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

[Zachowon]

Well we could have used the American approach of mass slaughter and deportation to isolated wastelands that no one wants. Or if a group from a neighbouring nation seeks to gain control of some of our territory because a minority in that territory identifies with their nation would the US happy say "Oh yes you can have it."

On the 2nd point if nation A has about 3 times the population of nation B, plus vastly greater resources, isn't subject to blockade, bombardment, blackout and threat of invasion, enters the war over two years later than B and gains considerable information from B's wartime experience there would be something seriously wrong with A if it can't at least match and in some ways surpass B.

Frankly both nation's leaderships fouled things up with air power during the war was strategic bombing was in most cases a waste of time. It was effective against Japan because by the time the B-29 were used on lower level bombing attacks there was no real defensive operations and the Japanese housing and urban system made for massive civilian casualties. However for most of the war BC was a huge waste of sparse British resources and similarly the primary role of the USAAF in strategic bombing in Europe was that, once they abandon their doctrine that the bombers could fight their way through on their own and got long ranged escorts, the B-17s and B-24 made idea bait to lure the LW fighters into the air so they could be shot down.

Strategic bombing achieved the destruction of german factories.... both the RAF and USAAF.

The US supplied countless resources to Britain during the war to make sure they did not run out, even with a lot of the aircraft Britain had being home made.

Even before the range on the fighters like the lightning and the Mustang were increased the bombers were damn good at thier mission, even with the amount of losses they took.

Once the lightning and the Mustang had the range, the bombing missions became safer and the kills by the fighters did increase. Of course lilots still died.

One has to look at the design choices of the two forces to see where they focused thier strengths in

 

[stevep]

Eh, I don’t think no Saratoga means no French intervention and it wasn’t even just the French. The Spanish and the Netherlands contributed as well. The war was won in large part because of will to succeed and logistics because ultimately America was such a vast and overall rural land at the time that even though capitals and major cities were taken it didn’t do a whole lot to actually dampen the fighting ability, but cost an intense amount of resources and troops, and logistically deploying and maintaining a mass army overseas was a huge endeavor for an effort that was even totally popular at home, with a decent amount of pro American sentiment within Britain itself. Britain had pissed off enough of the great European powers at the time that they had ample reason to support the colonies and did, just to weaken Britain. The French probably would have intervened regardless of Saratoga.

They might have done but its generally the rebel success at Saratoga that presuaded the French that intervention was worth the effort. After all that meant war with Britain which was very expensive even if you end up with some gains and France gained very little out of the conflict. Other than a further big increase in their national debt that at the very least sped up the revolution by probably a decade or so. If the rebels had failed at Saratoga then a latter success might have prompt intervention by France and hence probably Spain, which were closely allied at the time.

Without that however the rebels go largely without guns, powder, artillery and other items probably most of all gold to pay for supplies and for their troops. Its often said that Britain had to bring everything over the Atlantic to fight the war but that's a myth. Apart from the substantial numbers of loyalists Britain had gold, which was a lot more attractive to most colonists that rebel script [i.e. paper money] especially when the latter wasn't backed by gold. The rebellion can continue for a period as a guerilla/terrorist [pick you choice] but would be unlikely to win without external support on a large scale.

 

[stevep]

Strategic bombing achieved the destruction of german factories.... both the RAF and USAAF.

Eventually although the vast majority of the damage was in the final months of the war as the German defences collapsed. In most areas German production peaked some time in 1944.

The US supplied countless resources to Britain during the war to make sure they did not run out, even with a lot of the aircraft Britain had being home made.

That was definitely in the interests of both powers but doesn't relate to the issue under discussion.

Even before the range on the fighters like the lightning and the Mustang were increased the bombers were damn good at thier mission, even with the amount of losses they took.

They were doing damage but not enough to seriously impact the German economy before the US ran out of a.c or aircrew. [True they could hire/build more but those would be coming in without experience and this is the equilavent of hitting an opposing boxer's fists with your face until he gives up. Vastly wasteful in terms of men and resources].

Once the lightning and the Mustang had the range, the bombing missions became safer and the kills by the fighters did increase. Of course lilots still died.

One has to look at the design choices of the two forces to see where they focused thier strengths in

As I said that was the primary success of the strategic bombing mission in the European theatre.

