What are some retarded ahistorical "facts" people repeat that blatantly incorrect and when pressed literally have no...

I mean these are the same people who think Reagan was anything but a demagogue who later turned braindead.

He basically established a real life New World Order that shuffled up the established western powers and replaced Britain with America as the reigning hegemon of western culture and ushered in a new era of globalisation, commercialism and privatisation

On the other hand, if it hadn't been for him the US probably would have collapsed into fascism and broken up. Insofar as it's the job of the president to preserve the nation, he did a great job.

He is everything poor Woodrow Wilson tried and failed to be.

I never said those were a bad thing

Also if FDR never became president Murrica might have buckled before superior Nippon diplomacy and stayed out of the war and the Nazis might have survived albeit nearly beaten by the Russians

We might have lived in a world where fascism, capitalism and communism all live in an uneasy peace

>"Peasants were forced to fight for their lord armed with nothing but axes and cleavers and pointy sticks!"
>"Oh my God, did you know the lord of a castle had the right to take a newly wedded woman's virginity? Yeah, I saw it in Braveheart!"
>"The reasons Mongols couldn't defeat the Europeans was the forests and the mountains! The terrain was not suitable for cavalry!"

Reagan's policies were a double edged sword. His reduction of upper income taxes and reduced limitations on business and trade contributed to the economic boom of the 90's but also led to great income inequality and is somewhat related to what happened in 2007-2008. His foreign policy may have sped the Soviet Unions demise and "ended" the Cold War but he also drastically increased defense spending, fucked around in the middle east a little too much and y'know, Iran-contra. He also gets credit for things he never did, like reduce taxes for the middle class and balance the budget or reduce the budget, if anything he did the opposite for both. I don't really blame him though...
There were a lot of things that contributed to western/US hegemon and Roosevelt was only a tiny part of it. Its not his fault that the world aligned as it did (not entirely anyway), and things such as commercialism and privatization were well on their way.

I forgot to mention...that I don't really think Iran-Contra is a huge deal, I mean IT IS, but every president since him, and many of them before, probably have done something similar...I just don't like how American Republicans ignore that yet criticize Obama for signing that gun tracking thing in mexico that was started, and had most of its tenure, under Bush. Not to mention liberals doing the same thing to the opposite people

>The reasons Mongols couldn't defeat the Europeans was the forests and the mountains! The terrain was not suitable for cavalry!

Then how do you explain that during the first Mongol invasion of Hungary, Mongols couldn't conquer a single castle, and during the second invasion they got BTFO on the battlefield because Hungary bolstered their cavalry with heavily armored knights?

Note that this is Hungary which was a fairly average medieval country, not a behemoth like France.

Germany started WW1.

Well it certainly isn't the terrain nor the quantity or quality of troops of Europe.

The Mongols captured and destroyed major cities before with fortifications that utterly dwarf contemporary European cities. And the terrain of Southern China is no more hospitable than Europe. Rivers, canals, and massive armies hundreds of thousands strong. Nor was the terrain less hospitable in Persia. Or heavily forested Russia. Or the deserts of Khwarezm. Or the mountain plateau of Anatolia. Are we really going to keep repeating this meme?

>Austria Hungary would collapse even if they won the war
>France always surrenders and never wins any war
>"Viking" is an ethnicity
>Hebrew, Israelite and Jew are synonyms
>Reagan was a second coming of Jesus / literally Satan in human form, and not just a regular flawed politician
>Africa was nothing but straw huts and dog poop until Europeans showed up
>native Americans were the most peaceful people on Earth who never indulged in warfare aside from self-defense against whites
>Buddhist people are pacifist and tolerant
>America was beaten in Vietnam by a bunch of illiterate rice farmers in funny hats and not the entire NVA with high tech equipment
>Mongols could've conquered everything from Sweden to Lisbon, they just didn't want to
>Ancient Egyptians were all black/white/aliens
>all Protestants are Lutherans
>Jesus Christ is all about tolerance and acceptance

The fact is that they TRIED to conquer Hungary and they failed. This isn't even a "what if" hypothetical circlejerking, we literally have evidence of them getting BTFO in Hungary.

