What is the most misunderstood historical event?

[daft]

"So who ended the Byzantine Empire?"
"Those bloody Turkish immigrants, they're at it again. First the Arabs in Spain, now those bastards. What's this world coming to?"

Towards the End my friend, yes, and then, the new beginning...

 

[gay_Aleks]

If you're "my friend", can I ask to change friends?

 

[daft]

If you're "my friend", can I ask to change friends?

Never mind, you're as hopeless as the rest...

 

[gay_Aleks]

Contrary to popular thought, stealing a machinegun and then taking it to the border so that you can shoot "those Syrian immigrants" is illegal.

 

[HannibalBarka]

No, it's easy to decide who's a Scot, my grandfather was, he was born in Scotland.
As for Popes being misguided, depends on how they carried out their duties, not where they were born.

No a true Scotsman is one wearong a kilt, everyone knows that.
As for you deciding that some Popes were misgided Christians, only misguided Catholics will say so

The Byzantines tried to fight the Muslim Turks the old fashioned way, but they wouldn't commit to a battle, would raze the countryfield, run away from Byzantine armies, wait for them to get exhausted, tired, then they would attack, routing and killing them, mercilessly.
...

No truth is, the Muslim Turks tried to fight The Byzantines the old fashioned way, but they wouldn't commit to a battle, and hided cowerdely behind walls

 

[abradley]

No a true Scotsman is one wearong a kilt, everyone knows that.
As for you deciding that some Popes were misgided Christians, only misguided Catholics will say so

Thank you for pleasant, enjoyable reply.

Is this Scottish enough?

 

[gay_Aleks]

Those are the only living Scots in Scotland. The rest are Irish that were too unfit to be even in Ireland.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I'm curious what the State Department had to do with it. The US did intend to counterattack Japan if it attacked the Dutch East Indies, or did the State Department blunder into letting the Japanese incorrectly think they would?

It was the policy of the U.S. Government to hinder the Japanese war effort by everything short of war. Roosevelt, and the people close to him catastrophically misjudged what that entailed (Roosevelt himself thought he could get away with blockading Japan without causing a war.)

The Roosevelt administration conducted the effective embargo by a loophole. Congress never passed any such embargo, and there was no coordination to such an effect with the Dutch and British. I can't detail the process by which they achieved this without a reference text in front of me (and like many of mine, it was lost in Hurricane Sandy) but the key which made it possible was the fact that the world's currency markets were largely non-convertible at the time (due to war(s).) The U.S. Made it impossible to convert Yen into Dollars, which in turn made it impossible for the Japanese to enter into trade with pretty much anyone else.

At the same time, the U.S. government effectively seized Japan's gold reserves, which had at the time been held physically in New York.

Japanese efforts to negotiate settlement on these policies (Congress had passed the relevant legislature with the intention that these powers would only BE used by the administration for negotiation) were outright refused. There was no willingness to even engage in diplomacy with the Japanese on this matter, including offers of a direct meeting between the President and the Prime Minister.

The Dutch East Indies oil supply did not factor into Japanese deliberations because Japan HAD oil reserves to last it for a decade. The economic warfare carried out by the United States limited their access to refined, high quality fuels for airplanes and naval ships, which they had only limited ability to produce themselves. The DEI were occupied on the recognition that they were effectively a British/Anglo Trusteeship at the time.

So the American policy was specifically to avoid war with Japan, and it failed catastrophically, because American officials in the state department and the treasury took every power that was given to them and used it to it's full potential, even beyond what those crafting it imagined.

The other thing that is never appreciated was that Japan lost the war in China. By 1941 a stalemate favorable to the Chinese had already set in. The War was disrupting the Japanese economy, down to basic services causing things like increasing rates of TB. The IJA had reached the full extent of it's occupation but had failed to destroy the warmaking potential of China. Sooner or later, Japan would have to demobilize, and then they'd be quickly driven out of China. Japan lost it's war with China, and thought it could reverse the situation by winning a war with Britain and America.

