What historical misconceptions do you hate the most?

What historical misconceptions do you hate the most?
>WW1 took place just in trenches
>nobody used horses in WW2

WTF, Austrian troops in Jerusalem ?

Faggots thinking that Deus vult, when obviously Deus did not actually vult

>nobody used horses in WW2
Is it common to think like this?
Here in Finland, during the war we used alot of horses, maybe because Finland was just a dirty third world country back then, at least outside of any major city.

It's mostly Americans that do this

>maybe because Finland was just a dirty third world country back then
nah

I wouldn't say that everyone's deluded about that, but there are those that wholeheartedly believe that "Germany le so mechanized in WWII", and would scoff at the idea of Germany having to call on horses for logistics.

What does this photo has to do with Finland?

Athenians colonized the world and gave democracy to America.

Not him, but c'mon, use some common sense
>user claims that Finland used horses, only because it was undeveloped shithole back then
>Other user posts picture claiming, that everyone used horses in WW2
Hmmm...

Germany's started the second world war due to polish soldiers killing germans in their border

Isn't that what actually happened while the mainstream believes that Germany started the war because of le Jews?

>Isn't that what actually happened
No.

>cleopatra was attractive
>vikings wore horned helmets
>ninjas ever existed

t. Schlomo

Are you people fucking retarded?
>believing nazi propaganda in 2017
I better be falling for bait here

No. And the mainstream believes it started because Hitler wanted to conquer the world because he was insane.

Where do you get your history from that you think it is mainstream opinion that WW1 started because of "le Jews"?

>"the Polish airforce was destroyed on the first day of the war :-DD"
>when in actuality the Poles had their first ace on September 7th, and were flying combat sorties until they evacuated to Romania

>"the French army was a pushover, fuggin pussies :-DD"
>Hitler expected the invasion of France to last a year, a year with his mechanized forces. for comparison It took the Germans ~3 months to reach Leningrad, and ~4 months to reach Moscow. The French Army's biggest problem was the top brass, who saw how devastating WW1 was and didnt want to lose another generation of men. They cared more about the lives of the soldiers rather than France's sovereignty

>"French tanks had more reverse gears than forward lmao :-DD"
>French tanks, especially the Char 1B, were superior to Panzers, it was the first time that Panzer 1-3's were getting challenged on the battlefield

Also, the Germans just got really lucky in France.

Aside,
>Poles charged German tanks with lances

>nucleus of armored forces
What

Also wasnt the english army fully motorized?

>the English Longbow was invented during the Hundred Years War
>It was the only weapon strong enough at the time to penetrate plate armor
>This lead to the Knight caste losing influence in society and eventually being disbanded, while the Yeomen archers began to replace them
>No fucking mention that France actually won that war

This is what my Senior Year English teacher said while giving historical 'context' for the Canterbury Tales. She was otherwise an incredibly intelligent person and a solid teacher, I guess she was just historically illiterate.

>This level of revisionism

prove it wrong then fuckboy, its not hard to use google

>>"the French army was a pushover, fuggin pussies :-DD"
They were pussies.
First, they abandoned their ally, Poland in 1939. If they reacted the war could be over before the end of the year. Even Nazi officers said after the war that the invasion of Poland was a all-or-nothing operation. Western parts of Germany were very vunerable.
Also, in 1940 they were pathetic. They had all the time to prepare but they preferref to sit on their asses and be a German bitch. French gererals were peacemongers, that's what it does to you.

>The French Army's biggest problem was the top brass, who saw how devastating WW1 was and didnt want to lose another generation of men.

So this is why they gave up 250k men in its defence? yeah, i'm sure they clearly cared about not losing another generation.

Is that also why Petain, the man who orchestrated the surrender, sent vichy Troops to North africa, the Middle East, Asia and the Western & eastern Fronts?

>>French tanks, especially the Char 1B, were superior to Panzers, it was the first time that Panzer 1-3's were getting challenged on the battlefield

Too bad they were utilized terribly by being integrated into foot infantry, because the French saw them as Mechanized Cavalry.


The french were miserable in ww2 and there's no denying it.

>why did the guy that staged a coup-d'état and betray the soldiers of France for him to impose a fascist-inspired state do what the Germans requested of him...
Aren't you answering yourself there?

>Too bad they were utilized terribly by being integrated into foot infantry,
Wrong, and pretty plebeian meme to suscribe to. The French army possessed three armored divisions with only tanks in them, though two of these were scattered when Guderian and Rommel's crazy race to the sea skewered through them, and the third (de Gaulle's one) actually almost wiped out Rommel's division, but they were saved by the Luftwaffe in the nick of time.

