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

[Doomsought]

I think Abraham Lincoln was a war criminal and a dictator who should have been impeached, tried and executed the moment the 13th and 14th amendments were ratified.

MacArthur should have gone forward with his coup against Truman and we would be in a much better world if someone did the same to FDR a few years before WW2.

Hell, I'll go one step further and say we would have been better off if hte Cold War went hot than we are now. Cities can recover from nuclear bombs, and the dangerous part of fallout diminishes very quickly. I cannot say the same for areas ruled over by communism. It leaves a miasma of corruption and human exploitation that never seems to go away.

 

[WolfBear]

True but waging a war under such difficult circumstances was very costly for Britain. Having a peace while Britain can look to rebuild defences and think over what lessons it needs to learn as well as possibly looking to improve its production and for more allies could be useful.

The question is not turning the war machine back on as rearmament will be even more essential, although at a somewhat slower rate. More getting the political will to resume the war at a point the leadership thinks is right [or if desperate required] and carrying the population with it. Having been defeated and clearly humiliated in Norway and France is a big incentive for that as would be the continued clear threat of Nazi Germany but it would be a major call as long as Germany looks so dominant. The issues would be:
a) What happens when Germany attacks the Soviets. Its likely to go worse for the Soviets without German OTL losses and commitments against Britain and its allies but then the Germans still have a huge task and Stalin is far less likely to be surprised while Hitler might well do something really stupid, like order an autumn 40 invasion. Britain must act before the Soviet Union is defeated or alternatively defeating the Nazis and their allies. Otherwise the winner, unless it ends up a war of mutual exhaustion, is simply going to be too powerful.

b) What happens in the Far East. With Britain not tied up as completely in OTL and almost certainly France having some sort of peace settlement - I have seen it suggested that Hitler would refuse that so he could continue the massive looting of France but I'm not convinced here - Japan's position is a lot weaker. It might be it gets drawn into the attack on the Soviets, in which case what does the US & UK do? Or it could get alienated from Germany. Britain, once its secured peace in Europe could take a much stronger line with Japan including aid to China from its war industries - assuming China can pay something as Britain needs funds. Is Japan forced to back down in China, or does it risk a war against the western powers and if so does it include the US on its hit list?

The good point about a war in the east would be it would clear up the theatre and remove threat of near term future conflict there as well as giving Britain a chance to test new tactics, equipment etc. Also there's an outside chance of worthwhile defensive relations being established with the US. The bad thing of course is that it ties up Britain and causes draining of resources when they might be needed in Europe.

One thing worth keeping in mind is that with Britain no longer being in the war, there might very well be no Lend-Lease. I'm highly unsure that the US Congress would actually approve of Lend-Lease when only the Soviet Union will be benefitting from it and not Britain. In turn, this could be decisive on the Eastern Front later on.

An autumn 1940 invasion of the USSR is probably unlikely since Nazi Germany presumably needs time to lick its wounds after its victory in France. But Operation Barbarossa could start ten days earlier (June 10, 1941) since that's when the spring rains have already ended and the roads in the Soviet Union stopped being muddy. Here, the Soviet Union will be more prepared for the initial punch in Operation Barbarossa but will also be much capable of fighting a long war of attrition against the Nazis due to no Lend-Lease.

And if Britain makes peace in 1940, then presumably the Nazis get some kind of peace treaty with France that gives them territorial concessions, limits on the French military, and perhaps some reparations while also allowing them to withdraw from France. This could make a subsequent British reentry into the war much harder since they would then likely have to violate French neutrality to do this.

 

[Scottty]

Aparthied isn't what you think it was. It wasn't because they were black. It was because they immigrated into South Africa without becoming citizens. Its what the Democrats are creating with illegal immigration

Well... it's a lot more complex than that.

