History What are some of your most contraversial takes on history?

WolfBear said:

The Germans appreciate the Russian role the most, perhaps due to how many casualties and rapes Soviet troops inflicted upon the Germans in World War II. Yet even among the Germans, more people think that the US was more responsible for the Allied WWII victory than the Russians were!

Click to expand...

Would you care to put your rapist and murderer on a pedestral?

Urabrask Revealed said:

Would you care to put your rapist and murderer on a pedestral?

Click to expand...

He isn't going to do that because openly supporting Hitler is one of the very few things which will get you permabanned from TS.

So for a non-Nazi one:

I don't think Floridaman is any crazier than people from other states. From what I've been able to determine, the reason you see so much crazy Floridaman news is because Florida has much laxer rules on their media allowing stories to be published that would be killed in other states. The other state's crazymen just don't show up in MSM.

Bear Ribs said:

So for a non-Nazi one:

I don't think Floridaman is any crazier than people from other states. From what I've been able to determine, the reason you see so much crazy Floridaman news is because Florida has much laxer rules on their media allowing stories to be published that would be killed in other states. The other state's crazymen just don't show up in MSM.

Click to expand...

It's not just the sunshine laws. Florida is also where a lot of media companies are headquartered.

Floridaman is in the headlines because all of the spotlights are pointed right at his most recent mistake.

Caligula wasn't insane the worthless senate just hated him so he started trolling them.

Here's another controversial (not contraversial ) take on history:

A lot of what the Bolsheviks did (the mass murder, the millions of deaths through famines, the totalitarian tyranny, the economic stagnation, the prohibitions on emigration) was extremely vile and evil, but the Bolsheviks did do a good thing in giving the various SSRs of the USSR a theoretical right to secession. Of course, it would have been much nicer had this right actually been capable of being actualized immediately rather than only after over 70 years!

The Mongol occupation of various parts of the former Kievan/Kyivan Rus’, though brutal, did help save the Rus’ statelets from a far worse fate: Catholic tyranny. This was at the height of the Crusades and the fallout of the Fourth Crusade could still be felt today.

TheRomanSlayer said:

The Mongol occupation of various parts of the former Kievan/Kyivan Rus’, though brutal, did help save the Rus’ statelets from a far worse fate: Catholic tyranny. This was at the height of the Crusades and the fallout of the Fourth Crusade could still be felt today.

Click to expand...

Russia might not be so backwards had the Catholics conquered them.

Carrot of Truth said:

Russian might not be so backwards had the Catholics conquered them.

Click to expand...

Well, not in the long(er)-run, at least.

Carrot of Truth said:

Russian might not be so backwards had the Catholics conquered them.

Click to expand...

But their interactions with Asia might end up becoming more negative. Northeastern Rus had a dreadful experience with Catholic Europe because of the Teutonic Order and its Crusader successors, and the whole episode involving Sigismund III Vasa’s foolhardy attempt to become a Catholic Tsar, leading to Russia viewing Catholicism negatively. While Catholicism did provide the building blocks for civilization, it ultimately failed to meet the Protestant challenges and later secret society based subversions.

The funny thing is, most of the Orthodox entities that were stuck between Catholic Crusaders and non-Christian powers preferred the latter. Nevsky chose to maintain good relations with the Horde, because they didn’t care much about religious affairs until Berke’s conversion to Islam. There was also that other council where the Byzantine Empire chose to subordinate its Church to the Papacy, only for its people to reject it outright, leading to the 1453 Conquest of Constantinople by the Ottoman Empire.

Nazism and Fascism were a natural reaction to Bolshevism. Had USSR not been formed in 1919., Second World War would not have happened even with the Great Depression.

TheRomanSlayer said:

The Mongol occupation of various parts of the former Kievan/Kyivan Rus’, though brutal, did help save the Rus’ statelets from a far worse fate: Catholic tyranny. This was at the height of the Crusades and the fallout of the Fourth Crusade could still be felt today.

Click to expand...

In what bubble do you live that you come up with something like "Catholic tyranny"?

Anyway, the Mongols didn't save them from anything, they just crushed them and destroyed a large part of the former Rus.

Another thing is that it wouldn't have mattered at all if the Polish rulers had seriously gone about conquering parts of Rus prior to feudal decay. OTL mainly overthrew rulers and put down those affiliated with Poland, religion didn't bother then. For our expansion then went to the West and not to the East.

If we had conquered the East then, much of it would be Catholic today.

Besides, the first Russian prince who broke free from the leash of the Horde, Prince Halytsky, although he was Orthodox, received the crown from the Pope, strange isn't it?

TheRomanSlayer said:

the whole episode involving Sigismund III Vasa’s foolhardy attempt to become a Catholic Tsar,

Click to expand...

He was not so much trying to be a tsar as to snatch from Moscow what belonged to the Commonwealth, and if he had tried, Hetman Zolkiewski, who was going to relieve the Polish garrison in the Kremlin in Moscow, would have had some forces that could have crushed the rebels and not almost nothing like OTL.