>"Christmas was originally a pagan holiday that the Christians stole."
>implying

youtube.com/watch?v=0isRxygfqtE

It was extremist Protestants, like the ones who made the video, who were against celebrating Christmas.

>Everyone thought the world was flat but Christopher Columbus knew they were wrong. That's why you have to 'think outside of the box'

Yeah, in invasions led by great grandsons of Genghis Khan with a fraction of his forces and nowhere near the amount of talent he had available to him. The Great Khans were no more after Mongke.
You are making it sound as if big castles and armored knights are all you need to defeat Mongols. I need not remind you that Saracens BTFO the Crusaders using similar tactics.

>Galileo was burned for saying the Earth is round

Those are excuses. You're offering hypotheses. I'm offering facts.

Well the Hungarian strategy wasn't big castles but a million tiny ones. It was actually a much bigger problem for the mongols, who were good at siege warfare generally. I mean in China close to their home territory and with fewer larger forts they were great at sieges. In Hungary far away from their bases of supply they simply didn't have the time to siege every fort. Honestly I give the Hungarians alot of credit for devising the perfect strategy for their situation.

I mean, if you want to be nice you could replace "stole" with "co-opted for the purposes of pandering".

1. The Europeans had 40+ years to prepare for the Mongol invasion, all the while the Mongols are trying to control an empire still within its first/second generation of conquest. The bulk of their forces were committed to defending their current borders, fighting off other Borjigin princes, and the war against China which would only be completed by Kublai's time. During this time, they replaced wooden castles and forts with stone, and as
says, the later invasions encountered much stronger resistance and basically trapped the Mongols between looting shitty little villages and unwalled towns or engaging in sieges that were not worth the time.
2. The Europeans actually deviated AWAY from pure heavy cavalry and invested in lighter medium cavalry that could better deal with the nimbler and more durable Mongol mounts. They hired other steppe peoples like the Cumans. Unlike the west where you see a rise in professional infantry, Eastern Europe developed their cavalry wing, with an emphasis on maneuverability and mobility.
3. MOST IMPORTANTLY, they were at the very end of their logistical rope. The Mongols were never a numerous people and raids on Central Europe is about as far as they could go before they exhaust their manpower. Their grand strategy was to launch powerful, devastating, and CONSISTENT invasions that destroyed the economic productivity and population (and therefore, the warfighting capabilities) of the lands they were invading. Most of it was tied down in the conquest of the richer East, which was much more lucrative and much closer to their power base where they could replenish combat losses.

But none of this has ANYTHING to do with what I said about THE TERRAIN, which for some reason history plebs love to cite as the reason why Europe could never be conquered by the Mongols. If they turned their military might on Europe like they did to China, they could've gone even further.

Well if I remember correctly the second time Hungary was invaded it was the state of the golden horde so while they were still away from their main base it wasn't quite as bad as all the way in mongolia. Also wouldnt the majority of the army by this point in this area be more a mix of local steppe peoples. I imagine it probably mostly turkic.

Bunch of those were really popular at the time :>

it was a big player in europe until 1526

Definitely more Turkic. The Mongol component of the Golden Horde under the Jochids was very small so they had to recruit from other steppe peoples and became way more Turkicized than the other successor states.

I would have to say that the dearth of skilled engineers like in China or Persia, relatively poor wealth, agricultural productivity, and population, and lukewarm relationships with their fellow Mongol states means that the Golden Horde got a really raw deal.

But think the successor states of the golden horde were the longest lasting of all the Mongolian states.

Because Christmas trees and Santa are biblical? Christmas is partly a Christian holiday at this point. I'd argue there are as many pagan nuances as Christian. Feasting, ritualistic tree ornamentation, and other things were all pagan from the start. They were appropriated by Latin Christians. However, non-Latin Christmas is almost exclusively religious in many places.