Back in the 19th century and earlier, the area was a bunch of different little African kingdoms and Dutch colonies, and they mostly left one another alone.
Then the British Empire came rolling in and conquered them all, and made the Union of South Africa. The main motive for this was: Gold! So much gold!
Just those pesky Boers getting in the way!
Because the Boers resisted, the Empire put them all - their entire civilian population - in concentration camps. I am not making this up.
To this day some among the Afrikaner people probably still believe that it was a deliberate attempt at genocide. (it wasn't)

Now the new capitalist Global World Order's plan for the region was basically resource extraction: black labor being used to dig up that gold, for the profit of international capital. They imposed taxes on the Africans that they could get money to pay only by leaving their traditional way of life and becoming wage-labourers in the mines.
As for the Dutch/Boers/Afrikaners, they could go away and die.

Well, they didn't go away and die. They went and voted in a government - the National Party - that would rule for their benefit, and enact policies to lift them out of the poverty the devastation made by the Empire had left them in. And the NP kept that promise.
As for the blacks, the National Party's Apartheid policy was to give then back self-rule, in the areas where they had been living before the Empire conquered them - thus the homelands or Bantustans.
This meant they would not be citizens of the Republic of South Africa, but of those independent states - Transkei, KwaZulu, Bophutatswana, etc etc. Each Bantu tribe got their own one.
But the main goal of course was the economic upliftment of the white Afrikaner.

In the eyes of the globalists - Capitalist or Communist - this was totally unacceptable! How dare a group of White people put their own survival and prosperity ahead of the abstract ideas of global humanity? That's racist!

Well, actually, the West was in practice willing to work with the Nats as long as that gold kept coming out of the ground. The Communist bloc therefore sided with the black "liberation" movements - which in practice waged a campaign of terror against the very people they claimed to be trying to "liberate"!
Who do you think got necklaced? Answer: black people who were accused of working with the white government.

TLDR version: In regard to the whole Apartheid thing, the Afrikaner people were and are more sinned against than sinning.

 

[WolfBear]

Aparthied isn't what you think it was. It wasn't because they were black. It was because they immigrated into South Africa without becoming citizens. Its what the Democrats are creating with illegal immigration

Except with illegal immigrants, their descendants will be US citizens due to birthright citizenship. So, the US won't have a hereditary caste system like apartheid South Africa had.

 

[Aldarion]

World War 2 was a conflict between three equally evil ideologies (liberalism, Nazism, Communism) and no matter which one won, the civilization will have lost. Europe was destroyed in World War I, while II was merely an epilogue of that.

 

[WolfBear]

World War 2 was a conflict between three equally evil ideologies (liberalism, Nazism, Communism) and no matter which one won, the civilization will have lost. Europe was destroyed in World War I, while II was merely an epilogue of that.

Liberalism was by far the least evil of these. I like the kind of liberalism that people like Arthur Jensen were advocating. Anti-racism but also anti-Woke and pro-free speech and pro-free inquiry.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

World War 2 was a conflict between three equally evil ideologies (liberalism, Nazism, Communism) and no matter which one won, the civilization will have lost. Europe was destroyed in World War I, while II was merely an epilogue of that.

Liberalism doesn't have anywhere near the same kind of blood on its hands. The worst thing you can say about it is that, without a strong set of ethics to frame it, or even religion, it can all too easily descend into thoughtless and self-destructive hedonism. This is a very far cry from liquidating the undesirables.

 

[WolfBear]

Liberalism doesn't have anywhere near the same kind of blood on its hands. The worst thing you can say about it is that, without a strong set of ethics to frame it, or even religion, it can all too easily descend into thoughtless and self-destructive hedonism. This is a very far cry from liquidating the undesirables.

It can also create a tyrannical totalitarian dictatorship, as with Communism, or a hereditary caste system, but with victim (or alleged victim) castes on top and with oppressor (or alleged oppressor) castes on the bottom. This is why CRT is so dangerous: Because it attempts to portray whites as oppressors whereas in reality it very likely isn't the case.