The real problem with French tanks, although better, was that:
a) they were built to engage other tanks, hence their doing formidaly against panzers, but having no other real use elsewhere
b) lacked radio communication which hindered them in all their battles

>They had all the time to prepare
But they did. In fact, they were begging the Belgians to allow them into their territory, so they could fortify their positions there, and better defend.

Also about not attacking in 1939, believe that France and Britain couldn't agree enough on how to proceed that France didn't feel certain they'd have the brits backing them.

Well it goes without saying that their advance into Sedan would've been catastrophic had the French noticed one day sooner, and basically it would've been all for nothing.

Meh.

250k isn't comparable to 1.4 million

Stab in the back myth.

Russian zerg meme.

>Meh
nothing screams autism more than this word.

>HRE was proto-Germany and all its former part should be in!

Well, I mean I had nothing to argue against it, since it's your opinion I guess, and you don't really link to what bothers you about that guys' explanation.

If there are points in particular you want to discuss though...

>The economy was bad but then FDR magically saved it with the New Deal despite the fact that his policies ended up prolonging the depression

>fully motorized.
Not even close. A few of the subject dominions were fully motorized. (Canada most notably, but of course they got most of their trucks from the U.S.), but not the British forces proper.

That is literally what bother's me about the guy's explanation. I wasn't even in this thread I just saw the reply.
In USA people tend to think Washington was some juggernaut who was killing british armies left and right. You think people would know a little more about the revolution. We fucking spent forever on it in school and people have no idea now.

>guy's explanation.
You mean that it's his opinion too, and nothing else?

They speak the same language. They have the same culture. They have the same religion (except Bavarians). What's the problem ?

>Netherlands
>Italy
these probably not

The central powers sent support troops to train the Ottomans and assist them during the Suez campaign

All Germans were Nazi's. That one pisses me off the most.

Württemberg is historically catholic as well.

>Hoover's conservatism created the depression and made it worse

Tariffs are poison, anyone who is a strong protectionist in the 20th century to the present day should've been aborted

>all citizens of the Soviet Union were Soviets

>Kingdom of Bohemia

The 1st armored division was formed from a mechanized cavalry brigade.

>The Bolsheviks overthrew the Tsar

>WW1 was pretty much just the British fighting the Germans in France

>North Italy
>Czechia
>Slovakia
>Netherlands
>Slovenia
>Belgium
>chunks of France
>speaking German

Nobody thinks this what are you on about

like horses wearing steel plates?

>everyone was dirty unwashed peasants who died by age 25 up until the Renaissance
>queer people didn't exist before the 1900s

Yes by definition they became soviets when their shitholes got eaten by papa stalin.

You probably wanted to say:

>all soviets were russian

>all citizens of the soviet union were soviets
>not all citizens of nazi germany were nazi

Treaty of Versailles was harsh

Me too, it's pretty commonly thought about a lot of different groups

Soviet is a nationality user
Do you mean communist?

>queer people
fuck off with that sjw lingo faggot.

>Canada most notably, but of course they got most of their trucks from the U.S
No.
We actually supplied trucks to dominion forces. If you mean the companies that made them were american owned then sure I guess, but they were mostly all made in country.

>soviet is a nationality
>soviet literally means a council

Nationalities are Russian, Estonian, Gergoian, Armenian etc. "Soviet" is another term reflecting the political structure of the country. People in other parts of the world stuck with calling then Soviets because it covers the whole superstate and does not sound silly like USSRians.

>USSRicans
Ftfy

We might as well call USSRicans Russians and the Warsaw pact Russia. Just to keep the butthurt belt of Europe butthurt

Yeah I know, everyone here knows that.
But we've been calling USSR denizens Soviets since before WWII. That includes everyone under the USSR's control.
Might as well say "not all Americans are American"

I see you missed my point. I am not like those

>hurr durr Belize is also America

Conventional use of Soviet as a demonym is fine by me. It's just not a nationality. All I wanted to say whas that.

The Sherman was a DEATH TRAP.
The Tiger was the most efficiant tank in the war.
Astro-Hungary split due to nationalism.

>Nukes and not the Soviets made the Japanese surrender.

>bows and arrows were better than muskets
>bows and arrows had a longer range than muskets
>bows and arrows were more accurate than muskets
>bows and arrows were only replaced because muskets were easier to train

(you)

People think that in 1939 Germans were using the weapons they see in Call of Duty and had tiger tanks.

The only advantage I see a bow and arrow having over a musket is it's fire rate. A skilled bowman can feed ten arrows down the battlefield in a minute, it takes nearly a minute just to load a musket. Other than that, muskets outclassed bows.

The entire economic history of 20th century.

