Cringe worthy attempts at historical revisionism

Can you beat this?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#German_mobilization
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#Germany_and_war
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

He's not entirely wrong.
There is very strong evidence that Vietnam was primarily used as a testing ground for the US military. A testing ground that got out of hand near the end.

To be fair most people don't want to accept this as that implies that millions of people died to test shit. But that's a harsh reality.

kill yourself promptly

He's not wrong. Read about the development of air cavalry for example, in that case it was pretty explicit.

Vietnam was crucial for Asian influence and within the context of the cold war. It's ridiculous to reduce it to a 'testing ground' hypothesis.

Vietnam wasn't anymore crucial than Korea or Afghanistan.

Every war ever fought is a testing ground for new weapons and strategies.

It was a testing ground, but that's not why we were there. In the grand scheme of things you could argue it was an inevitability of the military industrial complex to go to faraway lands in our political interests to put theory to the test, but would be disingenuous to say that was the main cause in a smokey backroom between the pentagon, CIA, congress, and presidency.

Or maybe it is and it's a whole gigantic conspiracy, but the lid is yet to be blown off on that one.

>Conclusion: Our new weapons and strategies failed to defeat starving farmers. Probably won't work against the Soviet army. Also, 60K of our men are dead lol.

>the NVA are starving farmers
>aviation and theory becoming doctrine didn't improve
>implying 60k isn't a fucking pittance as far as war goes

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism

>The orthodox interpretation blamed Hitler and Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan for causing the war. Revisionist historians of World War II, notably Charles A. Beard, said the U.S. was partly to blame because it pressed the Japanese too hard in 1940–41 and rejected compromises.[29] Other notable contributions to this discussion include Charles Tansill, Back Door To War (Chicago, 1952); Frederic Sanborn, Design For War (New York, 1951); and David Hoggan, The Forced War (Costa Mesa, 1989). British historian A. J. P. Taylor ignited a firestorm when he argued Hitler was a rather ordinary diplomat and did not deliberately set out to cause a war.

Historical revisionism is essential to further clarifying and better understanding the historical past. Without it, we'd still think Germany was at fault for WWI, or that slavery was okay because owners cared for their slaves. Still, even so, sometimes you get autism, like above.

>we'd still think Germany was at fault for WWI

They were though.

Vietnam apologists are more disgusting than Confederate apologists desu.

Yuck.

Historiography has moved far beyond that simple conclusion. There are literally more books written debating why the war happened than on the actual war itself. All the literature arguing Germany started it are from the years following the war's end, and were soon discounted by historiography of the 1920s. The war was more complicated than that, and beyond that Germany was traditionally blamed as the war's instigator due to literature from British and French historians playing the blame game.

>A start war with B
>B is allied with C, so C joins the war
>D is allied with A, so A joins the war against B and C
>E is allied with C, so E joins the war against A and D
>F and G join the war with B, C, and E against A and D
>From this, it is easy to see that D started the war

That's the alliance system, and that's just one element that examined by historians today. It also highlights how assigning total blame to a single nation for the war is absurd.

How is that autism? Japan had no designs for war with the US before the embargo. China was rousing anti-American sentiment too, so it's not like in Europe where we were trying to protect our allies. There was no real reason for the US to try to contain Japan either, since China was a much bigger potential threat.

In the 90s, as archives started to open up, there was a renewed movement towards treating the Second Reich as the ideological predecessor of Nazi Germany and responsible for the war.

The fact remains that Germany declared war on Russia, declared war on France, and invaded neutral Belgium. They have by far the most responsibility.

>From this, it is easy to see that D started the war
Kek'd right there and the pic.

>we sent people to kill and be killed to see how well we'd do
Holy shit, that is the most cynical defense of the Vietnam war I've ever read.

>Historical revisionism is essential to further clarifying and better understanding the historical past.
Pretty much this. Historiography is basically a way to organize revising accounts of the past. People tend to throw around the term without really understanding what it means. I get that Afrocentrists and people like David Irving are annoying, but that's not really revisionism, it's pseudohistory. There's nothing wrong with revising an account of the past, it just needs to be done through valid means.