???
>Saracens BTFO the Crusaders using similar tactics.

The castle system was incredibly useful in the Crusader kingdoms. Fun fact: there were two (yes two) knights in Jerusalem when it was reclaimed by Muslims. The templars and hospitalers were criminally undergunned, with there never being more than 300 knights and a few thousand soldiers in the Holy Lands. The only thing that protected the Crusaders was therir marvelous castles and advanced watch system to cleverly divert manpowr. I think you have no idea what you're talking about. Arab fighters excelled at fighting on open fields over long periods of time. TheI light cavalry and personal camels allowed Arabs to tire their enemies and roit then with a few charges. The crusaders won nearly every siege despite huge casualties from disease and weather.

>Landsknecht would use their swords to cut the head of pikes.
>knights had to be hoisted into their saddle.
>Medieval swords were heavy.
>Medieval people were dumb as shit and suddenly smart in the 17th century.

The even worse one
>the Middle Ages were shit but the Italian Renaissance made everyone suddenly happy.

>columbus found america
all three of his main voyages were focused on caribbean isles and he never set a foot on the soil that form united states today

>Christmas trees
>Not being a token of pagan nature spirit worship

is that rly a thing ?
all i heard thus far from people was "muh lead sweetened wine"
never anything about plates

That's technically not wrong, just the way it was phrased.

>Christians
They mean Roman Catholics. They took Saturnalia and turned it into a "Christian" holiday. They took pagan deities and turned them into "saints". The Vatican itself is built on Janus, a Satanic site.

Paganism couldn't win against the Gospel so the devil simply repackaged paganism for the new era.

>. Latin Christianity picked it as a symbolic date not because they stole it from pagans you fucking fedora

Yeah. It's complete coincidence that the Church in Rome picked the exact same date as the Roman festival of Saturnalia for the celebration of Christmas.

You realise that Hungary is a massive e plain, right?

No mountains, not huge forests

WE
WUZ
CELEBRATING YULE
N SHIET

>Paganism
>bad

Stop posting on Veeky Forums

about Africa.
It wasn't all, but 2/3 of the inhabitated weren't even at the level of straw huts and poop.

But Dopplesolders did exactly that, mess with the ranks and brake the formation by, with other things of course, lance-breaking .

>[famous military commander] was shit and I could have done better than him

>Salt was more valuable than Gold
>Soldiers went into battle with steep swords and were cutting through steep armor
>Any fucking biblical (((history)))

>Literally nobody knows the exact date of Jesus' birth and no clergy for the past 1800 years has claimed to
If Jesus existed he would have been born in the summer

>If Jesus existed
[pic related]
>he would have been born in the summer
More seriously, why do you say this?

>More seriously, why do you say this?
prolly just an educated guess or this
"Scholars also debate the month of Jesus' birth. In 2008, astronomer Dave Reneke argued that Jesus was born in the summer. The Star of Bethlehem, Reneke told New Scientist, may have been Venus and Jupiter coming together to form a bright light in the sky. Using computer models, Reneke determined that this rare event occurred on June 17, in the year 2 B.C."

tipping aside, is there any evidence for his existence ?

iirc he's mentioned in Tacitus and a few other sources of the time. The gospels still remain the most in depth portrayal of his life but I guess I can see why some would view them as biased. Ultimately though, Jesus didn't become a note worthy historical figure until after his death which is why pretty much all mention of him comes from that time.

And the big jolly red man, the tree, the turkey, the presents?

if i remember tacitus correctly, been a while since i read his works, he states something to the extent of "christians, who worship christos , who is the namesake of this group"
which would be like saying X is real cuz Y is named after it
>gospels
true but that's the only source i can think of
>only important after death
well he was important enough to be executed, and if you believe the gospels some ominous sit happened there which would have been report worthy no ?

