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

[Lord Sovereign]

They didn't get lucky at Lexington and Concord, instead the brits were (By Concord) hilariously outnumbered, by like 4 to 1, with a horrible job (walk though and back enemy territory using a known path). They were nearly surrounded at one point, then the relief force from Boston saved them with a cannon.

I could have worded that better, yes. I didn't entirely realise how badly the British were outnumbered that day, I just brought up Lexington and Concord because they are the battles that always get brought up as "proof" the militia were so much better than the slow, cumbersome British. Said people who use this example proceed to omit Camden from memory, but that's another story.

 

[Zachowon]

As much as we rip the mickey out of the French, almost all the local countries involved in the European war agree that the French Resistance were heroic, tough and never stopped fighting even at the risk of their live. They did have their reasons for surrendering that many can't empathise with, but they still fought for their homes both during and after both invasions in 1940 and 1944.

People just constantly give them shit for it, and they never stopped fighting. In some way shape or form.

There were French who surrendered, and French who fought on.
I am reminded though of how when Charles de Gaule demanded that all American soldiers be removed from France, general Eisenhower coldly asked if that included those buried there.

De Gaule was an ass, but he was a pretty good leader kf the French Free forces.

 

[Ash's Boomstick]

People just constantly give them shit for it, and they never stopped fighting. In some way shape or form.

De Gaule was an ass, but he was a pretty good leader kf the French Free forces.

I agree, we have both a millennia long rivalry and enmity with the French but we do acknowledge their own incredible military record as well as the willingness to put the good of their entire country at risk even after being forced to submit. As far as we're concerned the only people that have the right to rip the shit of the French are us and we'll back them up if they are every threatened.

Even if their politicos are assholes

 

[Zachowon]

I agree, we have both a millennia long rivalry and enmity with the French but we do acknowledge their own incredible military record as well as the willingness to put the good of their entire country at risk even after being forced to submit. As far as we're concerned the only people that have the right to rip the shit of the French are us and we'll back them up if they are every threatened.

Even if their politicos are assholes

They are one of our oldest allies, and even had a major part in helping make us...US.

Of course, we gove them shit because that is what America does. Gives everyone shit.

 

[stevep]

While the cited quotes indicate that the British went along with it, the demand for an all-white liberation of Paris was definitely coming from the United States, which was the only major power that enforced racial segregation in its military and was rather sensitive about this, especially since the British actively refused to force the segregation of civilian facilities in the vicinity of American bases. If anything, many British civilians got along noticeably better with black American soldiers than with white American soldiers -- as George Orwell's essays mentioned, the British perception of American GIs were that they were "oversexed, overpaid and over here", but "the general consensus of opinion is that the only American soldiers with decent manners are Negroes."

That would fit in with what I've read about WWI. There was a big victory march through Paris after the war and every nation sending troops included coloured units, generally from their colonies. The exception was the US which only included white troops with Pershing, the US commander being quoted as refusing to allow US coloured units in the march because "that would be an insult to the real soldiers".

Unfortunately while there was opposition to US segregation in the UK under political pressure [and possibly also economic pressure as there were a lot of white US troops with a lot of money] Britain ultimately seems to have given in to limiting access for black troops, including those from our own armies.

 

[Cherico]

They are one of our oldest allies, and even had a major part in helping make us...US.

Of course, we gove them shit because that is what America does. Gives everyone shit.

actually we give them shit because if we dont the french ego will be completely out of control.

 

[S'task]

I really don't think that's a controversial opinion; it's pretty much the opinion of everyone who has actually studied the American Revolution as opposed to just following the pop culture view of it.

The "elite" minutemen were usually the only militia who were particularly competent, and even then only as irregular light skirmishers. They practiced often enough to have competent-if-mediocre drill, but were still a far cry from regulars.

They didn't get lucky at Lexington and Concord, instead the brits were (By Concord) hilariously outnumbered, by like 4 to 1, with a horrible job (walk though and back enemy territory using a known path). They were nearly surrounded at one point, then the relief force from Boston saved them with a cannon.

Actual controversial take: Lexington and Concord were the less important incident that happened that week, much more critical to the success of the American Revolution was the Gunpowder Incident which happened one day later in Virginia, as it resulted in the complete removal of British control over Virginia and thus freed the colony up to serve as a major source of supplies and manpower to the other colonies that were in rebellion.

 

[Abhorsen]

Actual controversial take: Lexington and Concord were the less important incident that happened that week, much more critical to the success of the American Revolution was the Gunpowder Incident which happened one day later in Virginia, as it resulted in the complete removal of British control over Virginia and thus freed the colony up to serve as a major source of supplies and manpower to the other colonies that were in rebellion.