>hyperinfaltion and poverty were rampant in Germany until Hitler came to power in the late 30s

>They cared more about the lives of the soldiers rather than France's sovereignty
lol

The one about the Polish air force got me too and I fucking live there. Is there anything that mainstream historiography got right about Poland in WWII?

Nobody fucking believes that Washington just single handedly annihilated giant British armies like Hannibal Barka until the British couldn't take it any more. Schools stress how dire the war was, and how the US wouldn't have had snowball's chance in hell if they didn't fight a guerilla war.

This. If you lose a war against someone, and they let you live to sign a piece of paper saying "no more fighting now", you got out ridiculously lucky.
Peace treaties should be signed in blood on the canvas of a scorched earth, a la Carthage.

But... they didn't fight guerilla war...

Wow, pretty fucking odd timing for them to surrender just a month after the US demonstrated that it could erase cities from the fucking map at whim.
So it wasn't the death dealing city destroyers that killed hundreds of thousands in 3 days, it was an army that was on its way? Good one, buddy.

>Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare in which a small group of combatants such as paramilitary personnel, armed civilians, or irregulars use military tactics including ambushes, sabotage, raids, petty warfare, hit-and-run tactics, and mobility to fight a larger and less-mobile traditional military.
What the fuck are you on about?

In the South they did.

I think it's maybe just because everyone viewed the war as having a rapid advance in technology, it's kind of weird to think of it as using many horses.

>Armours were so heavy, that you can't get up while wearing them
>The one about the Polish air force got me too and I fucking live there.
It's because of USSR occupation. They absolutely loved the Nazi propaganda, and used them to mock interwar Poland.
>Just look at that leadership, their incompetence costed you so many lives.
And Hoffman did bunch of awful movies, containing among others cavalry charges on tanks, or blaspheming Sienkiewicz's novels.So with older generation a lot of misconceptions is popular
>muh with sabre against tanks
But it's get better, and I can hope that fucker Hoffman will be rewarded with slow and painful death.

The holocost actually happened

>If Hitler hadn't invaded Russia, Stalin would have invaded Germany! (or at least German controlled Poland).
I'm not 100% certain, but I think the core of the misconception is thinking solely in terms of morals and not other means. If you believe that Stalin was as evil as Hitler (Which is its own discussion that I don't want to get into at the moment, but let's accept it for the sake of the argument), then if Hitler would be a rabid, ideological aggressive expansionist, Stalin must also be a rabid, ideological aggressive expansionist.

It completely overlooks all the other methods of statecraft the two employed. Look at how Stalin's expansionism went. For 17 years after taking the helm of his country, he didn't attack anyone. Then he attacks 6 small, relatively weak countries, and in every case completely diplomatically isolates them, and in one case attacks after another country does most of the heavy lifting. Above all, the guy was far more cautious than Hitler, and just because Hitler was willing to roll the dice in a do or die attack when he had a temporary advantage in no way implies Stalin would have done the same. After all, he didn't attack the Western Allies in Europe, and (more or less) kept to the agreements he had with them concerning how to parcel up Europe.

Not him, but probably the part where Washington's continental army was a conventional army of the day, and engaged the British in pretty conventional line battles.

>Soviets and not nukes made the Japanese surrender

>protip

It was both. In addition to the massive shitfest that the Jap brass organization was at the time. Not that their strategic organization was much better during the war, but at least they had some semblance of forward motion and cohesion.

The bombs almost certainly had an impact on Japanese willingness to surrender. Surrendering in itself was, of course, considered unacceptable, but when the time came to bite the bullet surrendering to the Americans rather than weathering the Soviet/American invasions to come finally broke the Japanese state.

There was a brief time after the bombs were dropped where the Japs became willing to endure more bombs. Surrender seems like it was inevitable to us, but in the context of the time it took a fast approaching Soviet advance, American encirclement, and two atomic bombs to force them to surrender.

To briefly add to this segments of Jap brass were willing to endure more bombs to force an invasion. A main land invasion would be costly and would provide leverage in negotiations. They were willing to kill millions of their citizens if it meant they could keep a shred of muh honor. Turns out the burgers let the Emperor stay anyways.

>WW1 was a 24/7 rushfest of soldiers mindlessly charging enemy trenches because their commanders were incompetent

Yeah this annoys me as well. It's hard to argue because any sort of non anti-nazi speak makes you sound like a nazi yourself. People have trouble truly putting themselves in the shoes of the people of the past.

>So this is why they gave up 250k men in its defence?

only about 60K of them actually died that figure is mainly casulties and AWOL

Canada was technologically the most powerful nation in the world, we didn't use horses we had tanks, planes, ships etc, but that's what happens when you're a military super power