Besides, for what reason was he or his son to convert to Orthodoxy in a situation of complete mess in Moscow?

Moscow, no offense, but in that period it meant shit, and Orthodoxy was not necessary for anyone in Poland to be happy. Sigismund, by the way, if he seriously wanted to get the throne, he would have gotten it. Unlike his sons, he knew how to appoint both loyal and competent people to appropriate positions.

What bubble? The fact that I’m a former Catholic who has borne a grudge against the institution itself for a variety of reasons, including the increasingly backward thinking that is prompted by the Catholic Church. Granted, their Orthodox counterparts might have the same thinking as well, but at the very least the Orthodox Churches are built on a more ethnic nationalist basis, even if that was just as backward.

Aldarion said:

Nazism and Fascism were a natural reaction to Bolshevism. Had USSR not been formed in 1919., Second World War would not have happened even with the Great Depression.

Click to expand...

I think Germany probably still has a war with Poland over Prussia but then things probably fall into a cold war with the Soviet Union still

TheRomanSlayer said:

The fact that I’m a former Catholic who has borne a grudge against the institution itself for a variety of reasons, including the increasingly backward thinking that is prompted by the Catholic Church.

Click to expand...

And that's your problem, it blinds you to what really happened.
And the church and backward thinking, you know there were people who thought of themselves as progress and the church as backward, by some strange coincidence every idea of theirs ultimately ended badly. Well, and they always ended with a series of crimes.
Anyway, the church doesn't to backward thinking, just working thinking being a balance between the two extremes.

It is not true judgment, but your biases drawn from life that speak through you making the facts always line up in your eyes the way you want to see.

Aldarion said:

Nazism and Fascism were a natural reaction to Bolshevism. Had USSR not been formed in 1919., Second World War would not have happened even with the Great Depression.

Click to expand...

Well, it's rather obvious, after all, that's what their popularity was based on, that they were considered a better alternative than communism, if not for the geopolitical anomaly in the form of the USSR, probably the situation would have been more normal and the war would not have been a world war but a series of shorter unrelated conflicts.

So pretty controversial: Dred Scott was not actually a bad Supreme Court Decision.

Don't get me wrong, slavery is awful and shouldn't have happened. But the Supreme Court could not rule that slavery wasn't constitutional, it was literally baked into the constitution at that point. When you start from the assumption that slavery was legal and could not be removed by the court, Dred Scott is perfectly reasonable. It enforces property rights in an essential way, by enforcing that if your property crosses state lines, the new state is not allowed to randomly seize or meddle with your property.

The fact that said property was a human being certainly taints things from an emotional perspective but again, the court had no ability to alter that and was only legally allowed to look at things from a legalistic property-rights perspective. From that perspective, not allowing states to seize each other's citizens' property was the correct one.

Bear Ribs said:

Dred Scott was not actually a bad Supreme Court Decision.

Click to expand...

It was a garbage in, garbage out decision. It was quite simply putting to paper the natural results of the framework for Antebellum slavery, shocking many with the blunt confirmation of the prerequisites for the Southern legal system because it was quite the extreme position even among slave-owners. Nearly any other decision would require overturning enormous amounts of state law, and since incorporation of the Constitution was only after the Civil War...

Morphic Tide said:

It was a garbage in, garbage out decision. It was quite simply putting to paper the natural results of the framework for Antebellum slavery, shocking many with the blunt confirmation of the prerequisites for the Southern legal system because it was quite the extreme position even among slave-owners. Nearly any other decision would require overturning enormous amounts of state law, and since incorporation of the Constitution was only after the Civil War...

Click to expand...

Hmm, that's pretty much what I was thinking but Garbage-In-Garbage-Out is a much more elegant way of putting it than I did.

TheRomanSlayer said:

Tito did much more to damage Serbia’s territorial integrity than Hitler and Mussolini combined by cleaving off Kosovo and Vojvodina and turning them into autonomous provinces.

Also, literally anything to do with the Chetnik movement in general.

Click to expand...

Vojvodina is still a part of Serbia today. But Tito could have easily given the Serb-majority parts of Bosnia to Serbia and yet chose not to do so. So, the West respected Bosnia's (and Croatia's) territorial integrity but not Serbia's territorial integrity after the end of the Cold War.

Also, this might be an unpopular take among leftists:

The reason that leftist governance is probably more likely to turn abusive than rightist governance is is because leftists aim to be revolutionary--to radically change and shake-up the existing system. This necessitates greater brutality than simply preserving the status quo does. Rightists generally tend to be more in favor of preserving the status quo, unless they're of a revolutionary nature such as the Nazis, in which case rightists can also be extraordinarily brutal.

WolfBear said:

Vojvodina is still a part of Serbia today. But Tito could have easily given the Serb-majority parts of Bosnia to Serbia and yet chose not to do so. So, the West respected Bosnia's (and Croatia's) territorial integrity but not Serbia's territorial integrity after the end of the Cold War.

Click to expand...

Serbia is the red headed stepchild of Europe, No one likes them.