As a Lexington Native, I feel obligated to dispute this. My main issue is that although the gunpowder incident may have started it, it was the Battle of Great Bridge that actually won Virginia. In contrast, the tactical result of Lexington and Concord was 15k troops sieging Boston, and the nucleus of the continental army. The other crucial part was the information campaign, where both the British and Americans sent out reports of what happened to England, but because the Colonials carefully selected testimonials to send, and also chose a much faster ship, they made Gage look like a fool and in the wrong, even to Brits who didn't like the colonials, and thus stopped them from sending additional troops.

 

[Val the Moofia Boss]

The real United States died 160 years ago, when it decided that being a member of the Union was no longer voluntary. It was replaced by an evil empire pretending called "The United States" that went on to terrorize the rest of the world, and continues to do so to this day, all for money.

This isn't a defense of the Confederacy; the secession was absolutely about slavery and it was evil, but that doesn't mean that the Union were the good guys for fighting them. The Union became an evil empire.

The Southern economy was built on slavery, and straight up taking away slaves would kill it, unless they were compensated and could transition their economy. The South went to war to keep their slaves - their wealth - because Lincoln wasn't willing to buy out the slaves like the British government did with their slaves.

The North didn't go to war to free the slaves. The North went to war for... you guessed it: money. You don't see a lot of Union propaganda telling people to die to free black slaves. The propaganda was about "preserve the union!" (read: "Preserve the empire!). The Northern elite wanted to maintain the money coming in from the Southern ports, which were 75% of the ports in the US. If the South seceded, the US government, which was funded by tariffs, would have to find some other way to do it.

Once the North finished their conquest of the South (don't forget the mass rape of Southern women, but history is written by the victors and they mostly certainly don't teach that in history class), the new American Empire proceeded to ravage the rest of the world, using whatever they can to "justify" their new conquest. See the conquest of Cuba. Or the conquest of the Philipines. Or the conquest of Japan. Or the conquest of Korea. Or the conquest of Hawaii. And so on. When a vassal state becomes too powerful to comfortably control - like Japan - the US then treats them as an enemy and levels them into the ground and enslaves them once more. (NOT defending the Imperial Junta; yes those people were batshit crazy, but that doesn't make the US's response right)

Make no mistake: Lincoln and Roosevelt aren't heroes. They were evil emperors. And the American generals who indiscriminately bombed British and French and German and Chinese and Japanese cities are no heroes either.

------

RE: Revolutionary War talk going on above

I've seen that historians like to downplay the efforts of the local American town militias, focusing on the Continental Army. Yes, statistically the milita were terrible in traditional battles, but big battles isn't what won the war. It was their efforts outside of the big battles that won the wars. They were the insurgency in cities stealing and destroying British supplies. They were the information net that saved Washington's ass time and time again. They were the ambushers who killed the most British troops. Most combat in the Revolution wasn't in big battles between armies, but ambushes and small skirmishes by the militia. And for the big battles between armies, the militia were essentially for acting as "speed bumps" to slow down and deter the enemy's advance while the Continental Army got set up. They were the true heroes.

 

[S'task]

The South went to war to keep their slaves - their wealth - because Lincoln wasn't willing to buy out the slaves like the British government did with their slaves.

[citation needed] Everything I've ever seen concerning Lincoln indicated he had no intention of ending the institution of slavery when he was elected. The entire secession was, save for Virginia and a few of the other of the states that seceded post-Sumpter, a temper tantrum over losing an election founded on propagandistic fear of what the incoming Republican President would do rather than anything Lincoln actually said he would do...

. . . Which sounds kinda familiar when you think about it.

 

[The Mandarin]

Lincoln was not a nice man.

 

[Zachowon]

Lincoln was not a nice man.

Citations

 

[Cherico]

Citations

Winning one of the most important wars in your nations history doesn't leave you much room to be 'nice'. And the office some times requires you to be a bit of a bastard to be effective.

 

[Terthna]

CdG is seen as an arse by just about everyone including the french themselves, he was dismissive of anyone that fought to feee the french including his own colonial troops. There's a story where the famous 'french troops entering Paris' film/photos are mostly German POWs dressed up in french uniforms so they didn't have to march in coloured colonial forces. Also demanding that his people be the first in the city even though other allied units were closer and better equipped.

Honestly, everything that went wrong for the French during World War 2 can be traced back to stupid decisions made by their ruling elite. They weren't cowards; they were led by spoiled brats more interested in soothing their own egos than actually doing their jobs.

 

[gral]

De Gaule was an ass, but he was a pretty good leader kf the French Free forces.

Charles de Gaulle was an unmitigated ass, a megalomaniac who loved France but little else*. That was the sort of person needed to take the exiled forces of a defeated and occupied country, and make them enough of a factor that they got a seat in the table of the New World Order(1945 version). Furthermore, he made sure his country could stay in the place it got after that.

