How to spot people educated by the History Channel:
"The 1917 was an anti-imperialist popular revolt"
"The north wanted to free slaves that's why the Civil War happened"
"Luther fought the Catholic Church corruption"
"Hitler invaded Poland, starting WW2"
"the United States didn't want to enter WW2"
"Churchill was an anti-fascist"
"Jews were persecuted because people didn't want to pay back interest loans"
How to spot people educated by the History Channel:
Other urls found in this thread:
vatican.va
en.wikisource.org
cherokee.org
americancivilwar.com
teachingushistory.org
libs.uga.edu
twitter.com
>"Hitler invaded Poland, starting WW2"
That's pretty much what started WW2 though, unless you count Japan invading China as the start of WW2.
>"Hitler invaded Poland, starting WW2"
That's correct though
WW2 started in March 1939 months before the invasion of Poland
>"The north wanted to free slaves that's why the Civil War happened"
But that's true though, the South chimped out over the fear that they were trying to end slavery via gradual abolition by stopping its spread. They made that clear in their declarations of causes for secession, the blatant protection of slavery in the Confederate Constitution, speeches by multiple Confederate leaders, etc.
Hitler could have stopped after that point though, he hadn't passed the point of no return and Britain and France would have let him keep Czechoslovakia.
I've heard of some alt-history folks declaring that it started with the Battles of Khalkhin Gol in May of 1939, and even with the Italian invasion of Abyssinia in October of 1935, but what the fuck happened in March of 1939?
>the fuck happened in March of 1939
The invasion of slav territories occupied by the soviet union by the germans?
>"Luther fought the Catholic church corruption"
He was protesting a literal cash for heaven scheme though
>Czechoslovakia
Didn't that start in October of 1938? ...and didn't the rest of Europe not give a shit?
>"The 1917 was an anti-imperialist popular revolt"
Ummm...how was it not? They literally murdered the Tsar and his family.
Started in 1938, ended in March 1939 and it made Britain and USSR upset which is why they were already planning a world war with Germany and Germany was preparing a world war in August 1939
A revolt made by the upper middle class to simply replace the kind of imperialist is not popular and it's not anti-imperialist
>le indulgences are for the forgiveness of sins even though the catholic church has never taught that meme
The problem was corruption surrounding indulgences for alms (which were cleared up at the Council of Trent)
>not real gommunism XD
actually WW2 started in 1932 with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria
no, I'm simply saying the true nature of communism is not a popular revolt or peasant revolt against the ''tyrant tsar''. The bolsheviks even lost the 1918 elections. They never enjoyed popular support. Another obvious fact is communists are imperialists, contrary to popular myth
>Started in 1938
Exactly...
...Though really, I think you need more than two nations declaring war, before you can call it "The start of a World War" - I mean, if you're going to count various two-nation skirmishes, and every aggravating circumstance that lead to September 1939, you'd have to include not only WWI, but shit dating all the way back to the 30 Years War, if not before.
Except all of these are objectively correct.
Stay buttblasted /pol/fag.
>Hitler was a genius
>Germans almost won WW2
>Japan could have invaded Continental US
>A bajillion soviet soldiers, most without rifles, died for a single German
>Communism
>free elections
>Communism
>not just a populist shill tactic to start a popular revolt against those you don't like
>not just a populist shill tactic to start a popular revolt against those you don't like
Why are you quoting what I just said?
"Hitler wasn't a real socialist"
Is this the most red flag ever?
>"The north wanted to free slaves that's why the Civil War happened"
The South wanted to be Mexicans, right?
No. In fact Mexico getting rid of slavery is one of the reasons the Texas independence movement started.
You forgot
>aliens built the pyramids.
God bless, brother.
Because he didn't read or is incapable of understanding.
>the catholic church never taught it
They still practiced it.
>They still practiced it.
wow it's like you don't have a real argument
Maybe try posting something that's not obviously Pr*t propaganda next time
Wanna give me some evidence that the catholic church didn't participate in indulgences?
I mean, calling known history propaganda is a pretty big claim there buddy.
>The Church never taught that indulgences are for the forgiveness of sins
>b-but they actually did, it says it in my favorite piece of propaganda
please stop
Don't you know about Danzing, do you?
>holocaust was a complete fabrication despite piles of dead bodies
>danzig massacre happened despite no evidence whatsoever
>"Churchill was an anti-fascist"
>"Jews were persecuted because people didn't want to pay back interest loans"
Literally the only statements that are wrong
Fuck off back to /pol/ retard
The period of 1914-1945 was a single conflict broken up by periods of relative peace, much like the conflicts of ancient, medieval, early modern and Napoleonic Europe.
>The north wanted to free slaves that's why the Civil War happened
t. Cletus Lee Beauregard IV
>the north wanted to free slaves
>wanted
lrn2reed
>literally copy+pasted because phone
Are you implying that freeing the slaves was not the primary motivation for the war?