 

[abradley]

It was the policy of the U.S. Government to hinder the Japanese war effort by everything short of war. Roosevelt, and the people close to him catastrophically misjudged what that entailed (Roosevelt himself thought he could get away with blockading Japan without causing a war.)

The Roosevelt administration conducted the effective embargo by a loophole. Congress never passed any such embargo, and there was no coordination to such an effect with the Dutch and British. I can't detail the process by which they achieved this without a reference text in front of me (and like many of mine, it was lost in Hurricane Sandy) but the key which made it possible was the fact that the world's currency markets were largely non-convertible at the time (due to war(s).) The U.S. Made it impossible to convert Yen into Dollars, which in turn made it impossible for the Japanese to enter into trade with pretty much anyone else.

At the same time, the U.S. government effectively seized Japan's gold reserves, which had at the time been held physically in New York.

Japanese efforts to negotiate settlement on these policies (Congress had passed the relevant legislature with the intention that these powers would only BE used by the administration for negotiation) were outright refused. There was no willingness to even engage in diplomacy with the Japanese on this matter, including offers of a direct meeting between the President and the Prime Minister.

The Dutch East Indies oil supply did not factor into Japanese deliberations because Japan HAD oil reserves to last it for a decade. The economic warfare carried out by the United States limited their access to refined, high quality fuels for airplanes and naval ships, which they had only limited ability to produce themselves. The DEI were occupied on the recognition that they were effectively a British/Anglo Trusteeship at the time.

So the American policy was specifically to avoid war with Japan, and it failed catastrophically, because American officials in the state department and the treasury took every power that was given to them and used it to it's full potential, even beyond what those crafting it imagined.

The other thing that is never appreciated was that Japan lost the war in China. By 1941 a stalemate favorable to the Chinese had already set in. The War was disrupting the Japanese economy, down to basic services causing things like increasing rates of TB. The IJA had reached the full extent of it's occupation but had failed to destroy the warmaking potential of China. Sooner or later, Japan would have to demobilize, and then they'd be quickly driven out of China. Japan lost it's war with China, and thought it could reverse the situation by winning a war with Britain and America.

Interesting.

 

[Funky]

I don't really see the link between the two. Muslims conquest may have been bloody, that won't make the Crusades less violent if they were and vice versa. And as I said in the early reply, what was "bad" in the Crusades was that they committed a lot of religious motivated atrocities, though I am not even sure religion was the sole or even the most important factor. Whether they did on peaceful or once violent muslims is not the point, not to forget that they committed atrocities on Jews and other Christians as well.

Oh, absolutely. I am certainly not defending the raids and atrocities committed during the crusades. I am criticisizing the one-sidedness of history books, and pointing out that the crusades can be justified in light of the far worse Islamic conquests, and the threat which Islam posed to Europe. That obviously doesn't mean that everything the crusaders did was fine.

What I labeled as far right , not just right, runt in your post was not your criticism of Islam as criticzing Islam is indeed not and should not be a "far right thing", but your assertion that the West is Christophobe and Islamophile, using historical revisionism to make us think that West depicts the Crusades falsly just to put Christianity in the bad role and Islam in the good.

Historical revionism? Seriously? That is like saying that the allies in the Second World War were evil powers for attacking Germany, which not only declared war on a sovereign state, they also committed atrocities like the fire bombing of German cities. And when I point that there was a background to these events you call it historical revisionism. Unfortunately you seem to be influenced by the very narrative we find in our history school books that I am criticizing.

That kind of paranoia and arguments are indeed found in far right movements in France for example

I don't care where such arguments are found when they are true. It can't escape even the most lenient observer that islamophilia is commonplace throughout the West. Islam and Muslims are widely not held to the same standards as everyone else. We have politicians saying things like Islam is a religion of peace, or IS has nothing to do with Islam. Tony Blair, a practising Christian, used to say that he read the koran every day and was inspred by its wisdom.
We have self-censoring media, which will not report critically about Islam. There are several cases of critical documentaries being either censored to the unreckognisable or not shown at all after the protest of Muslim groups. Statistics which show that Muslims are disproportionately involved in crimes are not talked about. It won't be mentioned that virtually all rapes in Norway and most in Sweden and England are committed by Muslims. Instead, the insane influx of Muslim migrants into Europe was refered to as a summer fairy tale in several major German newspapers. The Hungarian camera woman was broadcast throughout the West, but not the religiously motivated fights and brawls happening among the migrants almost daily in refugee facilites.
Our courts have treated Muslims more leniently than non-Muslims on dozens of occasions. Honour killings are usually treated as manslaughter now instead of murder in Germany. Acts of violence or incitements to violence done by Muslims often are punished a lot less harshly than the same acts by non-Muslims.

There are literally hundreds more examples I could list, but I have to go to work now. But please do your own research on the topic.

 

[abradley]

Oh, absolutely. I am certainly not defending the raids and atrocities committed during the crusades. I am criticisizing the one-sidedness of history books, and pointing out that the crusades can be justified in light of the far worse Islamic conquests, and the threat which Islam posed to Europe. That obviously doesn't mean that everything the crusaders did was fine.


Historical revionism? Seriously? That is like saying that the allies in the Second World War were evil powers for attacking Germany, which not only declared war on a sovereign state, they also committed atrocities like the fire bombing of German cities. And when I point that there was a background to these events you call it historical revisionism. Unfortunately you seem to be influenced by the very narrative we find in our history school books that I am criticizing.


I don't care where such arguments are found when they are true. It can't escape even the most lenient observer that islamophilia is commonplace throughout the West. Islam and Muslims are widely not held to the same standards as everyone else. We have politicians saying things like Islam is a religion of peace, or IS has nothing to do with Islam. Tony Blair, a practising Christian, used to say that he read the koran every day and was inspred by its wisdom.
We have self-censoring media, which will not report critically about Islam. There are several cases of critical documentaries being either censored to the unreckognisable or not shown at all after the protest of Muslim groups. Statistics which show that Muslims are disproportionately involved in crimes are not talked about. It won't be mentioned that virtually all rapes in Norway and most in Sweden and England are committed by Muslims. Instead, the insane influx of Muslim migrants into Europe was refered to as a summer fairy tale in several major German newspapers. The Hungarian camera woman was broadcast throughout the West, but not the religiously motivated fights and brawls happening among the migrants almost daily in refugee facilites.
Our courts have treated Muslims more leniently than non-Muslims on dozens of occasions. Honour killings are usually treated as manslaughter now instead of murder in Germany. Acts of violence or incitements to violence done by Muslims often are punished a lot less harshly than the same acts by non-Muslims.

There are literally hundreds more examples I could list, but I have to go to work now. But please do your own research on the topic.

You look like a man that likes to discuss, plus your a leftie ... that's what we need at http://www.maddogdrivethru.net/viewforum.php?f=5

We like to discuss and we're righties, we need some lefties to spar with.

Subject choice wide open and don't worry about being banned, you'd have to be spouting White supremacist nonsense.

Best Andy

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You look like a man that likes to discuss, plus your a leftie ... that's what we need at http://www.maddogdrivethru.net/viewforum.php?f=5

We like to discuss and we're righties, we need some lefties to spar with.

Subject choice wide open and don't worry about being banned, you'd have to be spouting White supremacist nonsense.

Best Andy

Did you come here to join CFC or just to recruit for that site? If your posts here are typical of what's there, I wouldn't enjoy that place at all.

 

[abradley]

Did you come here to join CFC or just to recruit for that site? If your posts here are typical of what's there, I wouldn't enjoy that place at all.

Am I posting on CFC? I'll leave if I get banned, otherwise I am here and at http://www.maddogdrivethru.net/index.php (Where differing views are appreciated.)

I doubt you'd enjoy it, your better off here.

 

[useless]

What i gathered from that thread is you and your kind are basically here to rile and upset people, because you consider us all "lefties" (your words not mine):

Gary Childress's sig sez something about 'visit Civfanatics' and things were slow here so I Did, and the result is/was http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthrea ... 787&page=6 plus other threads.

Plus Gary's Civfanatics sig links us, am going to do the same.

There's bunches of lefties to shot down. like shooting fish in a barrel.

And you want to drag people to your poorly maintained forum that looks like babbies first forum attempt

 

[Flying Pig]

Thank you for pleasant, enjoyable reply.

Is this Scottish enough?

From the rifles, those are Canadians.

 

[abradley]

What i gathered from that thread is you and your kind are basically here to rile and upset people, because you consider us all "lefties" (your words not mine):

You gathered wrong and you are mostly lefties.

And you want to drag people to your poorly maintained forum that looks like babbies first forum attempt

Only some people, check my offer to Funky. I specified certain qualities he possesses in the offer, but anybody can test the waters. (Rather have people with those qualities.) Hey, I am just a lowly grunt, should be obvious from my efforts here.

As for our poorly maintained forum, I'll pass the word to Wulfur that your not pleased with his efforts, should be worth a chuckle.

From the rifles, those are Canadians.

Oh my God, what would my Grandfather say!

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Am I posting on CFC? I'll leave if I get banned, otherwise I am here and at http://www.maddogdrivethru.net/index.php (Where differing views are appreciated.)

I doubt you'd enjoy it, your better off here.

You have 239 posts that say you've been posting here. "CFC" is the shorthand acronym we use to refer to this forum.

BTW, if you want to call me out for "preparing a case against you" how about saying it to my face here, instead of scuttling back to that other place and saying it behind my back?

You didn't come here to make a positive contribution to this forum, from what I can tell: http://www.maddogdrivethru.net/viewtopic.php?p=250533#p250533.

Figured out your sig problem yet? If you're trying to post your Daffy Duck thing here, you can't. Images aren't allowed in sigs.

And you want to drag people to your poorly maintained forum that looks like babbies first forum attempt

Meh, different forum software. Some admins figure out how to make those forums look nice, and others don't bother.

 

[abradley]

You have 239 posts that say you've been posting here. "CFC" is the shorthand acronym we use to refer to this forum.

Thank you.

BTW, if you want to call me out for "preparing a case against you" how about saying it to my face here, instead of scuttling back to that other place and saying it behind my back?

Did I say you or they? You know, the famous they, they're every where!

You didn't come here to make a positive contribution to this forum, from what I can tell: http://www.maddogdrivethru.net/viewtopic.php?p=250533#p250533.

That your view, not mine.

Figured out your sig problem yet? If you're trying to post your Daffy Duck thing here, you can't. Images aren't allowed in sigs.

Meh, different forum software. Some admins figure out how to make those forums look nice, and others don't bother.

No, but it's not a problem. Thank you.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Oh, absolutely. I am certainly not defending the raids and atrocities committed during the crusades. I am criticisizing the one-sidedness of history books, and pointing out that the crusades can be justified in light of the far worse Islamic conquests, and the threat which Islam posed to Europe. That obviously doesn't mean that everything the crusaders did was fine.

I don't really think any conquest was "unjustified" back than. Crusaders had every right to go wage war in the Levant as did Muslims conquering Europe. As I said earlier, land back than was the property of the Kings not the people and I don't see what would make the Caliph less or more legitimate than say the Byzantine Emperor or the Frankish King to rule the Levant, Anatolia, Belgium or even China !! Back than Kings conquered what their armies allowed them to conquer not what they thought would be "rightfully" (right say who?) theirs.
So the only matter to discuss is "atrocities" committed while conquering. You seem to agree that Crusaders did atrocities as most historians say. Concerning Islamic atrocities, I don't really see what makes you think Historians are saying it all went smoothly. I don't think any serious historian will say that. Now you are advancing figures to make us think those atrocities (250millions than "just" 100million dead) were worse than those of the Crusaders and some how justified the latter (how so?), I asked you to back up your claim, I'm still waiting

Historical revionism? Seriously? That is like saying that the allies in the Second World War were evil powers for attacking Germany, which not only declared war on a sovereign state, they also committed atrocities like the fire bombing of German cities. And when I point that there was a background to these events you call it historical revisionism. Unfortunately you seem to be influenced by the very narrative we find in our history school books that I am criticizing..

hum, It has been decades since I stopped learning my History from school books, I'm close to 50 . I don't learn my History about the Crusades from Foxnews.com or Aljazeera.com either
When you label the Crusades defensive wars, that is like saying Nazi Germany invaded Poland and France in WW II because it was fighting a defensive war, trying to “reconquer” what it lost in WW I. That is historical revisionism. Saint Louis, the King of France, fighting a war in Tunis is not a defensive war by any mean. You should trust your history school books in that regard.

I don't care where such arguments are found when they are true. It can't escape even the most lenient observer that islamophilia is commonplace throughout the West. Islam and Muslims are widely not held to the same standards as everyone else. We have politicians saying things like Islam is a religion of peace, or IS has nothing to do with Islam. Tony Blair, a practising Christian, used to say that he read the koran every day and was inspred by its wisdom.
We have self-censoring media, which will not report critically about Islam. There are several cases of critical documentaries being either censored to the unreckognisable or not shown at all after the protest of Muslim groups. Statistics which show that Muslims are disproportionately involved in crimes are not talked about. It won't be mentioned that virtually all rapes in Norway and most in Sweden and England are committed by Muslims. Instead, the insane influx of Muslim migrants into Europe was refered to as a summer fairy tale in several major German newspapers. The Hungarian camera woman was broadcast throughout the West, but not the religiously motivated fights and brawls happening among the migrants almost daily in refugee facilites.
Our courts have treated Muslims more leniently than non-Muslims on dozens of occasions. Honour killings are usually treated as manslaughter now instead of murder in Germany. Acts of violence or incitements to violence done by Muslims often are punished a lot less harshly than the same acts by non-Muslims.
There are literally hundreds more examples I could list, but I have to go to work now. But please do your own research on the topic.

Well you should care if you want to be taken seriously. Advancing “facts” about Muslims from Pegida.com is as wise as advancing “facts” about Jews from Hamas.com or about African Americans from KKK.com, it won’t have any kind of credibility as you know. Those websites are not historical websites but political ones.

 

[Camikaze]

And you want to drag people to your poorly maintained forum that looks like babbies first forum attempt

You have 239 posts that say you've been posting here. "CFC" is the shorthand acronym we use to refer to this forum.

BTW, if you want to call me out for "preparing a case against you" how about saying it to my face here, instead of scuttling back to that other place and saying it behind my back?

You didn't come here to make a positive contribution to this forum, from what I can tell: http://www.maddogdrivethru.net/viewtopic.php?p=250533#p250533.

Figured out your sig problem yet? If you're trying to post your Daffy Duck thing here, you can't. Images aren't allowed in sigs.

Thank you.
Did I say you or they? You know, the famous they, they're every where!
That your view, not mine.No, but it's not a problem. Thank you.

Moderator Action: Please don't resort to insults, and please keep the discussion at least vaguely on-topic. That means no discussion of other forums or of conflict on other forums. If you have a problem with a link that has been posted, please report the post. If you have a problem with something another poster has said about you on another site, it's probably best to take it up with that poster in private.

For the record, please heed this site's advertising policy, as explained in the rules:

This advertising policy extends to posting in or starting a thread in one forum, so as to entice people to visit a thread in another forum. If you want to do this, then place the advertisement in your signature.

This particularly applies to directing people to other websites. If you want to invite someone to another forum, please do so via PM. You are welcome to have a link to another forum in your signature.