 

[Morphic Tide]

This is why CRT is so dangerous: Because it attempts to portray whites as oppressors whereas in reality it very likely isn't the case.

Point of order, the reason for this is because it's extremely well established historic fact and the grifters find it remarkably trivial to keep the grudges going after the fact, and revive them where they lapsed.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Deconstructivism.

This all comes out of the deconstructivists of the French Revolution.

All of it.

All the evils of communism. Post modernism, fascism, liberalism all comes from the Deconstructivists.

 

[WolfBear]

Point of order, the reason for this is because it's extremely well established historic fact and the grifters find it remarkably trivial to keep the grudges going after the fact, and revive them where they lapsed.

As I think that Steve Sailer once said: "The less racism exists, the more we hear about it!"

 

[Yinko]

"The less racism exists, the more we hear about it!"

I've lived in some pretty racist countries, and yeah, they never mention it.

 

[WolfBear]

I've lived in some pretty racist countries, and yeah, they never mention it.

Which ones?

 

[Aldarion]

Liberalism was by far the least evil of these. I like the kind of liberalism that people like Arthur Jensen were advocating. Anti-racism but also anti-Woke and pro-free speech and pro-free inquiry.

Liberalism doesn't have anywhere near the same kind of blood on its hands. The worst thing you can say about it is that, without a strong set of ethics to frame it, or even religion, it can all too easily descend into thoughtless and self-destructive hedonism. This is a very far cry from liquidating the undesirables.

Maybe so. But liberalism's focus on individualism, secularism and democracy basically dismantles many of the primary obstacles to growth of modern-style Marxism. If individual is removed from traditional social support groups (e.g. extended family), he will look to state for protection. Removing religion from life leads to a drive to look for alternate religions - which Marxism fundamentally is. And promotion of democracy also tends to lead to promotion of equality, which again - once you accept equality as a core value, it is difficult to stop at mere "equality before the law".

So the question here is: is enabling genocide less evil than directly doing it?

 

[TheRejectionist]

• People forgetting that 99% of our RECORDED history was basically WH40K between humans.

• The beautiful myth of the short-lived convivencia in Spain and the horror movie level myth of the Inquisition of the Spanish Inquisition, who didn't considered well information or confessions extracted through brute force or torture and was one of the few institutions to give punishment for rape.

• World War was just the Anglo-French coalition trying to keep their world order.

• Same thing the 2nd. Nazi-fascism and communism, to those who didn't live the horrors of Stalin's communism and Hitler National Socialism, they were alternatives to an abhorrent system.

• Capitalism was and is evil, only difference with Communism is that capitalism and liberalism and neoliberalism is you can't pinpoint to a few individuals such as Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin and more.

• Capitalism, liberalism and neoliberalism have become totalitarian and monopolistic.

• Too many monopolies, regardless if they are state-owned or privately owned. The biggest offenders are Wikipedia, Google, Youtube Nestle, Pfizer, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook and whatever the lizardman owns. They can do what they want : slavery, using people as lab rats or resource (information) extraction, control information and more.

• Don't disregard people like Guenon, Junger, Pound, Evola just because they are "traditionalist", "conservative" and "right wing"

• Feminist didn't achieve shit on their own, the same men they complained and complain about are the ones who they have to thank if their not treated as currency or worse.

 

[Yinko]

Which ones?

Myanmar, Cambodia, Iraq, with a sprinkling of a few more.

 

[WolfBear]

Myanmar, Cambodia, Iraq, with a sprinkling of a few more.

Whom are Iraqis racist towards? Kurds?

 

[TheRejectionist]

Whom are Iraqis racist towards? Kurds?

Also between each other. Christian vs Islamic, Sunni vs Shia and so on.

 

[WolfBear]

Also between each other. Christian vs Islamic, Sunni vs Shia and so on.

Those are religions, not races.

 

[TheRejectionist]

Those are religions, not races.

They treat each other as if they were different races.