 

[FriedCFour]

They might have done but its generally the rebel success at Saratoga that presuaded the French that intervention was worth the effort.

I know, I’m just saying that I think that specific battle is somewhat overplayed. It would have probably taken a bit more time or a different battle, but the French still just had ample reason to intervene. Even if they didn’t directly gain territory, the fear was absolutely unchecked dominance of Britain colonially and navally, and that if they won there and retained the colonies Britain would then be able to exercise much more power over all other nations in Europe. It’s why it wasn’t just France but the Netherlands and Spain too. All the countries with nearby proximity to Britain contributed significant support for exactly that reason. You even had the league of Armed Neutrality composed of almost everyone else who stayed out of the fight which itself contributed. All had overseas trade and holdings, France just contributed more as they had just lost a major fight and their overseas Canadian territory and so the threat presented was much greater to them.

 

[absenceofmalice]

However, hate to say it, if Burgoyne had some grey cells to rub together, you'd have been fucked. Full stop. No Saratoga means no French intervention, and no French intervention means you lose.

"If we had just finished ze MAUS zen ve vud have ruled fora sousand yees"

 

[Lord Sovereign]

"If we had just finished ze MAUS zen ve vud have ruled fora sousand yees"

The Maus was a heavy tank that broke down all the time.

Saratoga was one of the most significant battles of the War of Independence.

I think we both know which scenario having a different outcome would be more influential.

 

[FriedCFour]

They might have done but its generally the rebel success at Saratoga that presuaded the French that intervention was worth the effort.

Yes, I’m just saying that if it was a different success, they likely still would have intervened with a separate decisive victory, and at least one was basically inevitable, especially given just why Saratoga failed so miserably which is in large part due to the long marches necessary to link up forces, and the need to have so many separate armies because of how large continental America was and how dissipated the population, as well as the vast land they had to travel, and the harassing actions they faced along the way while needing to drop off garrisons at the place they took, depleting forces and supplies as they moved. They had to go across heavily undeveloped routes with mass armies to reach population centers with different armies coordinating with one another to reach the same positions under Burgoyne and Howes strategy, which I think was pretty doomed to fail inevitably as they made their campaign without significant luck on their side or just a complete break in American morale, which at the same time had enough morale victories much earlier in the war in the case of Trenton, Bunker Hill, even Lexington and Concord. Americans had been able to take crushing defeats like the loss of Boston and New York and actually find aspects of that that were then turned around into morale victories which are incredibly important to the continuation of a war. With focusing on Saratoga so much you might as well just say “well if we won every single battle in the course of the war and never lost and captured Washington and had minimal casualties we would have won.” All of this to me is fairly useless. Even when there are decisive battles and turning points, it’s really hard to say in most wars that “if it had just gone differently the entire war would be completely different.”

 

[absenceofmalice]

The Maus was a heavy tank that broke down all the time.

Saratoga was one of the most significant battles of the War of Independence.

I think we both know which scenario having a different outcome would be more influential.

Its different in degree but it's still cope

 

[FriedCFour]

My actual most controversial take is that Great Man Theory is the best way to see history.

 

[Scottty]

Yes, I’m just saying that if it was a different success, they likely still would have intervened with a separate decisive victory, and at least one was basically inevitable, especially given just why Saratoga failed so miserably which is in large part due to the long marches necessary to link up forces, and the need to have so many separate armies because of how large continental America was and how dissipated the population, as well as the vast land they had to travel, and the harassing actions they faced along the way while needing to drop off garrisons at the place they took, depleting forces and supplies as they moved. They had to go across heavily undeveloped routes with mass armies to reach population centers with different armies coordinating with one another to reach the same positions under Burgoyne and Howes strategy, which I think was pretty doomed to fail inevitably as they made their campaign without significant luck on their side or just a complete break in American morale, which at the same time had enough morale victories much earlier in the war in the case of Trenton, Bunker Hill, even Lexington and Concord. Americans had been able to take crushing defeats like the loss of Boston and New York and actually find aspects of that that were then turned around into morale victories which are incredibly important to the continuation of a war. With focusing on Saratoga so much you might as well just say “well if we won every single battle in the course of the war and never lost and captured Washington and had minimal casualties we would have won.” All of this to me is fairly useless. Even when there are decisive battles and turning points, it’s really hard to say in most wars that “if it had just gone differently the entire war would be completely different.”