While I could be wrong, the initial idea that the U.S. is assigned any part of blame for starting war in the Pacific is ludicrous.
>Japan forging empire via violent conquest across the East.
>Literally bayoneting babies and raping people on the streets.
>"The U.S. should have compromised with Japan! They shouldn't have embargoed Japan for invading nations!"
For one, why should any nation be obligated to trade with another, especially if they don't want to trade with countries committing literal war crimes? Second, the U.S. stated that it would only re-continue trade if Japan ceased its expansionism, which, while not really a compromise, I'm sure you'll agree isn't a bad ultimatum, considering the whole "Japanese are literally raping whole communities in the streets" thing.

In addition, the logic that a country is to blame for being attacked because it embargoed its attacker is retarded.
>"Hey, we don't like how you're invading other sovereign countries, so we're not going to trade with you until you stop."
>*Aggressors then attack U.S. and proceed to invade even more territories*
>Modern commentator: "Yeah well, you know, you shouldn't have stopped trading with them if you didn't want to get hit, America."
That's like when a boy is pushing around his siblings, his mother says he hasn't been good and won't give him a cookie, so he fucking socks his mother in the nose.

Also:
>China was a much bigger potential threat.

What the hell are you smoking?

The Kingdom of Servia has the most responsibility. As far as Germany goes, the French were already mobilizing according to Plan 17, which called for the invasion of Germany and the occupation of Berlin. Also, the French declared war on Germany first, according to the timestamps on the telegrams.

Well, that is news to me and something I should seriously reconsider. Is there any notable literature on it?

what the hell happened to arnold's first son?

how did that man not impart good habits on his children? figures the bastard raised away from his parenting and lifestyle looks normal

Who are the people on the right?

Big Blue's Arnold Schwartzenagger's legitimate son. Red shirt on the left is his God-tier bastard child.

Interestingly enough, this is the literal relationship my brother and I have with my parents (I'm on Veeky Forums, so you can probably guess which one I am).

>what is the tonkin incident

Technically not wrong. But every war is a testing ground for future wars so the Vietnam War wasn't unique in the slightest.

Sixth post, best post.
Everytime.

>aviation and theory becoming doctrine didn't improve
Considering how shit and useless the USAAF was for conventional warfare at the start of Vietnam, anything would be an improvement

...

south vietnam didnt win. so america lost. simple

he's right you know, napoleon was the hitler of his era, thank god for the jolly good thrashing we gave him.

Publish your DNA results Lindy

soon

...

>JFK lol he didn't do anything
>Washington lol did nothing he was just first

Guy I knew once had this opinion

>I'm on Veeky Forums, so you can probably guess which one I am
muscular chad?

I am a perpetual disappointment.

My only voice is mediocrity.

I had a college class on religion that said that when the Arabs first came to modern day India, the Muslims and Hindus got along peacefully and worked together like brothers, respecting each other and never engaging in any kinds of oppression. Then the British showed up and, through lies and deception turned the Hindus against the muslims.

Parental love is a reality of unachievable luxury.

My only solace is in eventual and inevitable death.

I want to die.

Is that not true? What actually happened? I don't know a lot about it.

How was the most advanced Air Force in the world at the time completely useless?

There was a lot of violence and several reported genocides targeting Hindus. An author from Persia named Firishta (I can't remember his full name) visited India and wrote that he saw mass murders and cities being burnt to the ground with survivors being enslaved. He estimated the body count to be in the hundreds of millions. While we could probably assume that that estimate seems a bit exaggerated, these accounts collaborate other stories coming out of India around the time so to say the two got along peacefully is flat out wrong.

And the two groups still hate eachother today? How effective was the Pakistan-Muslim split made by the British following the end of colonialism in the '40s? I'm guessing not very effective, since the two states always seem to be threatening nuclear war every other Tuesday.

Also when I confronted this teacher a few days later after class and asked what sources she was using to make the claim, as well as several other suspicious claims ("the muslims invented hospitals and the christians stole the concept", "there was no massacres of Christians prior to the Crusades in Muslim territory," "the muslims capturing 2/3s of christian territory did not factor into the Pope's motivation to call a crusade because they all recognized it as harmless empire building" ) she admitted that she knew what she was teaching was wrong, but she was trying to promote "a narrative" about Muslims.

