LightSpectra
me autem minui
Perhaps you should also mention Court packing, the almost-German genocide (Morgenthau plan), the Japanese-American internment, and burning crops when people suffered from malnutrition to raise food prices.
Misconceptions We Learn in School.
- Thread starter Fr8monkey
- Start date
Perhaps you should also mention Court packing, the almost-German genocide (Morgenthau plan), the Japanese-American internment, and burning crops when people suffered from malnutrition to raise food prices.
I don't remember the kill all Germans part of that plan.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Do you remember the estimation of how many millions would die in the process of de-industrializing Germany and mass forced emigration?
aukrest
History Buff
This is so sad because I was taught basically the same thing. A whole chapter of the book to each of those and then India and then it is suddenly time for Columbus to set sail...
That beats the history I learned in elementary school. Basically showng that Europeans only existed briefly in the 10th/11th centuries, then revived in the 1534. And Asians didn't exist until the late 19th century, and then only as labour to build railroads.
India wasn't mentioned till Columbus proved that the world was round (Yes this is what I was taught).
My ninth grade history books seemed like that (High School World History)
My high school never actually offered World History. Just 20th century Canada (required course, up to teh 20th century was supposed to be covered before High School), US (two courses around civil war) and European (two courses, officially split at ~1500, but the one basically only covered Greece and Rome). US and Europe were offered in different terms and alternated periods each year.
Of course that school only has the bare minimum of course offerings, and history is one of the least important (not necessary even going into history at University and probably even a detriment with the amount of BS in the courses) so it got slashed pretty easily.
Of course that school only has the bare minimum of course offerings, and history is one of the least important (not necessary even going into history at University and probably even a detriment with the amount of BS in the courses) so it got slashed pretty easily.
What would the Royal Navy have done to the Americans that it wasn't doing already anyway? The British essentially retained naval superiority in the West for the entire war, save for the brief episode around Yorktown. And if the British aren't forced to surrender at Yorktown and manage somehow to evacuate, then what happens? I won't say that the French didn't play a major part in the war, but citing this as The Reason for why the British lost the war is pretty rich.
The Royal Navy was going to capture cities and strike deep into the American countryside?aronnax said:
To do that, you have to indicate somehow that resources diverted would have been more effectively used in the Americas were the French, Dutch, Spanish et al. a nonfactor. Which is not necessarily the case. It's like how part of the argument goes for fellating Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck and his East African campaigns in the First World War - ostensibly his maneuvers, defense of Tanganyika, and invasion of Portuguese and British territory diverted more than a hundred thousand troops that would have been employed on the Western Front. But most of those soldiers were South Africans or Indians who were only in it to attack the German colonies, or the Belgian Congolese (same thing). Almost none of that manpower was realistically going to turn up on the Western Front if Lettow-Vorbeck and his men went quietly. So it is with the British in the War of the American Revolution: if you're doing a straight resource-analysis, you have to factor in that most of the land forces that were mobilized to react to the Armada of '79 would never have participated in the fighting in the Thirteen Colonies, and that the naval forces probably couldn't have helped much more than they already were.aronnax said:
Now, so that we're clear on where I stand here, I think that French support, both diplomatic and military, was instrumental in the war and the peace to the Allied cause. I don't care to speculate about what the loss of French material or diplomatic support would have meant for the American revolutionary cause because I'm not really interested in the period enough to learn enough to seriously think about counterfactuals. So I guess my opinion doesn't carry a whole lot of weight here, just like with the Second World War (which I think was a joint victory more than anything else). But I will say this: the French could not have done anything without the Americans, end of story. Vergennes wouldn't even think about it for awhile, and had to be goaded by a combination of Saratoga, court politics, and Continental political issues. Without the diplomatic and military wedge that the American rebellion offered, the French weren't going to give it a try. And without the warm bodies that the Americans threw at the British, the French would have had to resort to the Habsburgs, to fight in say Germany against the British in Hannover, and that had disaster written all over it for all involved. Now, you can speculate on what the Americans would have done without the French - I'll try not to get that involved - but if it were the other way around, the British wouldn't have had any problems.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Excellent post 
European aid was invaluable (guns from France were smuggled by Spain into America, for example), but the British simply couldn't control the countryside and lost when they did. Even without French help, good generalship and logistical problems limited them to New York and certain places in the south.
European aid was invaluable (guns from France were smuggled by Spain into America, for example), but the British simply couldn't control the countryside and lost when they did. Even without French help, good generalship and logistical problems limited them to New York and certain places in the south.
