What's the most popular revisionism on Veeky Forums that's the most rejected by professionals?

We Wuz Kangz/Hebrews/Mespos/Greeks/Romans/Injuns/Etc.

For whoever does it.

None of those are popular here, they're just made fun of all the time.

Outside of here?

Not really relevant to the thread about Veeky Forums specifically.

The Crusades.

My first year at Uni our lecturer for Early Medieval Europe literally devoted a two hour lecture period to explain to any potential retards that the Crusades were defensive in nature and a retaliation to continual Islamic aggression.

He shot down all the claims of it being some kind of genocide or it being a bunch of bloodthirsty savages going on a looting spree. The majority of nobles and knights and even small-folk that went bankrupted themselves to go on Crusade.

And yet Anna from here Gender Studies course will try to spew her postmodernist revisionism of that period.

>the Crusades were defensive in nature and a retaliation to continual Islamic aggression
He doesn't sound like a professional then.

>Islam is a religion of peace

There are people on /pol that claim Earth is shaped like a basket ball ball

I wouldn't be such an unhappy loser if only I lived in medieval Constantinople.

>the rise in global temperatures is unprecedented

Hello Trump voter.

And a strawman is just a strawman.

>>>r///eddit spacing

Don't you have a Dindu Lives Matter riot to attend?

Indigenous Americans were just a bunch of savages with no culture until the Spanish arrived

And a strawman is just a strawman.

Don't be mean, just because he probably couldn't hack it on r/AskHistorians or whatever doesn't mean he ran here hoping for validation like a newfag.

He could just be retarded.

You wouldn't non-ironically support We Wuz Kangz N Shieet would you?

And a strawman is just a strawman.

>the Crusades were defensive in nature and a retaliation to continual Islamic aggression.

The crusades being defensive in nature on;y works if you view the Greeks and Latins as being on the same side. When really if you look into it the two sides hated each other from almost the beginning. With the crusaders accusing the Greeks of being treacherous two-faced back-stabbers from their experiences with the Byzantine troops in Anatolia during the first crusade. And the Greeks never trusted the westerners from the moment the unexpectedly huge as fuck swarms of them reached Constantinople.

Hell, it seems like the Crusaders started liking their Muslim subjects more and more while hating the Greeks more and more as time went on. And that's not even figuring in the 4th crusade malarkey. Your professor sounds uninformed and opinionated, mate.

>I have no argument

>global warming

Denial of the Southern Strategy

Lost Cause-ish Southern we-wuz-ism in general

Basically anything retarded southern baptist republicans believe has become fairly popular on Veeky Forums.

How come?

Y'all don't know the simple joys of carefully picking apart the arguments of a lost cause of the south moron.

They're even bigger cockroaches than Turks because you can carefully demolish all of their arguments and there they'll be tomorrow, repeating the same tired, failed memes like "well the south only cared about states rights", which anyone who knows even a little bit about the American Civil War can respond with "state's right to do what?" And watch as they go full /pol/tard on you for daring to urinate facts and logic all over their idiot pity party.

Just to be contrary, mostly. But it has momentum, unfortunately, as pretend retards tend to attract the company of genuine retards who think they're in good company.

Nobody cares about your stupid (((logical fallacies)))

The First Crusade was a defensive pact between the Pope and the ERE that was also meant to try and heal the Great Schism. The next three Crusades were defensive wars to try and secure the Crusader States against Muslim reconquest. It's only after the sack of Constantinople and the end of the Fourth Crusade that the conflicts began to take an aggressive characteristic.

Because that's the most evil, destructive group of humans on the planet at the present moment.

Same how they pretend to be Nazis.

Obviously millions starved to death. The question is if it can be considered deliberate.

Thanks for caring.

>Soviets Dindu Nuffin

He's lecturing at university mate. You're shitposting on Veeky Forums.

Name of professor and institute?

If name is sensitive, just school he lectured at?

It's funny seeing them try to deny the mass revisionism the South did throughout post Civil war period

The one we know of was fake. There was a real one earlier but all the footage and tech got destroyed in a building fire so they had to do it again.