Oh dear. Where'd you go to school? States? U.K.?

The navy and marines had the fly the majority of air support missions because the USAAF was under the assumption any war would be nuclear and was totally unequipped to fight a war like Vietnam

If you are talking about the decision to split the territory into Pakistan and India, that wasn't entirly the British's decision. Ghandi had promised several Muslim leaders that he would split the territory to create a country for them as a way of gain their support for his specific crusade for independence rather then other, more radical, crusades. The fact that the two sides created the countries and announced the new boarders without telling the populous led to a lot of brutal murders of Hindus in "muslim land" and viseversa, which also didn't help their relationship.

USA

We should ban American's opinions of historical events in general.

But it was crucial when it came to containment. Any country that fell to communism was a victory for the USSR and a loss for the US..

Except when it wasn't, like Cambodia

>we didn't lose. we left

Is it because America is the hotbed for mainstream liberalism and has exported its ideas to Europe and its academic sphere, including inclusivity and promotion of diversity since the 1960s this leading to a new age of revisionist literature, social history, and bottom-up demand for world history, thus replacing Western Civilization in schools?

It still wasn't a good thing Cambodia fell.

The US weren't even suppose to interact with Cambodia but ended up doing it anyway to bomb those coming down Ho Chi Min Trail.

One of many autistic decisions made by the US

we should ban Americans

The only decent argument I've heard for the
>we didn't lose we left
theory is about the Paris Peace Accords being singed in 1973 ended the Vietnam War on America's end. North Vietnam didn't launch any large scale military operations until after the American congress had voted to cut all support to South Vietnam and Cambodia a year or two later.

>Be American
>Try to contain communism
>Here comes Nixon
>Extend conflict into Cambodia
>Cambodia collapses
>Communists able to take over Cambodia
>Containment

you give us too much credit. Pol Pot -won- those kills.

India has been involved in religious violence since Buddhism came along. Fuck, a lot of the resistance to Alexander came in a religious form.

What do you think happened when Muslims showed up in India?

I like the cut of your jib, faggot.

>Russia mobilizes against Austria Hungary
>Germany promised to help Austria in the case of Russian attack
>Forced to declare war on Russia
>France mobilizes against Germany for no fucking reason
>Britain declares war for no fucking reason
>France and Britain get mad when they almost get whooped despite the fact that THEY mobilized against Germany to begin with, not the other way around.
The funny thing about this board is that people lie out or are just ignorant and feel smart because they are going against Germans.

>extend conflict into Cambodia
That conflict was in Cambodia (and Laos) long before Nixon got elected.

>How effective was the Pakistan-Muslim split made by the British following the end of colonialism in the '40s?

Pretty bad, barring some (until recently) small scale sectarian violence between Indian Hindus and Indian Muslims most Indians are pretty content to get along with one another.

The amputation of India after the British left has only created a problem which probably would not have been there in anything more than small scale bullshit. But because of India and Pakistan's sabre rattling Hindu Nationalism has grown within India.

>Britain declares war for no fucking reason
What is Belgium?

>for no fucking reason
>it's just a scrap of paper, why would anyone go to war over it

German autism

Pretty much.

>and were soon discounted by historiography of the 1920s
I.e, this view comes from people who had fought in the war and become disillusioned with it, and who had no access to the archives of their governments' internal correspondence.

as says, once enough decades had passed that historians actually started to get access to what at the time had been sensitive government documents, they realised that the original assessment of the war had had far more truth to it than the revisionists'.

Part of the problem is that our perception of WW1 was defined by men who had been very young, or even children, during the events leading up to the war. All the war poets like Sigfried Sassoon and Wilfred Owen - they were only in their early twenties during the war. And the biographies and the memoirs and the novels and the plays. Goodbye to All that, All quiet on the western front, Journey's End - all written by men who were teenagers when the war broke out. They saw the flag waving in the streets, they saw the jingoism in the newspapers, and the strong nationalistic sentiment among the people. They had no idea what was happening behind closed doors in the governments in London, Paris, or Berlin.