If the North's primary motivation for the war was to free the slaves then why was the South the aggressor?
But there are plenty of people who believe the North was majority abolitionist in 1860, when it very much wasn't. But by that point the South was so damn paranoid it didn't matter.
So easy to spot people educated by The History Channel
>luther didn't fight catholic corruption because they fixed the issue when he was already dead
okay
>churchill
>antifascist
man I'm getting second hand embarassment here lmao
>Violates South Carolinan sovereignty to send ships into a fort on Confederate soil
>But it's da ebul Dixie's fault!
Yank education
>Trigger a constitutional crisis and start shooting instead of starting diplomacy
>But it was Northern aggression!
Southern """honor"""
The Vatican is "my favorite piece of propaganda".
How to spot History Channel educated people
>All they do is talk about ww2 battles and how they were won
There was plenty of diplomacy in the months before the war such as the Crittenden Compromise, Washington Peace Conference, and the Corwin Amendment. It failed to say the least and since secession wasn't being persuaded away and Linconl refused to let it happen they attacked Ft Sumter.
Slavery was the concern only for the first wave of seceding states though, the second wave that came after the war started include other reasons spurred by the handling of the conflict by the Lincoln administration.
Arizona Territory Ordinance of Secession (never had slaves)
en.wikisource.org
Cherokee Nation Declaration of Causes
cherokee.org
2nd Speech of Tenn. Governor Isham Harris, first attempt at secession was over slavery but failed miserably, 2nd attempt was successful for other reasons
americancivilwar.com
So the South was the aggressor, after all.
Yeah, muh slave power and all
The 2nd wave of secession was due to deeming the North as overly aggressive over secession so it kinda went both ways
Well, the South literally declared themselves the "slave holding states" and the north the "non-slave holding states" it was always primary in their list of causes:
teachingushistory.org
But interestingly, while the Confederate Constitution expressedly protected the right to hold slaves, it also outlawed the import of new slaves from Africa:
libs.uga.edu
I don't feel that the majority of the North fought the war to "free the slaves", though it was certainly seen as a righteous cause among certain fiery factions, and without that fire, things might have taken a lot longer to boil over, if ever. More so, slavery was certainly the central rallying cause in the South.
>What is Czechoslovakia
Both sides were the aggressor desu, there doesn't have to be a victim and a predator every war you know
...
Socialism is the abolition of private production, private property, and profit. You could profit off of a business under Hitler as long as it was not deemed "subversive" or whatever.
The Union and the South didn't come together and agree on a date from which they would be at war. The South fired the first shots of the Civil War, therefore they are the aggressors of the Civil War.
>Hitler was a socialists
The name "national socialist" was meant to be a bitch slap to actual socialists though. Hitler ran a corporatist command economy with light free market elements, hell "privatization" was a term coined under Hitler's Germany
But the North disobyed a warning from the South, saying that if they tried to reinforce the forts with troops and ammo instead of evacuate them , they would fire at Ft Sumter.
So the North are the aggressors of the war...
Hitler warned Poland that if they didn't hand over the Danzig corridor then Germany would invade. I guess that means Poland is the aggressor of WW2.
t. Typhus did nothing wrong shill
Actually WWII started in 1914, but there was a 20 year armistice in the middle.
Yes it was. Why do you think the allies let Poland get SOV'D.
>An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has ALREADY BEEN FORGIVEN
It's almost like you didn't even read it
>"An indulgence is partial or plenary according as it removes either part or all of the temporal punishment due to sin." Indulgences may be applied to the living or the dead.
NO U
The original 7 confederate states, not all of them. Those declarations are only from 4 of the original 7 states. It was the way the war was being handled by union that made or broke the decision of others to join the CSA. Slavery wasn't prominent in the upper south or southwest save for Virginia at the time of the war unlike the 7 deep south states.
So it lessens the punishment for sinning rather than making God forgive the sin. Either way, it's still a corrupt, cynical practice that is as far from Christianity as you can possibly get.
>Soviet Union was not allied with the Allies
>"Luther fought the Catholic Church corruption"
Did he not?
>Fight for "Polish independence" from Germany
>Woops, looks like you're a part of the Soviet Union now
Anglo apologists everyone
Poland and the Soviet Union were two separate countries. They had different governments and everything.
Dude... Even mentioning Soviet-Japanese border incidents would make more sense.
If you meant the period after the war then it doesn't matter. It was ruled by Moscow-educated usurpers and enforced by the Soviet army.
But if Poland was the aggressor in WW2 why didn't the Polish state get partitioned a fourth time?
>Allies fought against Hitler Germany to end the Holocaust
>1989 fall of the berlin wall was affected by gdr citizens protesting
>Wehrmacht was a full motorized modern army
>Blitzkrieg