Something to remember, is how different things were back then without radio or any other form of quick communication. Ships at sea were literally out of contact until they reached their destination. One army would know nothing of what was happening with another, unless someone on a horse delivered news.

 

[stevep]

I know, I’m just saying that I think that specific battle is somewhat overplayed. It would have probably taken a bit more time or a different battle, but the French still just had ample reason to intervene. Even if they didn’t directly gain territory, the fear was absolutely unchecked dominance of Britain colonially and navally, and that if they won there and retained the colonies Britain would then be able to exercise much more power over all other nations in Europe. It’s why it wasn’t just France but the Netherlands and Spain too. All the countries with nearby proximity to Britain contributed significant support for exactly that reason. You even had the league of Armed Neutrality composed of almost everyone else who stayed out of the fight which itself contributed. All had overseas trade and holdings, France just contributed more as they had just lost a major fight and their overseas Canadian territory and so the threat presented was much greater to them.

Agree there might have been another such battle as a trigger at a later stage but going to war, even in a fairly autocratic monarchy, is a big decision when its against a powerful foe and your already deeply in debt. Britain seems to have had a period of serious diplomatic failure, which is normally one of our strong points, probably too much hubris after the 7YW and the belief we could succeed in protecting our interests without regard to events in Europe but it really came back to bite us in the butt here. However entering the conflict for France & Spain - which were close allies at the time - is something that's not taken too easily and might have ended up markedly worse for them than it did.

 

[S'task]

Agree there might have been another such battle as a trigger at a later stage but going to war, even in a fairly autocratic monarchy, is a big decision when its against a powerful foe and your already deeply in debt. Britain seems to have had a period of serious diplomatic failure, which is normally one of our strong points, probably too much hubris after the 7YW and the belief we could succeed in protecting our interests without regard to events in Europe but it really came back to bite us in the butt here. However entering the conflict for France & Spain - which were close allies at the time - is something that's not taken too easily and might have ended up markedly worse for them than it did.

I've done an extensive write up concerning the morality of the American Revolution here, but one thing that stands out in the summary of what lead up to it was the sheer, well, incompetence of the British handling of the American colonies, they did almost everything perfectly to drive the colonies into rebellion, to the point where the opposition party in the Parliament of the time (the Whigs) have members literally saying "hey you guys, the colonies are RIGHT to be objecting to these laws, are you TRYING to lose them?"

Basically, from about 1750 to 1780 the British took stupid pills or something when it came to diplomacy, as they managed to alienate previously very loyal colonies as well as set themselves up to have most of the continental European monarchies support said colonies in forming a REPUBLIC of all governments!

 

[AnimalNoodles]

Here is a take I have been pondering for a while.

There is a division between the Anglo upper classes and lower classes that is so deep it approaches an ethnic divide. This division exists in every country with an British derived culture.

Why is that?

Because it originally was.

The Normans conquered the Anglo Saxons, but were never overthrown. They sort of melted into the general culture and at some point began to identify as English.

But their sense of superiority, contempt for the commoners, piratical and mercantile nature never really changed. Instead it transmuted. The contempt for the Anglo-saxons mutated into a contempt for the underclasses in general. To this overclass the Anglo underclasses were and remain a mass of subhumans who exist solely for the profit of the overclasses. The overclasses feel no sympathy or sense of commonality with them. There is no sense of a shared *Ethnos* or solidarity in a shared culture and identity. This Norman overclass wont protect the interests of the people with whom they supposedly share ethnicity with. They wont lead or organise them them. They will only exploit them. That is because they still to some extent consider themselves as a people apart.

People speak of the "Eternal Anglo"..greedy, treacherous and ruthless. In reality its the Eternal Norman.

The culture of the anglo underclasses are something to be be scorned and held in contempt. Their interests are to be ignored. Their petty attempts at raising themselves to be crushed. They can be provided with social programs, but no attempt to raise their status or actual power will be tolerated. They exist to provide taxes and cannon fodder.

As long as the Norman overclasses had territorial empires to run or lands to colonise they feigned solidarity. Now that they dont have Indians (feather AND dot) and africans to ruthlessly exploit they feel they can dispense with this solidarity and become purely mercantile and piratical profit seekers. The Gammon, the Deplorables are now just another subjugated people, one of many except with no indigenous and organic leadership to protect them.

