century, and the Coalition forces were the good guys.

French Catholic Private schools everyone, the History teachers just couldn't get over the fact someone could do a better job than the Bourbons. They actually entirely skipped Napoleon III and the Second Empire at the time, but that may have changed since then.

Is "who discovered america?" The dumbest historical discussion you can have.
>Columbus discovered America
>Nuhu Vespucci discovered America
>Nuhu Vikings discovered America
>Nuhu the Chinese discovered America
>Nuhu Siberian tribes discovered America
>Nuhu ancient African kangs discovered America

>The independent
>/pol/

you forgot st. brendan

You people learned Euro history?

Most of what I learned in high school was either Aboriginal history, early Australia ( snooze fest ) or the basic foundations of the feudal system.

I totally understand why the ANZACs were so overrated, literally nothing of interest happened on this island that didn't involve shooting aboriginals

>gandhi fasted and forced the british to leave india

I sure did. I think there are some madmen thinking the ancient Egyptians and the Polynesians might also have discovered it

>No mention of the Israelis

Do you even Mormonism?

That's pretty funny, I went to a public school and it was "Napoléon was absolutely perfect and did nothing wrong". We studied 2nd empire quite a bit but I remember the teacher putting an emphasis how Napoléon III wasn't really legitimate in his name and how he tarnished Napoléon I legacy.

and solutreans. don't forget solutreans.

We indisputably won 3 out of 5 of those. The other 2 were draws.

Let's just say it's a tie between the proto-finnic holy Roman khanate and the vril

I had an argument with a teacher that no one wore pants before the middle ages. She said I was wrong when I said they did and cited her history degree, her traveling, and that I failed my first history class (didn't do my homework). It really annoyed me and still does.

I was also told "discombobulated" wasn't a word and was made to look it up and for some reason it wasn't in that dictionary. I know it's a word.

>I am 13 and edgy

>>gandhi fasted and forced the british to leave india
He did help in a major way by uniting the people but the british would've left even if he wasn't there. The war weakened the British grip on India.

Poland?

>uniting the people.
not really. the cult of gandhi got insanely popular after he got shot and turned into a martyr.
His actions during the partition had alienated quite a few hindus of the middle class away from him.

>nuclear bombs put an end to the WW2
>it was actually because soviets were going to take part on the war against Japan.

>nuclear bombs were the most destructive force ever employed by mankind
>the firebombing of tokyo was actually much more destructive in terms of casualties and infrastructure

The Vietnam war was not a draw at all.

America failed their goal of maintaining South Vietnam's independence and North Vietnam achieved their goal of uniting Vietnam. That's a decisive North Vietnamese victory.

I'm gonna make it my goal to tell as many people as possible about Blucher.

>America won the Vietnam War

>vietnam
>draw
More with a total loss at top. Vietnam was a strategic loss. Tactical victory didn't bring home the victory, it didn't even bring home the draw. It was a total loss. None of the objectives were attained and went home with 60k deaths and tons of money spent for no reason.

Not sure if they use this number at schools, but here in Argentina some people say that the military government killed 30000 people, which is not accurate.

america literally drew out of the conflict which tells me that it wasn't americas goal anymore.

south vietnam was successfully defended and was only defeated after america left the conflict.

You had an objective, you failed to achieve it, and walked away.
The enemy had an objective, held until you left, then achieved its objective.
They won, you lost. I can't comprehend why its so hard for americans to handle this fact.

lel

>People are only born out of the mother's vagina.

The pro-Soviet government in Afghanistan was successfully defended and was only defeated after the USSR left the conflict.

The Soviets won in Afghanistan.

If it wasn't for Wellington holding on Blucher would never have had a chance. Blucher faced Napoleon 2 times in the past before waterloo head on and got btfo

It was an allied victory, what is so hard to understand about that? The British couldn't have won without the Prussians and the Prussians couldn't have beaten Napoleon without the British. The entire Allied plan during the Hundred Days focused on mutual support, so to say that it was 'everyone but England's victory' is as absurd as saying it was a complete British victory from start to finish. If you had actually studied the battle then you would know that no one in the Allied Army was 'looking from afar', not least the British infantry who more often than not sustained the weight of French attacks. British battalions did not run (as did some of the Dutch, Belgian and Hanoverian elements), their squares did not break. The Allied line held long enough for the Prussians to arrive so they could both go on the offensive to push Napoleon from the field. Blame what you want; the royalists, the wet ground, Napoleon's piles, Grouchy wandering off, the fact remains that Napoleon was out fought by the allies and the credit for that victory goes to all nations who fielded soldiers that day.

The prussians "won" because they were late. Wellington and the english weakened the french for hours. That so called "prussian victory" is actually them being late and getting pissed because they couldn't kill enough frogs.

you know it's weird
when I was studying nazi germany my teacher would always show us the things about the country that improved under him, like infrastructure and employment
was pretty funny though when she would say things like "he had some good ideas", if it was america i'd bet that'd cost you a job these days

>won 1812

Well the Brits fucked off and didn't re-assimilate us into the Empire so I'd call that a victory yeah

>won WWI

Yeah this is fair, we didn't join until the last minute and only because the germans found out we were supplying Britain with arms and ammo. Made a lot of money tho

>won WWII

Wasn't really our war to win; the Germans weren't in a position to attack us directly (even if they wanted to, which they didn't) and Japan realized very early on that attacking the US mainland would result in unacceptably high casualties/expense. At the most we would have lost Hawaii and some outlying naval bases. Can't deny we helped out tremendously on the western front tho

>won Vietnam

I've met maybe three people in my entire life who actually sincerely believe we won Vietnam. Nam was a shit show and while we may have whittled the NVA down to virtual nonexistence the war ended in a draw.