*That little else included his daughter, who had Down's Syndrome. At a time when people hid their children who had Down's somewhere where they could forget about them, he spent time with her whenever he could(in London, he often took her to Hyde Park), and took care to talk, sing and amuse her whenever they were together. When Anne de Gaulle died after the War, he commented(supposedly to his wife): 'Now, she's like the others'.

 

[Winston Bush]

The real United States died 160 years ago, when it decided that being a member of the Union was no longer voluntary. It was replaced by an evil empire pretending called "The United States" that went on to terrorize the rest of the world, and continues to do so to this day, all for money.

This isn't a defense of the Confederacy; the secession was absolutely about slavery and it was evil, but that doesn't mean that the Union were the good guys for fighting them. The Union became an evil empire.

The Southern economy was built on slavery, and straight up taking away slaves would kill it, unless they were compensated and could transition their economy. The South went to war to keep their slaves - their wealth - because Lincoln wasn't willing to buy out the slaves like the British government did with their slaves.

The North didn't go to war to free the slaves. The North went to war for... you guessed it: money. You don't see a lot of Union propaganda telling people to die to free black slaves. The propaganda was about "preserve the union!" (read: "Preserve the empire!). The Northern elite wanted to maintain the money coming in from the Southern ports, which were 75% of the ports in the US. If the South seceded, the US government, which was funded by tariffs, would have to find some other way to do it.

Once the North finished their conquest of the South (don't forget the mass rape of Southern women, but history is written by the victors and they mostly certainly don't teach that in history class), the new American Empire proceeded to ravage the rest of the world, using whatever they can to "justify" their new conquest. See the conquest of Cuba. Or the conquest of the Philipines. Or the conquest of Japan. Or the conquest of Korea. Or the conquest of Hawaii. And so on. When a vassal state becomes too powerful to comfortably control - like Japan - the US then treats them as an enemy and levels them into the ground and enslaves them once more. (NOT defending the Imperial Junta; yes those people were batshit crazy, but that doesn't make the US's response right)

Make no mistake: Lincoln and Roosevelt aren't heroes. They were evil emperors. And the American generals who indiscriminately bombed British and French and German and Chinese and Japanese cities are no heroes either.

------

RE: Revolutionary War talk going on above

I've seen that historians like to downplay the efforts of the local American town militias, focusing on the Continental Army. Yes, statistically the milita were terrible in traditional battles, but big battles isn't what won the war. It was their efforts outside of the big battles that won the wars. They were the insurgency in cities stealing and destroying British supplies. They were the information net that saved Washington's ass time and time again. They were the ambushers who killed the most British troops. Most combat in the Revolution wasn't in big battles between armies, but ambushes and small skirmishes by the militia. And for the big battles between armies, the militia were essentially for acting as "speed bumps" to slow down and deter the enemy's advance while the Continental Army got set up. They were the true heroes.

Sources? Because those are some bold claims.

 

[Zachowon]

Winning one of the most important wars in your nations history doesn't leave you much room to be 'nice'. And the office some times requires you to be a bit of a bastard to be effective.

He was nicer then others for sure though

Honestly, everything that went wrong for the French during World War 2 can be traced back to stupid decisions made by their ruling elite. They weren't cowards; they were led by spoiled brats more interested in soothing their own egos than actually doing their jobs.

Exactly

Charles de Gaulle was an unmitigated ass, a megalomaniac who loved France but little else*. That was the sort of person needed to take the exiled forces of a defeated and occupied country, and make them enough of a factor that they got a seat in the table of the New World Order(1945 version). Furthermore, he made sure his country could stay in the place it got after that.

*That little else included his daughter, who had Down's Syndrome. At a time when people hid their children who had Down's somewhere where they could forget about them, he spent time with her whenever he could(in London, he often took her to Hyde Park), and took care to talk, sing and amuse her whenever they were together. When Anne de Gaulle died after the War, he commented(supposedly to his wife): 'Now, she's like the others'.

He was the stubborn Frenchman France needed

 

[ShadowArxxy]

He was the stubborn Frenchman France needed

France certainly made out like bandits despite being on the losing side of WWII, so very much yes. It's easy to hate de Gaulle because his interests and those of France very much go against the United States, but he played the Allied leaders like fiddles to get France ahead. And given that he was French, you do have to respect that his loyalties lay with *his* nation and not ours.

It's kind of funny, Churchill was just as big an asshole, but he gets a free pass on it because Americans almost treat England as if it's best interests are automatically ours.

 

[absenceofmalice]

"Muh only tea tax" narrative is hilarious propaganda cope from the brits who are still seething over the revolution theres your take.

 

[gral]

It's kind of funny, Churchill was just as big an asshole, but he gets a free pass on it because Americans almost treat England as if it's best interests are automatically ours.

Agreed; my take on Churchill is similar to de Gaulle: a bastard, but exactly the person Britain needed at the time. He seemed to be more likeable than de Gaulle, though.