If you simply look at the sequence of events you can see that the primary-school-history version of the entangling alliances doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Russia didn't declare war on Austria-Hungary when it attacked Serbia. It mobilised but it continued to pursue diplomatic channels until Germany simply declared war on Russia. Likewise, France didn't declare war on Germany as part of their alliance with Russia. Again, they mobilised but continued to pursue diplomacy until Germany simply declared war on them. Germany attacked Russia, Luxembourg, Belgium and France all without any prior declaration of war on their part on one of Germany's allies.

It's actualy true, the war between north and south was set to wind down and end, the VC was still going to be active but they really couldn't do much against an American backed SVN. And then the NVA invaded, and Congress cut off material aid to SVN, and due to lack of support from the populace the US did not dare redeploy troops to the fight.

>Japan had no designs for war with the US before the embargo.
Untrue. Japan believed that war with America was inevitable because they wanted to expand and take over non-Asian controlled colonies. This would have led Japan to direct conflict with both the United States and it's European allies when Japan decided it wanted to eventually take the Philippines, Singapore, Burma, and Vietnam.

I think it's more brainlet normies are applying modern liberal morals to historical events and wondering why they just couldn't understand their privilege or some shit.

I would group unpublished/untenured professors into the brainlet normie catagory too

>France mobilizes against Germany for no fucking reason
It was in response to Germany mobilizing
France couldn't just watch without taking mesures to protect itself in case of attack
Hardly a justification for Germany to attack France
>Britain declares war for no fucking reason
Germany had attacked the two other nations of the Triple Entente (a pact Britain was part of) and had invaded neutral Belgium

Sonderweg

>France mobilizes against Germany for no fucking reason
>our arch enemy has decalred war on our ally
>who we allied with specifically to fight against said arch enemy
>and is now mobilizing
>and intends to invade neutral nations to get to us and defeat us before going to fight our ally (though this was not known at the time)
>there totally hasn been a declaration of war so lets just do nothing

I swear the biggest problem with this board is teenagers with a political adgenda who see history as literally a list of things that have happened to be cherrypicked in order to justify their opinion, rather than looking over the whole series of events and also trying to put themselves into the shoes of the people and organizations at the time in order to try and actually understand why things happened the way they did and learn from them

Declaration of war against us*

>China was a much bigger potential threat
Get out

Yes it was a testing ground, IN PART. To imply that the central reason, or even the sole reason, was to test maneuvers is preposterous. The US lost a shitload of lives, cash, resources, time and cultural clout during Vietnam - far more than any "test" could possibly outweigh in terms of importance.

The US leadership genuinely feared that a communist Vietnam would lead to an alliance between them and the USSR, which would potentially open Australia and the South Pacific to a new potential theater if the cold war were to turn hot. Obviously those fears were ultimately unfounded, but it was the logic the military prescribed to.

And for the cherry on top, that guy thinks Vietnam wasn't a loss. Sure we didn't "lose" in the sense that the US dissipated, but the goal of the war was to ensure South Vietnam remained an independent democracy (read: "capitalist US ally"). The end result of the war was a decisive victory for the communist North Vietnamese. You can't lose an invasion much harder than that.

...

Stop spreading lies and kill yourself

Also: US pilots fought against the japanese in China.

Napoleonic Code

Yeah that's pretty dumb. Austria was initially reluctant to attack Serbia because they feared a potential Russian intervention, but Germany pressed them to attack precisely because they wanted a war with Russia.

I hate this idea that people's ancestors had to be good and amazing in order for said people to be considered viable human beings in the contemporary era.

Why do we have to go around pretending that the caliphates weren't militaristic, imperialistic theocracies and that the Islamic golden age was built on the back of a massive slave economy? Why do we have to pretend that pre-colonial Sub-Saharan Africa wasn't jam-packed with sectarian violence and pioneered such wonderful traditions as female genital mutilation? Why do we have to pretend that China's overpopulation problem hasn't been present for millennia and that they'd often resort to literal cannibalism on a semi-regular basis during bad harvest seasons because they had too many people and not enough food?

We're no longer allowed to pretend that Europeans didn't go around the world committing acts of genocide and cultural erasure. When is it going to be okay to admit that literally every single human being on the planet in 2017 had ancestors who committed disgusting acts and depraved war crimes, and trying to paint entire population of people as "good guys" and "bad guys" is a painfully reductive way to view the world?

>since China was a much bigger potential threat.
Chinkdom was literally worse than Somalia at the time. They spent 20 years fighting warlords and when Japan invaded they were in the middle of another civil war.

>He still believes in the "alliances caused WW1" maymay

This is baby's first course in World War One. In reality during Russia's wars in the balkans the french sent an urgent telegram for the Tzar warning him that despite their treaty it would only work on defensive terms. The alliances could not be automatic.
The people who caused the war are, in order of responsability from least to worst : A) Austria for getting to war in the first place, B) Russia for making everyone shit scared by mobilizing C) Germany for declaring war on France and invading Belgium despite the two countries having nothing to do with the war in the first place

literally every country was at fault for ww1, from Serbia to Great Britain.
They all wanted a war, and they got a war.

It was a testing ground like the western front was a testing ground for chemical warfare and WW2 was a testing ground for nuclear weapons.

ie it wasn't. You don't go to war to test weapons.

>B) Russia for making everyone shit scared by mobilizing
Are you kidding? The German military were ecstatic that Russia had mobilised because it gave them the excuse they'd been looking for since day one. The idea that Germany was 'scared' into war by the Russian mobilisation becomes farcical once you actually read the records of what the German high command were saying to each other.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#German_mobilization

>The Bavarian military attaché recorded that he learned of Russian mobilization:
>"I run to the War Ministry. Beaming faces everywhere. Everyone is shaking hands in the corridors: people congratulate one another for being over the hurdle."

The war is Germany's fault. Serbia perhaps shares some of the blame for funding terrorists, and Austria should get some of the blame for firing the first shots by attacking Serbia. But it was Germany that pushed Austria to be aggressive in dealing with Serbia, and Germany that took what could have remained an affair local to the Balkans and made it into a world war by attacking Russia, Luxembourg, Belgium and France.

>country you invaded few decades ago mobilizes in response to your own mobilization
>"How dare they being afraid of us?! Let's attack them, that'll teach 'em!!"

>Nobodies can force you to trade
This is true. It was completely feasible to embargo them.
But the consequences were braindead obvious to everyone in the US government. They KNEW a war would happen because of it, no fucking way Japan would ever back down.
So yes the US effectively contributed to its entrance into the war in the Pacific. Complain about muh war crimes all you want, but had we just looked the other way and continued trading, we likely wouldn't have gone to war with them.

There is the question of the Philippines, but honestly fuck them. They were nothing but a pain in the ass, should've given them their "freedom" they wanted so damn bad and laugh after they were conquer and raped by the Japs.

Civil War slavery deniers are the kings of cringe.

That's not a theory; US bombed the shit (and chink) out of North Vietnam on December 1972 to the point they were forced to ask for a deal (the one you highlighted)

I will say this: Germany could have just...not supported Austria. They told them to act swiftly and decisively, and the cunts decided to fuck around for a couple weeks failing to get their shit together. Even the Kaiser, when he saw the Serbian response to the AH ultimatum said that all reason for war was gone.

Germany didn't start the war, but they did cause it to blow up into a World War by escalating a primarily Balkan conflict.

>Wakanda
Oh dear.

Do niggers think Black Panther is a documentary?

>On 2 July, the Saxon Ambassador in Berlin wrote back to his king that the German Army wanted Austria to attack Serbia as quickly as possible because the time was right for a general war since Germany was more prepared for war than either Russia or France.[43]

>On 3 July, the Saxon military attaché in Berlin reported that the German General Staff "would be pleased if war were to come about now".[44]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis#Germany_and_war

Really makes my nuggles minggle

America has some extraordinarily stupid people living here. Black, white, brown, red, and yellow.

t. an American

>Can you beat this?

Yes. KANGZ curb stomp it. Everyone wuz black. Until the cave dwelling whites came out of the ground and destroyed their flying pyramids and laser weapons.