It was a catastrophe of the Soviet economy and politics, that's for sure. They refused aid, for fuck's sake.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Seems that the Soviet preparing invasion thesis is pretty controversial here. On the Internet in general and in the academia too. Why does anyone get butthurt over this book anyway? Are they unironic tankies or what?

More than that, the Soviets exported 1.8 million tons of grain in 31. That much grain could feed every starving Ukranian/Kazakh.

>Why does anyone get butthurt over this book anyway?
It's wrong. Even Rezun himself told that he trusts his feelings more than the overwhelming evidence.

>Are they unironic tankies or what?
Tankies would love it to be true, though. M-R pact is the biggest black spot on the history of SSSR and if Rezun is correct, it would clean Russia as the Saviour of Europe.

St. Andrews

can somebody please help me because i feel like a total spaz when i say this but....

hasn't global warming been going on for thousands of years?
why do we seem to think we have the power to change this?

The one in scotland or the one in North Carolina?

Because the one in NC had it's accreditation revoked and had to merge with another college to piggyback on theirs.

I can not emphasize how shitty an American college has to be before it gets accreditation removed.

The one in Scotland. I didn't even know there was one in America.

It's not only warming, as temperature changes are rather random. Climate change is a better term.

>why do we seem to think we have the power to change this?
We release shitton of gasses into atmosphere, even when compared to the amount that was there without our output. These gasses absorb high amount of EM radiation, transforming them into enrgy.

> China began growing because it became a capitalist country/ communism has never produced economic growth

Not a tankie, this just pisses me off because it's pure ideology not backed by fact. China is a one party communist state. There is no democracy. Party leaders control all levels of government. Almost all of the largest firms are state owned, and most large private firms have the government as their largest investor. Even the very rich can have their property stripped by the Party.

To be sure, China embraced a more decentralized economy on it's rise. It is more capitalist than it was by a wide margin, but calling it a capitalist country is ridiculous.

The USSR actually became more centrally controlled as it rapidly industrialized. This was accompanied by horrific atrocities (e.g. Hodolomor) but it actually did end up raising living standards and output.

A large part of the site seems unable to admit that a competing ideology could produce some success, which is funny because, if communism never works, even a little bit, how the fuck did the Cold War last so long?

The other connected revisionism that is amazingly prevalent is the rejection or minimization of atrocities carried out during colonial struggles. Yes, the USSR tortured its own civilians quite often right after WWII, the USA didn't, but France was torturing and raping quite a bit in Algeria...

Yes, intentionally starving people is not genocide.

>takes hundreds of millions of years for ancient swamps and coral reefs to turn into fossil fuel deposits
>humans have an industrial revolution and put millions of years worth of carbon into the air all at once
>?????????

Seriously though, I don't want to have to deal with the aftermath of Bangladesh flooding and putting two hundred million people out of their country. We have enough problems dealing with ten million Syrian refugees.

A famine in part caused by collectivization and in part caused by massive exports of grain to Russia from Ukraine, despite a bad harvest (again, due to both weather and forced collectivization).

Exporting food from a starving region is not easy. It took massive amounts of violence to do it.

The fatality rates in the era's gulags also made them essentially slave camps.

Genocide? Maybe not, because the goal wasn't to eradicate Ukrainians and Poles (although they were widely targeted because their loyalty was questioned), but it was certainly a mass atrocity.

Saying "well, they didn't want to kill that many, they just wanted to export all their food so that they could industrialize Russia more quickly," is sort of like excusing slavery because the slavers didn't really try to kill the slaves in the middle passage (they were valuable after all) it's just that shackeling people on top of each other like cargo and not feeding them tends to result in death.

The goal wasn't to eradicate an ethnicity, but to eliminate the kulak class. If religious genocide can exist surely class genocide can too.

The Ancient Egyptians not more or less being a bunch of Achmeds.

>Soviets have control over weather

>Slavery
Well duh, slavery was not genocide.

