Common Historical Misconceptions

[Susano]

Or kill millions of innocent people. Im sick of this "the Communists were much worse then the Nazis" kind of thing thats going right now. Like everyone forgets that Nazism is the closest thing we have to pure evil. Lord knows the death toll of Communism is higher, but alot of that death toll isn't to evil "communists" like Stalin, but stupid "communists", like Mao.

Eh? Mao was plenty of evil himself. Thats no excuse. Nazism is worse because the only reason its death tolls didnt turn out worse than communism is that Hitler was stopped. The death rate per annum in the 40s was several times worse for Nazism, and the Nazis did plan the slaughter of hundreds of millions in East Europe.

 

[Saepe Fidelis]

Or kill millions of innocent people. Im sick of this "the Communists were much worse then the Nazis" kind of thing thats going right now. Like everyone forgets that Nazism is the closest thing we have to pure evil. Lord knows the death toll of Communism is higher, but alot of that death toll isn't to evil "communists" like Stalin, but stupid "communists", like Mao.

Well honestly I'd say that what happened with both of those men has nothing to do with commuism. Stalin mudered millions of people out of paranoia and a desire to secure Russia against foreign powers, a legitimate worry given what eventualyl happened in 1941. I'm not saying he wasn't crazy, but in his own mind it made sense.

Mao, honestly I genuinely hate that guy. I can understand Stalin, but Mao I just loate. But that's beside the point, he did what he did because he wanted to conquer the world and make himself an absolute dictator. Both men were driven by communism, but communism didn't necessarily drive their slaughters, pragmatism and paranoia did.

Nazism, on the other hand, directly called for mass murder and genocide. Communism is all about 'rising up' and a revolution, which isn't explicitly bloody. Ultimately it's about solidarity, whereas Nazism directly calls for genocide. Communism causes slaughter as a side effect, whereas slaughter is an intrinsic part of Nazism.

But then again, millions are still dead, so it's little point arguing semantics.

 

[archaeogeek]

Eh? Mao was plenty of evil himself. Thats no excuse. Nazism is worse because the only reason its death tolls didnt turn out worse than communism is that Hitler was stopped. The death rate per annum in the 40s was several times worse for Nazism, and the Nazis did plan the slaughter of hundreds of millions in East Europe.

IIRC some of the "omg Stalin was worse" death tolls seem to blame him for the deaths of WW2; it's entertainingly Orwellian like that. He was evil, of course, but that this is somehow quantified by overall death toll, let alone somehow made worse by the fact that his country was invaded by an enemy whose main goal was to kill everyone in there? Yeah that's a bit specious.

 

[Space Oddity]

I wasn't denying that the Nazis were murderous thugs, or suggesting that the Communists were worse. I was stating that Nazis were--in the normal state of affairs--individuals who would have had very little effect on history, who got to practice their imbecilic ideas on a scale that that made the evil in them that much more evident. These were the people who loudly suggest "why don't we drop the bomb, see what happens?" in bars--and they wound up running a powerful nation. The tragedy lies not in the Nazis themselves, but in what they did, and were allowed to do.

POSTSCRIPT--I've never seen a "Stalin was worse" claim that didn't involve ignoring the whole--WWII thing. Because it's not like Hitler was responsible for his government's major project.

 

[I Blame Communism]

IIRC some of the "omg Stalin was worse" death tolls seem to blame him for the deaths of WW2; it's entertainingly Orwellian like that. He was evil, of course, but that this is somehow quantified by overall death toll, let alone somehow made worse by the fact that his country was invaded by an enemy whose main goal was to kill everyone in there? Yeah that's a bit specious.

What you have to understand is that is the Soviets had just surrendered like gents, the Germans wouldn't have killed a man jack of them. They only wanted to liberate them from Stalin, obviously.

But yeah, I never thought Space Oddity was saying except that the Nazis were mad and bad. His TL shows that he's not a man to hold misconceptions about Soviet history! [/plug]

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

Well honestly I'd say that what happened with both of those men has nothing to do with commuism. Stalin mudered millions of people out of paranoia and a desire to secure Russia against foreign powers, a legitimate worry given what eventualyl happened in 1941.

What about all those foreign communists defending or denying Stalin's crimes and then committing their own if they came to power? The Moscow Trials, to give just one example, may not have had anything to do with the nature of communism, but most of the communists alive then thought they did and some were quite content with immitating them later on; how much blame you can hang on the ideology doesn't even matter when you can't hang any faith on the ideologues.

It's hard not to look at such a shameful record without concluding that utopian ideologies are inherently dangerous in their ability to justify any crime and any foolishness (I can't remember who called Marxism "opium for the intellectuals," but he/she was spot on).

Nazism was just an explosion of irrationality. Marxism fancied itself a science and failed as such, Nazism prided itself in being the anti-science and was wildly successful at it all the way down to its grave.

 

[Mikestone8]

Nazism was just an explosion of irrationality. Marxism fancied itself a science and failed as such, Nazism prided itself in being the anti-science and was wildly successful at it all the way down to its grave.

I thought they both claimed a scientific basis, but based on different sciences. Marxist pseudoscience was based on economics, Nazi on biology.

Both, to my mind, were side effects of the weakening of traditional religion, catering for those who no longer believed, but still felt conscious of a "God-shaped hole" in their minds - sort of "religions for the irreligious". In effect, adherants transferred custody of their consciences from the Padre to the cadre. These days, of course, being a nonbeliever is nothing like the big deal it was a few generations back, so people feel far less need for such "ersatz" faiths. Those who want religion want the real thing, not a substitute, while those who don't want it don't want the substitute either.

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

I thought they both claimed a scientific basis, but based on different sciences. Marxist pseudoscience was based on economics, Nazi on biology.

Nazism used the idea of biological race as a fig leaf, not a foundation, and would have done quite well without it. Science was only welcomed if it could provide it with pretexts or tools. They had the good fortune of taking over a country with one of the best scientific communities in the world, thus their technological marvels during the war.

Both, to my mind, were side effects of the weakening of traditional religion, catering for those who no longer believed, but still felt conscious of a "God-shaped hole" in their minds - sort of "religions for the irreligious".

I think it's wrong to see the 2 ideologies as related phenomena, except inasmuch as one saw itself as the rejection of a big chunk of modernity and the other as the next step in modernity. And Nazism certainly didn't have trouble catching on among the religiously conservative.

 

[Neutron]

That walking across no mans land during WWI was essentially suicide especially for the some.

In fact it was the SMARTEST thing the gap between the trenches were often miles apart and thus running it would have meant complete exhaustion for anyone - they were carrying full gear - and then to have to fight was ludicrous.

So why not crawl and avoid the machine gun fire make less of a target?

Well most British casualities were in fact not from the bullets but artillery (if i recall casualties caused by bullets were under 5% whereas those caused by artillery were somewhere over 50%) thus you wanted to get as close to the German trenches, but not so quickly as to exhaust yourself; hence walking.

 

[Space Oddity]

I think the best way of putting that is 'there really were no good options in Trench Warfare."

 

[Susano]

I think the best way of putting that is 'there really were no good options in Trench Warfare."

There was at the end of the war: Tanks and airforce.

 

[Space Oddity]

Yep. But not at the beginning.

 

[Saepe Fidelis]

What about all those foreign communists defending or denying Stalin's crimes and then committing their own if they came to power? The Moscow Trials, to give just one example, may not have had anything to do with the nature of communism, but most of the communists alive then thought they did and some were quite content with immitating them later on; how much blame you can hang on the ideology doesn't even matter when you can't hang any faith on the ideologues.

It's hard not to look at such a shameful record without concluding that utopian ideologies are inherently dangerous in their ability to justify any crime and any foolishness (I can't remember who called Marxism "opium for the intellectuals," but he/she was spot on).

Nazism was just an explosion of irrationality. Marxism fancied itself a science and failed as such, Nazism prided itself in being the anti-science and was wildly successful at it all the way down to its grave.

Yeah, that's true-it's usually the middle-ranking tyrants like Misolsevic or Ceausescu who are the real idealogues. I was just saying that communism produces violence as a side effect of its totalitarian imlpementation, whereas Nazism is violence and genocide to the bone.

 

[anon_user]

Or how about Lindbergh being the first to fly the Atlantic? When he was like #33

Wasn't he first to solo the Atlantic, though? I think he won a prize for that.

TRENCHES

I seem to recall that in many cases, the issue wasn't necessarily making it to the first trench - that generally could be done - but getting past that trench, through all the other trenches in the trench networks set up on both sides of the front.

Germany was on the verge of winning the war in 1918: Maybe. Then again, it was also on the verge of starvation and social collapse; it's questionable whether it could've actually managed to pull out a victory.

 

[Xavier]

That walking across no mans land during WWI was essentially suicide especially for the some.

In fact it was the SMARTEST thing the gap between the trenches were often miles apart and thus running it would have meant complete exhaustion for anyone - they were carrying full gear - and then to have to fight was ludicrous.

So why not crawl and avoid the machine gun fire make less of a target?

Well most British casualities were in fact not from the bullets but artillery (if i recall casualties caused by bullets were under 5% whereas those caused by artillery were somewhere over 50%) thus you wanted to get as close to the German trenches, but not so quickly as to exhaust yourself; hence walking.

Actually, crawling would substantially reduce casualties from artillery fire during the advance. OTOH, crawling would also mean being under fire at least twice as long as well, probably longer. And when wet there is mud, no-one is going to crawl through thick mud either.
Hmmm, seems like quick walking might indeed be the least bad option.

 

[Xavier]

Wasn't he first to solo the Atlantic, though? I think he won a prize for that.


I seem to recall that in many cases, the issue wasn't necessarily making it to the first trench - that generally could be done - but getting past that trench, through all the other trenches in the trench networks set up on both sides of the front.

Germany was on the verge of winning the war in 1918: Maybe. Then again, it was also on the verge of starvation and social collapse; it's questionable whether it could've actually managed to pull out a victory.

1 Well, yes, but many people probably do misunderstand that to mean the first person, period.

2: basically, it was much, much easier for the defender to reinforce a breach trough roads, railways and field-trains than it was for the attacker to supply and reinforce a bridgehead over the no man's land.
Which is why during 15-17 generals where happy for a single kilometre's advance. (OK, happy might not be the best word...)

3 I'd say, NO, due to said starvation & social collapse.

 

[Yorel]

Uh, I disagree. They knew how to hold rallies, certainly, but Jesus, their entire political and even military organisation was an entire mess, their focus on ideology would have led to the education system crashing down within a generation, and their economical ideas were... more than questionable, too. If at all, this "Hyper-Efficient Nazis" meme is a lcihee and historical misconception in its own right.

For me the Nazis remain as Evil Geniuses. After all, if you look at what they did in the field of technology in WW2 :
-They created the V1 and V2, the first missiles ever used
-How they industrialized death in the Shoah was successful to the point it scares everyone to the death.
-The Enigma machine was the best coding machine ever created in WW2... The Allies would have had more problems decrypting german codes had they not accidentally discovered one in a sinking u-boat.
-The Germans had by far the best equipped army before the beginning of WW2.

Let's also not forget that if Einstein created the Atomic Bomb, it was because he feared the Nazis could have created it...

Besides, the real horror of Nazism is that it makes people do evil things... genuinely. The Germans were made to hate the Jews and they did not realize what they were accomplishing. It's no excuse to what happened, but a statement of how horrible is Nazism to me.

Well, back to the main topic. A few other historical misconceptions.

Napoleon ruled continuously until his defeat at Waterloo
That would be forgetting the fact he was forced to Abdicate in 1814 because Paris had surrendered and the fact he was exiled to St. Helena. That would also be forgetting that the Hundred Days happened in 1815, but that the Bourbons had been restored shortly before.

The French won the Hundred Years' War in Joan of Arc's days
Joan of Arc did a lot of work in having the English getting out of France. But she died 23 years before what really caused the English final defeat, the Battle of Castillon in 1453.

They were no longer Carolingians in France when Hugh Capet was elected King
Actually, Louis V, the last Carolingian King of France, had an Uncle who was King of Lotharingia. His name was Charles and he should have got the crown but the nobles opposed him.
They were also Carolingian ruling the county of Vermandois. They were a pain in the ass for Hugh the Great and Hugh Capet.

Odo of Paris, Robert I and Rudolf of France were Carolingians
No. They were kings during the Carolingian times but they belonged to different dynasty. Odo and Robert I were Robertians (the Capetians' ancestors) while Rudolf was a Bosonid. Both of those three kings were elected for various reasons :
-Odo of Paris was elected king because the peers of France didn't want the young Charles III the Simple as King. They also did not want Holy Roman Emperor Charles III the Fat because he didn't please them.
-Robert I was elected king against Charles III the Simple because the latter had pissed off the nobles.
-Rudolf of France was elected king after the death of Robert I because he had married the latter's daughter.

The Capetians, House of Valois and House of Bourbon are three different families
No. The House of Valois and the House of Bourbon had both branches of the Capetian dynasty. The House of Valois are descendant of Charles of Valois, Philip IV's brother. The Bourbons are descendants of Robert of Clermont, one of Louis IX (Saint Louis)'s son.

Juan-Carlos I of Spain is the eldest member of the House of Bourbon
He is maybe the oldest (I'm not sure) but not the eldest in terms of genealogy. The eldest member of the House of France is Juan-Carlos' Nephew, Luis Alfonso de Borbon, legitimist pretender to the crown of France under the name Louis XX.

Juan-Carlos I of Spain got the crown via normal succession laws
No. He got it because Franco was convinced he would be the best one to succeed him. Dom Juan, Juan-Carlos' father, was in competition for the throne with his son for most of the Francist (correct word?) era. He only renounced his rights when his son ascended the throne.
Also, Dom Juan had an older brother whose bloodline should have got the crown. The descendant of this brother (whom I forgot the name) is the current legitimist pretender to the french throne, Louis XX.

Juan-Carlos I of Spain had nothing to do with Spain's democratization after Franco's death
On the contrary, he did everything so that Democracy was restored in Spain. He authorised forbidden parties, such as the socialists and the communists, to come back in Parliament.
There was also a military putch attempt during the period of Spain's democratization and Juan-Carlos asked the army to support Democracy.

 

[Neutron]

Yep. But not at the beginning.

Definately even the clearing of barb wire was really solved til the end of the war with reliable shells that exploded on impact to clear it. Though of course many were still duds.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Nazism was just an explosion of irrationality. Marxism fancied itself a science and failed as such, Nazism prided itself in being the anti-science and was wildly successful at it all the way down to its grave.

Damn fine summary, that.

For me the Nazis remain as Evil Geniuses. After all, if you look at what they did in the field of technology in WW2 :
-They created the V1 and V2, the first missiles ever used

As Pervez correcty pointed our, the Nazis hijacked a magnificent scientific tradition. And wrecked or sent into exile a good part of it: not an ingenius course of action.

-How they industrialized death in the Shoah was successful to the point it scares everyone to the death.

As a feat of administration, it's terrifying; and for me, one of the most frightening is how utterly irrational it was for anyone not possessed by absolutely venomous race-hatred. In terms of using limited resources, it was wholly self-defeating.

-The Enigma machine was the best coding machine ever created in WW2... The Allies would have had more problems decrypting german codes had they not accidentally discovered one in a sinking u-boat.

A good machine, poor users. The boys at Bletchley got a lot of breaks from such things as identical messages ("Nothing to report," says a long-distance patrol in Libya every week) and German operators using AAA as the first code of the day. Because who could crack Enigma? A mixture of sloppiness and arrogance characterised a lot of the German war effort, frankly. Intelligence work, in particular, was frankly abbysmal. During the BoB, they thought Britain had about one third of its actual fighter force.

-The Germans had by far the best equipped army before the beginning of WW2.

Untrue. Best-led? Best-trained? With the best operation doctrine? Yes. But it's actually quite well-known by now that the Allies had more and heavier tanks available during the Battle of France.

 

[robertp6165]

German nihilism? Whats that even support to mean? Thats one of those examples that shows why I absolutely dislike grand historical contextualism: It paints with too broad brushes. You want to give Germany a national character that cant really be said to have existed. As for the roots of Nazism - well, Hitler certainly easily found friends among the conservatives and German elites. However, the true origin of the movement was in racist populism, in rhethorics even revolutionary populism - and that of course stands quite apart from conservatism. There is a certain continuity with the Völkische movement, yes, that at least its true, but the influence of that movement in the Kaiserreich always gets overestimated.

He didn't say that German nihilism was the German national character, nor did he say that German conservatives were natural allies of the Nazis, nor did he say that the Volkische movement held more influence in Germany than it historically did. All he said was that each of these threads out of the tapestry of German culture played a role in the development of the Nazi movement. And I doubt that any serious historian would dispute that. Really, you're hyperventilating about nothing here.