Different user, Saint Nicholas was a Catholic in the 4th century so he was around long before the pagan rituals were added to the fold.

But it was at certain times

>4th century
>long before the pagan rituals were added
citation
needed

>exact same date

Uhm, except it wasn't dude? Saturnalia took place on the Julian Calender in December 17 (and later lasted three days instead of one under Augustus). Caligula extended it to 5 days. So right off the bat you're being retarded

This is my favourite meme

>"Man he should have seen that now famous military strategy that was revolutionary at the time and countered it with this strategy devised after decades/centuries of foresight! What an idiot dude!"

>all Protestants are Lutherans
can someone point out the difference here? What are the exceptions? The anglican church?

>Nazi uniforms were designed by Hugo Boss

Maybe he meant to say that the terrains wasn't favourable to the horse's diet ? ( bog marshes, things like that )

The best argument for the existence of Christ is that if he wasn't, jewish rabbis would have made it a talking point to discredit the growing christian religion. They never did, and this gives us some hints that they had more proof than us on his existence.

>feasting is a pagan tradition

>arabic numerals

>Dude, I'm telling you, Hitler would've won the war if he'd listened to his generals...

I mean ww1 was sort of made inevitable by their desire to start a war with Russia before they established their railroad system, which was pretty just desu since it would turn Russia into an unstoppable super power.

France was bound to join the war since they were still butt hurt about Alsace Lorraine.

England would've joined the war too eventually even if Germany didn't invade Belgium because Getmsny would replace them as the new leader of Europe.

In a way the Belgians were the ones most to blame for the tragedy that would be the next 4 years, and how fucked the 20th century would be for Europe, since if they'd just sacrificed a little but of pride and let the Germans through, the war in the west would be over in a month at most.

Well, that, and there's mention of specific crops not being harvested - which would not be the case in winter, and mentioning shepherds being in the fields, which they also would not have been in December. They were also there to take the Roman Census, which again, does not take place in winter.

I am, however, sick and tired of the atheists using citing pagan influence as an attack on Christianity, and just as sick and tired of Christians being offended by it. The fact that Christianity has such strong roots in such a wide array of ancient traditions makes it a much more powerful conveyance of the state and history of man as a whole, a much more rigorous and all encompassing philosophy and religion than anything built on thin air ever could have been. The religion is, in many ways, the best of nearly everything from antiquity - this is not something they should be attacked for or ashamed of. Indeed, it's a rich inheritance that they should hold dearly and present with the utmost pride.

Hugo himself was affiliated to the Nazi party and delivered uniforms for the SS.

I don't know if he designed them though.

>The Civil War wasn't about slavery.

Ya really think these guys are Lutherans?

There's a million different protestant religions and they run the gambit from batshit insane conservative to batshit insane liberal, with a healthy dose of everything in between, only one of which describes itself as Lutheran, and most of which describe the Lutherans as batshit insane, and visa versa.

What's your point against arabic numerals?

what a dunce

He didn't.
The SS uniform design is by Walter Heck and Karl Diebitsch. But apparently the thought of Hugo Boss making nazis Veeky Forums is enough to have that "truth" mentioned twice a week here.
Nobody denies that a tailor supplied uniforms.

>He doesn't know that numbers don't poo in the loo.

i was taught in school they drank water from lead pipes and got demented

so absence of evidence = evidence ?

Problems is there was a dozen different folks claiming to be the Hebrew messiah in that era - granted, most of them were more violent, and/or kings.

>ronald reagan has alzheimers

If that were true it would be shameful and sad as he was not impeached, didnt retire, and was never even asked why he didn't step down.

Anyone who was paying any attention would know that Reagan lied about his inability to remember ANYTHING because he was caught red handed in the Iran Contras scandal. He didnt have alzheimers and if he did why was he allowed to carry around a nuclear football and still remain commander in chief?