And he'd still be right. No major Crusade historian has ever claimed the Crusades were 'defensive in nature and a retaliation to continual Islamic aggression.' The only one who comes close is Thomas Madden, and he has only ever said as much in interviews with Catholic newspapers or as opinions in an introduction. Never once has he attempted to prove this however with an academic paper. Unless this lecturer has his own paper on the matter, he's just shooting from the hip. That or the user is exaggerating what the professor was meaning to say, that the Crusades were not a reaction to the Arab Conquests but were ideologically based on an ideology of defending the body of Christ.

Islamic Golden Age denial

>Leftypol

English is a subset of French language.

>Muh strawman

>He was a good boy!

>Stalin not believing in science with agriculture and expecting magic delusional results leads to grain belt being bled dry

>Ukraine and all of the Eastern Soviet Union is that Grain Belt

What pisses me off about Ukrainians calling this genocide is that it's not genocide it's just a famine that affected the whole region.

If you're that obsessed with your race being special you're either a nazi or an American.

Tyermann certainly does, though I don't know if he qualifies as major.

The old "communism killed 100 million people and liberalism is the same as communism" meme.

Christopher Tyermann? I've read a few of his books, but I don't recall him ever saying something like that.

>le (((ebin))) (((meme)))
(((XDD!!!)))

Hopefully that wasn't a Christfag.

Yeah, Liberalism's killed way more people than that

New history of the crusades makes it fairly clear that the first crusade was defensive in nature, at least in the eyes of the crusaders.

In the 20th century? No, that didn't happen by accident. Even Ethiopia was the result of embargos and blockades. Even the worst crop devastation can be relieved with transportation networks of the age, cities of millions being entirely dependant on food from thousands of miles away, much as they are today. A major disaster like an earthquake or tidal wave might give you temporary starvation, but from ~1900 onward, whenever you see mass starvation for a period that long, there's politics or war involved.

That's objectively true though user, sorry :(

No one denies there was a famine you retard. What people deny is that the government targeted the Ukraine with man made famine.

Hey there leftypol.

imagine being so deep down this retarded political rabbit hole that you'll actually defend millions being deliberately exterminated

Leftism... Not even once...

What the fuck are you saying you autistic shit. Suddenly throwing out meme replies doesnt win arguments you retarded faggot. Leftypol believes the opposite of what Im saying you retard.

>M-R pact is the biggest black spot on the history of SSSR

Fuck me I don't think any other country has so much competition in terms of black spots. They're just annoyed that it's so difficult to pretend that for them the war started in 1941 because no one wants to believe this bullshit.

You mean the federally sponsored and handled reconstruction?

Various shootings I guess. Anything related to space programs. We know basically all about them and there's not much else to be discovered and that includes the Soviet program (since the fall of USSR we've learnt about all the things they were hiding).

And now the flat earth theory (debunked in ancient times and empirically in 1958) although when its supporters show themselves here I think it's just people role playing to get the attention.

>how did the Cold War last so long
The Cold War literally lasted because the soviets got nukes

>class genocide can too
Or just remove their relationship to capital which was what happened.

What about the Polish Operation of NKVD. What was their problem?

It that's just it, he doesn't say the Crusades were a defense against Islamic aggression, but that the Crusaders believed their mission to be in defense of Christian purity. He neither condemns nor condones their theology or ideology.

Well, while not out-rite hostile to each other, the fact that the Crusaders came to the conclusion that the Greeks were not their friends and then set off to make their own kingdom rather than just hand off the captured territories back to the Byzantines must have really irked the Greeks.

I imagine that the existence of the Crusader states on "rightful" Roman clay must have been quite the middle finger to the Byzantine emperor, and a challenge to his legitimacy.

1. Niggers not being irrevalent before Muslim mass slavery.

2. The Ancient Jews being Achmeds like loads of Palestinians.

The situation after the Battle of Manzikert was very precarious for the Greeks. With most of Anatolia in Turkish hands there was no real way for the Emperor to assert any authority over Outremar.

nice meme

>le leftypol boogeyman

>Anna
What school? Western/KVCC?

Nah man, the theorists were right when they claimed that Kubrick directed it.

But his condition was that they film on location.

Most of Anatolia was not in Turkish hands, just some strategic cities that effectively cut off communications with the rest of the region. But it didn't affect communication with Outremer, which was by sea.

Nope. Actually Incas were superior to europeans.