Notices
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: History thats proven later to be otherwise

  1. #1 History thats proven later to be otherwise 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    can you think of any cases?

    wasnt the childrens crusade one false story?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Crusade


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    846
    Katyn forest massacre(WWII): The Germans(Nazis) discovered it and blamed the Russians(Soviets). The Russians blamed the Germans. Ultimately the Russians admitted they (Soviet Union) were responsible.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    The USS Maine, who's boiler explosion was mistaken as an torpedo or mine; the mistake largely contributed to starting the Spanish–American War.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    I'm not sure you can consider war propaganda misinformation about history, at least not immediately after the event. If something came out like 60 years after, when the spin had become established as fact, then ya that might count.

    Cause history is loaded with misrepresentation by governments to favor their cause in war. There's also the case of the Lusitania in WWI, it sailed out of NYC carrying arms for the UK and the Germans warned ahead of time that the ship would be sunk if it left NYC. The Germans carried through with their threat and the Americans represented it as an unprovoked attack on civilians, it was then used to promote public support for entering the war.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    I'm not sure you can consider war propaganda misinformation about history, at least not immediately after the event. If something came out like 60 years after, when the spin had become established as fact, then ya that might count.

    Cause history is loaded with misrepresentation by governments to favor their cause in war. There's also the case of the Lusitania in WWI, it sailed out of NYC carrying arms for the UK and the Germans warned ahead of time that the ship would be sunk if it left NYC. The Germans carried through with their threat and the Americans represented it as an unprovoked attack on civilians, it was then used to promote public support for entering the war.
    Although the sinking of the Lusitania affected US public opinion, the US did not enter the war until almost 2 years later. The immediate provocations were the Zimmerman telegram and the resumption (after a long hiatus) of unrestricted submarine warfare by the Germans.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Henry Ford said : History is bunk!

    Other people have pointed out, almost ad nauseam, that history is written by those who won wars, and presented their side of things in a very biased way.

    Anything in history which talks of wonderful rulers, and glorious victories should be taken with a very big pinch of salt.

    In today's world, the process goes on. Hollywood regularly re-writes history to make better stories. For example : the Battle of the Alamo in Texas was little more than a skirmish. Hollywood portrayed it as a noble cause, with the Alamo defenders fighting to the death. In fact, the defenders did not last long and quickly surrendered. Davy Crockett died at the hands of a Mexican firing squad after that surrender - not nobly defending the battlements.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    846
    Alamo history
    --------------------------------------
    What of real military value did the defenders' heroic stand accomplish? Some movies and other works of fiction pretend that Houston used the time to raise an army. During most of the siege, however, he was at the Convention of 1836 at Washington-on-the-Brazos and not with the army. The delay did, on the other hand, allow promulgation of independence, formation of a revolutionary government, and the drafting of a constitution. If Santa Anna had struck the Texan settlements immediately, he might have disrupted the proceedings and driven all insurgents across the Sabine River. The men of the Alamo were valiant soldiers, but no evidence supports the notion, advanced in the more perfervid versions, that they "joined together in an immortal pact to give their lives that the spark of freedom might blaze into a roaring flame." Governor Smith and the General Council ordered Neill, Bowie, and Travis to hold the fort until support arrived. Despite all the "victory or death" hyperbole, they were not suicidal. Throughout the thirteen-day siege, Travis never stopped calling on the government for the promised support. The defenders of the Alamo willingly placed themselves in harm's way to protect their country. Death was a risk they accepted, but it was never their aim. Torn by internal discord, the provisional government failed to deliver on its promise to provide relief, and Travis and his command paid the cost of that dereliction. As Travis predicted, his bones did reproach the factious politicos and the parade ground patriots for their neglect. Even stripped of exaggeration, however, the battle of the Alamo remains an inspiring moment in Texas history. The sacrifice of Travis and his command animated the rest of Texas and kindled a righteous wrath that swept the Mexicans off the field at San Jacinto. Since 1836, Americans on battlefields over the globe have responded to the exhortation, "Remember the Alamo!"