>The soviet union and other communist countries dindu nuffin and everything is the fault of American imperialism.
>most the stuff people say about the great depression

Yes and no

The south fought to preserve "states rights", which essentially was slavery and cucked the non-slave owning poor to fight their battles in the name of "muh tyranny"

The north fought to preserve the Union. Lincoln was gonna say fuck it and let slavery continue in the already legal states, and prevent it from spreading to new ones. It only became a moral battle after the South really pissed off the North. Sherman did nothing wrong

they ate tomatos on lead plates and the tomato juice fused with the lead and killed them.

t. Karl "whats tomato with you" Pilkington

Well he did claim "he could not recall" 52 times during the Iran-Contra trials, while everyone else involved plead the 5th.

youtube.com/watch?v=FZsLWP9mRdQ

I thought he was just being clever, at the time. Little did we know...

Either way, the motivator was slavery. Directly or indirectly. It's in the Confederate Constitution and in most of the seceding states' declarations of secession.

Although it's also in the Confederate Constitution that it's illegal for a member state to import slaves from Africa.

...Not that you aren't right, in the end, just giving you a heads up of what you'll have thrown at ya.

They wouldn't need to. They were already having an explosion of slave populations, so money spent on slaves is lost when they needed to focus on growing their economy.

>Germany didnt cause WW1

True, although it's kinda like there's a bunch a guys smoking around a giant pile of gunpowder, and blaming the one guy whose ash flies into the pile for killing them all.

The fact that no one ever even tried to head that situation off really says something sad about the nature of humanity.

Lol. United States quick to advertise that they're selling sticks to both sides once they begin to see the shitstorm start.

>American
>Great
kek

>If Hitler hadn't done X, he'd have won the war!
>American tanks were shit, it took five shermans to beat a Panther/Tiger/generic Panzer
>Dresden killed 100,000+ people!

The tank one really gets to me, people cling to it and are bizarrely defiant in how much they ignore information relating to it. I once had an argument over it, and I cited to a 1954 study of various performances in France of 1944, and was told, in all apparent honesty, that my source was bullshit American propaganda to keep their tank crews willing to fight Germans in the face of their terrible losses. When I pointed out said book came out 10 years after the fighting was over, I got a patronizing "you'll believe anything, huh?"

but they were complete dogshit in terms of armour and fire power

And they were quite good in terms of reliability, fire control, and visibility, which actually count for a hell of a lot more.

Most real life tank battles (such as they were, a small minority of tanks from every power were destroyed by other tanks) were lopsided ambushes; where the side that got beaten never saw the side that was blowing holes in them.

The single biggest factor in any tank engagement is "who shoots first", and while you might think the German tanks have an edge with their longer effective ranges, they tended not to shoot first. You can barely hit anything from a moving tank, so being still while the enemy approaches you is usually a pretty decisive advantage, but it turns out that it's really hard to hit outside of a 500-700m range anyway, and kill shots from longer than that very rarely happened.

Pic related is some combat figures from the book I mentioned upthread.

>They took Saturnalia
And Yule, and whatever Poles celebrated, and...
Seriously, the only thing in common is that it's near the solstice.
Which guess what, is the bedrock of the original symbolism of Christmas.

Of course, you could decide to not celebrate Christmas, because it's a bit younger than other holidays.
You still have to celebrate Epiphany more importantly, then, though.

But that's literally irrelevant. You're falling into the trap of thinking that tanks exist to fight tanks. While situations often arose where this happened, tanks were always primarily intended to support infantry and fight against a wide range of enemies. A vehicle specifically intended to destroy tanks is not a tank, it is a tank destroyer, an entirely separate class of vehicle. The Shermans had enough armour to stand up to light anti-tank weapons and a gun that was excellent for destroying fortifications. The fact that they had to go five to one to kill Tigers is irrelevant too because the Americans could produce many times that number for every Tiger. Tigers were fucking expensive. I mean, they weighed more than twice as much as the Sherman.