What is worse is that the migrant peoples imported to serve this Norman overclass as cheap labour and political clients have adopted the value system of the overclass. Naturally seeking to rise in status, they have quickly comprehended and thoroughly assimilated this contempt.

 

[Terthna]

Christianity is not responsible for the creation of western civilization as we know it; rather, western civilization is responsible for creating Christianity. In practical terms, what this means is that we would have been perfectly capable of developing a similar code of ethics and morals without it, because they were all rooted in much older ideas and philosophies Christianity itself took inspiration from.

 

[FriedCFour]

Christianity is not responsible for the creation of western civilization as we know it; rather, western civilization is responsible for creating Christianity. In practical terms, what this means is that we would have been perfectly capable of developing a similar code of ethics and morals without it, because they were all rooted in much older ideas and philosophies Christianity itself took inspiration from.

This is even gayer than the take on “if we had just developed the Maus we would have won!” No, no we wouldn’t, because it’s rooted in one central deity, a savior, and the nature of what humans are. You can’t boil a religion down to “a system of morals and ethics”. It’s a view on the function of the world and what value your life holds and gives you a purpose to your being.

 

[Val the Moofia Boss]

Christianity is not responsible for the creation of western civilization as we know it; rather, western civilization is responsible for creating Christianity. In practical terms, what this means is that we would have been perfectly capable of developing a similar code of ethics and morals without it, because they were all rooted in much older ideas and philosophies Christianity itself took inspiration from.

I don't think that "the world would have developed Christian ethics regardless", as those values were derived from the unique nature of Christianity. Every other religion appeals to your ego. "You can be a good person by doing X, Y, and Z!". Christianity doesn't tell you what you want to hear. Christianity tells you that your screwed, and no "good works" you do will make up for that. But that's okay, because God has taken care of everything. You need only accept his gift.

I don't think men would have come up with that, nor the values that go along with that. It's too contrary to men's sinful, self serving nature. The message could have only come from a divine source, and so too the values.

But I guess that's getting offtopic here. That's my 2 cents.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Alright, here's an opinion that may be niche.

Had the Zulu not attacked Rorke's Drift, they may well have "won" the Anglo-Zulu War. Simply put, as their King recognised, they could make the argument of "self-defence" against an unauthorised invasion which would wipe out public and political support for the war (what little there was initially) in Britain.

Essentially, had that Impi (Zulu regiment) not been so impetuous, the Zulu War could have been even more embarrassing for the British.

 

[Winston Bush]

Alright, here's an opinion that may be niche.

Had the Zulu not attacked Rorke's Drift, they may well have "won" the Anglo-Zulu War. Simply put, as their King recognised, they could make the argument of "self-defence" against an unauthorised invasion which would wipe out public and political support for the war (what little there was initially) in Britain.

Essentially, had that Impi (Zulu regiment) not been so impetuous, the Zulu War could have been even more embarrassing for the British.

Finally a hot take that (most likely) isn’t going to make someone irrationally angry!

 

[FriedCFour]

hristianity tells you that your screwed, and no "good works" you do will make up for that.

Tbf, that’s Protestant Christianity. Catholic Christianity is faith plus works.

 

[FriedCFour]

I feel like the “western civilization would be the same without christianity” needs to be hammered in more. Even if we entertain that there was just some atheistic system of morals and ethics somewhat resembling Christian morals and ethics that came about, even being generous and putting it in the same time frame, there’s no way it would supersede the Roman Religion and pantheon or the Germanic one because A. That doesn’t really challenge the pagan or Hellenic religions much at all, or give anyone a reason to stop believing in them, and B. Christianity was such a massive shaping force on the political and cultural face of Europe from the Late Roman Empire onwards. You’re talking about a western civilization that doesn’t remotely resemble what we have now in terms of what polities, what cultures, what nations, what actions they take. The closest thing you could point to that’s somewhat similar to Christianity that is in essence a system of morals and ethics is stoicism, and stoicism was a philosophy that mainly a select few elite who were educated and literate partook in and tried to pass down a bit to their subjects or soldiers, but it wasn’t something that remotely radically changed or reshaped the face of the west.