    Source:
    "ALAMO, BATTLE OF THE." The Handbook of Texas Online. <http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/view/AA/qea2.html>
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    5
    I think that history can be misinterpreted but through that misinterpretation it becomes a part of history. For instance the gulf of tonkin incident - it was never confirmed that those soldiers were fired on but it lead to the whole of the vietnam war and that makes it an integral part of history whether it happened or not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    846
    Quote Originally Posted by okaysoph
    I think that history can be misinterpreted but through that misinterpretation it becomes a part of history. For instance the gulf of tonkin incident - it was never confirmed that those soldiers were fired on but it lead to the whole of the vietnam war and that makes it an integral part of history whether it happened or not.
    Some new reports (NY Times 7-15-10) indicate that senators were aware of the dubious nature of the Tonkin gulf incident as early as 1968. However it appears that if Pres. Johnson didn't have this as an excuse, he would have found something else. He was determined not to be accused of being the first president ever to lose a war.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    9
    The Moon Landing.

    Ok, the cats not out the bag yet, but give it another 20 years and I reckon we'll have a full and frank apology from the President, by which time the President will be Chinese or Russian.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    how about the uss liberty? 1967
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Other people have pointed out, almost ad nauseam, that history is written by those who won wars, and presented their side of things in a very biased way.
    The winners may write history books to their liking and glorification, but the truth is keenly remembered by those who were at the receiving end.

    To take the example of the Katyn massacre cited by Mathman, the truth about it lived on by word of mouth in Poland, even though the Communist-controlled schools either ignored it or taught the Soviet version (blaming the Germans).

    Born 20 years after the massacre and 15 years after the Soviets put Poland under Communist rule, I knew the truth long before it became official. Very few people around here were fooled by the propaganda.
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by Leszek Luchowski
    [
    The winners may write history books to their liking and glorification, but the truth is keenly remembered by those who were at the receiving end.

    To take the example of the Katyn massacre cited by Mathman, the truth about it lived on by word of mouth in Poland, even though the Communist-controlled schools either ignored it or taught the Soviet version (blaming the Germans).

    Born 20 years after the massacre and 15 years after the Soviets put Poland under Communist rule, I knew the truth long before it became official. Very few people around here were fooled by the propaganda.
    Is the figure for the number of Poles killed, by the Soviet NKVD, at Katyn known accurately? In the past I read sources (books) where the number was given as 40,000, but now I read the figure was around 21,000.
    In any case it was an evil and despicable act!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    Is the figure for the number of Poles killed, by the Soviet NKVD at Katyn, known accurately? In the past I read sources (books) where the number was given as 40,000, but now I read the figure was around 21,000.
    I'm not the right person to ask, as I am not even an amateur historian. The first time I heard any number of victims it was 15,000; later it grew to over 21,000, probably because of more evidence coming to light. I have never heard it estimated as high as 40,000.

    Quote Originally Posted by Halliday
    In any case it was an evil and despicable act!
    I couldn't agree more. If my grandfather hadn't taken an early retirement from the Polish police just before the Soviet invasion, he'd be lying in one of those pits now.
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    846
    In a book I read recently (unfortunately I don't remember the title - the subject was Stalin's crimes) the Katyn forest massacre was described as part of a larger operation, where Polish officers and others were systematically killed off.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman
    In a book I read recently (unfortunately I don't remember the title - the subject was Stalin's crimes) the Katyn forest massacre was described as part of a larger operation, where Polish officers and others were systematically killed off.
    This is true. The Katyn forest was the first to be found out, and the word "Katyn" got to be used as a name for the whole operation. The numbers I cited referred to the whole operation, not just that particular killing & burial site. For example, the police officers were mostly buried in Mednoe.
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Leszek,
    I have always felt that while Britain went to war over Germany's invasion of Poland, we then avoided doing anything that would actually help the Poles. As the war came to a close we also failed to do anything to control the Soviet actions, some of which could have been anticipated. What is the view of the older generations in Poland in regard to this? (I'm assuming that most younger people will be unfamiliar with the details, or view it as too far in the past to be relevant to them.)
    O.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Ophiolite, your question will require some thought on my part. My lonely brain cell being in the shape it is, this may take time to occur. But I definitely will reply.
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. Leszek Luchowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Gliwice, Poland
    Posts
    807
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Leszek,
    I have always felt that while Britain went to war over Germany's invasion of Poland, we then avoided doing anything that would actually help the Poles. As the war came to a close we also failed to do anything to control the Soviet actions, some of which could have been anticipated. What is the view of the older generations in Poland in regard to this?
    Thank you for your question.

    First of all, what I write are my impressions and speculations, not substantiated by any research into the state of public opinion or knowledge.