>won gulf war

>implying the gulf war wasn't simply the first conflict in a much larger operation that continues to this day

If Hitler had died/resigned in maybe 1936 or thereabouts he would have been remembered as one of the greatest statesmen in German history.

>Native Americans were totally peaceful and never fought or killed each other and lived in spiritually enlightened utopian societies in complete harmony with nature like the blue niggas in Avatar until the evil white man came along and literally destroyed everything and to this very day our roads are paved with a mixture of ground-up Native American bones and orphan tears

Would he? By that point there isn't much that he really achieved. Assuming that no Hitler means no war, what would be his legacy? An economy that was propped up at first but then turned rather hollow with surface miracles like Mefo bills that wouldn't last and a remilitarization programme that couldn't be sustained, and perhaps the reoccupation of the Rhineland. Certainly something like a 'firm hand' that 'steadied the ship' with a couple of drawbacks, but not greatest statesmen territory for me.

This I'm sick of this meme about the Vietnam War. Read the Paris Peace accords. The NVA was devastatingly defeated, especially after the Tet offensive. After Nixon resigned, Congress refused to honor the promise that they would provide military aid to South Vietnam. Ford begged Congress in an emergency meeting to send help and they literally walked out on him, not wanting to wreck their political careers jumping back in the war the media and academics had convinced the American people we lost. Fuck politicians. And fuck the rest of you for perpetuating this lie. The betrayal of South Vietnam is a tragedy and their blood is on the hands of people just like you

>Vietnam War revisionist history

It's almost as bad as the Civil War shit.

Even if the economic recovery wasn't as stellarly awesome as stormposters like to wax lyrical about, it was certainly a country mile above the abysmal inflation and rampant unemployment of the 1920s. And reoccupying the Rhineland meant Germany once again had access to loads of natural resources and could rebuild its industrial sector.

Hitler would have left the country stable, secure, and in a position to grow.

>The NVA was devastatingly defeated, especially after the Tet offensive
Are you perhaps confusing the VC and the NVA.

>tips coolie hat

My mistake. Thanks

>The Americans and Russians took over Berlin together
This one made my blood boil

>Well the Brits fucked off and didn't re-assimilate us into the Empire so I'd call that a victory yeah
The US started the war

>Hitler would have left the country stable, secure, and in a position to grow.

but instead he cowered in his bunker, sucking on the business end of a Walther, while tens of thousands of Nazi women and girls got gang raped by the invading armies

bravo Dolphie!

>operation
got a bigger pic of them?

This is the greatest irony of the pacifist/hippie movements of the 1960s. They effectively browbeat the US government into giving up on South Vietnam because "war is le bad XD" and in doing so they opened the floodgates for an ocean of misery to be visited upon and entire country.

I live in Burlington, Vermont, where people still worship Sanders like a saint for his anti-war efforts in the 60s and early 70s. It pisses me over the edge that most of these people aren't even dimly aware that Vietnam didn't magically stop existing once America left, and is still struggling to recover from the American military pullout.

Good job Bernie, you fucked an entire country to appease your delicate anti-war sensibilities.

And finished it too :^)

Yeah that's why I prefaced my whole spiel with "if he had died/resigned in 1936ish"

>it was certainly a country mile above the abysmal inflation and rampant unemployment of the 1920s.
Ah but that is only telling half the story - after 1924 the Weimar government already oversaw end to the hyperinflation as well as economic growth and its unemployment figures in the pre depression years were even lower than in the Hitler years in question.

So Hitler leaving at that point would have indeed left the country steadied from the turmoil of the depression - but at the cost of unsustainable military spending that if memory serves already outstripped civilian public spending at that time.

>that filename

[chuckles in Russian]

Well in that case your argument gets weaker, seeing as VC was the southern Vietnamese guerrilla force and you still had the much larger, much better equipped and much more dangerous NVA to contend with. Devastatingly defeating the VC and calling it a day is not enough.

Aw shit, sorry, I misread your post - I thought you were arguing for the "hur dur we wuz winnin" camp.

>Ah but that is only telling half the story - after 1924 the Weimar government already oversaw end to the hyperinflation as well as economic growth and its unemployment figures in the pre depression years were even lower than in the Hitler years in question.

True they were trying to manage it, but a big part of Hitler's platform was that they were doing a terrible job of it.

>So Hitler leaving at that point would have indeed left the country steadied from the turmoil of the depression - but at the cost of unsustainable military spending that if memory serves already outstripped civilian public spending at that time

Spending that would've been mitigated by the newfound resources and industry gained by retaking the Rhineland

FDR was a good President who din do nuffin

>retaking the Rhineland
I don't mean to be insensitive but Rhineland was "retaken" by Germany already in 1925 if we go by guaranteeing the German borders of the region after the Locarno treaties, or in 1930 in that the last occupying troops left. It was ocuppied for a while and demilitarized, not annexed by France.

>the US Civil War was about states rights not slaves
>the French Revolution was instigated by commoners
>the Crusades were unjustified wars of aggression
>Gandhi was a pacifist
>Africa was worse off under European rule