That I don't consider a problem.
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
I'll tackle your post when the weekend comes around Dach, too busy as of now to bog myself down in it.
Just some small bits though.
What I meant was that the Royal Navy captures the Coastal Cities, the British Army stockpiles supply in them and then strike into the countryside.
Okay, I might have overestimated myself and the ability of the British to fight the Revolution. But I do think that, just before the French entry into war, right after the Philadelphia and Saratoga Campaign, both of them which were major wins for both sides, the war could have gone either way. While either outcome was possible, at that defining moment in time, I feel that the British had a much better chance in defeating the US than the US did in defeating the British. The intervention of France and Spain and the Dutch, swung the favour decisively in the US.
On your post about the comparison with the WWI Campaign in East German Africa, I will agree with you. But the resources that I believe are crucial to the war against America that are being diverted by Europe, was the British Royal Navy, not the land forces recruited for defense.
Just some small bits though.
What I meant was that the Royal Navy captures the Coastal Cities, the British Army stockpiles supply in them and then strike into the countryside.
Okay, I might have overestimated myself and the ability of the British to fight the Revolution. But I do think that, just before the French entry into war, right after the Philadelphia and Saratoga Campaign, both of them which were major wins for both sides, the war could have gone either way. While either outcome was possible, at that defining moment in time, I feel that the British had a much better chance in defeating the US than the US did in defeating the British. The intervention of France and Spain and the Dutch, swung the favour decisively in the US.
On your post about the comparison with the WWI Campaign in East German Africa, I will agree with you. But the resources that I believe are crucial to the war against America that are being diverted by Europe, was the British Royal Navy, not the land forces recruited for defense.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
The Royal Navy dominated before France entered the war. They had an absolute blockade as much as was practical. It wasn't absolutely practical, since that would mean blockading loyal subjects along with rebellious ones. The blockade could only do so much, the colonies simply didn't have to rely on the coast.
wolfigor
Emperor
Well... they apply pretty well to more "recent" empires like Russian Empire or Hapsburg's Empire but if one applies such definitions to the Roman Empire he'll get quite weird results.
- "Emperor" head of state
In first the roman emperors for quite long time did rule giving more or less lip service to the republic and the senate.
Effectively the title "emperor" was used as temporary honorific for successful military generals.
"Imperator", the latin word from which "emperor" come from, was a title originally roughly equivalent to commander.
Only after the reign of Tiberius, the act of being proclaimed imperator was transformed into the act of imperial accession. In fact, if a general was acclaimed by his troops as imperator, it would be tantamount to a declaration of rebellion against the ruling emperor.
- State that rules over more than one ethnicity
The roman state used to rule over multiple ethnicities in republican times when the state was far from an empire in the classical term: rulers did not inherit the title for life but they were appointed by the senate for one year sharing the power with another person (it's like if you get two prime ministers at the same time).
- The informal usage is any state that severely exploits the resources of a certain socio-political group for the favor of another
This pretty much cover every existing state in the world, in the past, present, and (most likely) future.
In any case the roman state started assuming the form of empire after Caesar:
- one only person as head of state
- title is mostly inherited
- head of state has absolute power over all other parts of the government
- head of state is head of military (supreme commander)
The roman state under Julius Caesar did not have all these characteristics, only under Augustus the roman state got them.
Anyway, coming back to the original misconception: Augusts did not call himself emperor, but to all extent can be considered the first emperor of Rome.
Augustus ruled as "princep", meaning chief or first, a kind of "first among equals" among the citizens of Rome to avoid other titles abhorred by the romans, like the title "Rex" ("king"), and after Julius Caesar also "Dictator".
not completely true.
The misconception is that he was a good president - he really wasn't. LS was pointing out the crap things he did that made him a bad president, not saying they were everything he did.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Misconception: That Roosevelt being a good or bad president is something that is easily decided and one position can clearly be labeled wrong, and the belief in it to be a misconception.
I wouldn't say he was bad - well, actually, I would, but I'm not going to try toforce that subjective argument onto others - but he certainly was not good. He was competent at best, and the record proves that.
From my perspective, and pretty much anybody in Western Europe, Canada, Australia, China, Soviet Union, etc he was one of the best presidents possible.
Of course that wasn't exactly his job, but it still isn't that black and white, and all presidents have good (even Bush) and bad (even JFK and Raegan), so just because he did bad things, you cannot determine him to be bad things, unless you also take into account good things.
I am sure that you take those things into account in your mind, but just posting a list of faults creates a misleading impression.
Similar threads