    I suppose most of us know that Britain and France just declared war on Germany in 1939. The refusal to "die for Danzig", in spite of an ally (by earlier treaties) being attacked, is remembered. This is partly because of Communist propaganda (including the teaching of history in schools) which jumped at the opportunity to drive home the message that we shouldn't count on the wicked Capitalist West.

    This being said, we are hardly in a position to judge anybody - we chose the moment of the German annexation of Czechoslovakia to settle our own old border dispute with that country.

    As for later developments during the war, we are rather realistic. We know that a country fighting for its very existence can hardly afford to anger a powerful and brave ally (the Soviet troops being undeniably brave, be it through geniune valour or fear of their politruks), just to plead for a small, remote and by now marginalized people. The West did use some leverage to help us, and perhaps that was as much as realistically could be done.

    There is some bitterness about the Yalta conference, where the US and Britain signed off to Stalin - or so we tend to think - a total of a hundred million people who would henceforth be known as "East Europeans", as contrasted with Europeans proper. Stalin's promises to allow us some degree of independence were worth little, and Western leaders must have realized that. But again, their people were, understandably, less than eager to fight another war.

    An issue which remains to be clarified is the death of General Sikorski. Both the Soviet and British secret services are suspected of being involved in the tragedy. The general's death was apparently in the interest of good relations between those two powers. In recent memory (which, to a pentagenarian, means the last decade or two) Britain has reclassified the relevant intelligence files which would otherwise have become public.

    Hope I have done a little to answer your question. But as I said, I am just one member of my generation of Poles, with no credentials to speak for all of my peers.
    Leszek. Pronounced [LEH-sheck]. The wondering Slav.
    History teaches us that we don't learn from history.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    fdr seems like a criminal to me

    having our soldiers slaughtered at Normandy

    turning the Jews back from Florida

    bombing Dresden

    locking up Japanese Americans

    Eisenhower was insane too
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    286
    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j062501.html


    FDR UNMASKED
    New book exposes how he lied us into war – and kowtowed to Stalin

    This year has been set aside by the Powers That Be for a "celebration" of America's role in World War II: America's political and cultural elites are looking back on that historical moment, sixty years later, with unabashed nostalgia. It was the necessary prelude to yet another "unipolar moment," as Charles Krauthammer describes the present post-cold war position of US global dominance, the moment when America stepped out onto the world stage with both feet and buried dreaded "isolationism" seemingly forever. The construction of one more war monument memorial in Washington, what will surely turn out to be a veritable shrine to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, has recently been approved by a Republican president, and, on the cultural front, we have been barraged by a flurry of films ("Pearl Harbor"), books (The Greatest Generation), television spectaculars, and pious pronouncements from the usual suspects about the glorious greatness of America during the war years. But, so far, the party isn't going so well. . . .
    THE NEW DEALERS' WAR

    The "Pearl Harbor" movie was a box-office flop, political infighting over what form the World War II monument will take has already begun; and, in a development that has restored my faith in human nature, a recent wave of historical revisionism, which exposes and debunks the mythology of the "Good War," is cresting just as the festivities reach their height. First came Robert Stinnett's Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor. The Stinnett volume shows that the President of the United States not only knew when and where the Japanese attack would take place, but also puts it in its proper context as th
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    The believe that people in middle age Europe thought the earth was flat because of religious backwardness is false, and so is the belief that Columbus discovers the earth was spherical.

    The idea that John Brown was "insane" is a great oversimplification

    Plymouth rock is fake

    Andrew Jackson winning the War of 1812 at the battle of New Orleans is also false.

    general everything dealing with aliens building pyramids or doing anything in our history is false.

    the modern notion that Separation of church and state in the united states is solely to protect the state from the church and not the other way around is false.


    i could go on all day
    most of the time it is not black and white though, however most people are not exposed to the scholarly research historians are putting out they read popular histories (dumb down)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    "History is written by the victors" is only half true too, or else Ghengis Khan and Attila the Hun would be great heroes in modern memory.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    i agree historian especially in the last 100 years have been opening up new fields of understanding the past, the old motto no longer applies exactly as it did, more accurately it only ever applied to non-academic history and not the scholarly research most people are not exposed to.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    The recent history of Inuit ("Eskimos") living in the High Arctic was contrived. Their government forced relocation of Native families (citizens) from Quebec, in a bid to assert sovereignty over the far North. We literally deposited this "resident population" by plane, on threat of cutting them off welfare.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •