Things that never actually happened in History but people say did

The fall of the decadent but civilized Roman Empire ushered in a period of mass murder, destruction, and anarchy. When the barbaric remnants of Stone Age tribes finally became exhausted or inevitably died out from their psychopathic destructiveness, the equally useless Middle Ages started its long limbo of stagnancy. A datum that tells it all is that during the Empire, Rome had a population of one million; during the echo of Neanderthal horror that was the Dark Ages, its population was 20,000. The decadent clique that dismisses the term "Dark Ages" is an echo of the previous one that brought down Roman civilization.

 

Stalin planned it that way. He deliberately provoked Hitler into attacking and deliberately arranged it so his western army would collapse and sucker Hitler into overextending in the delusion of a quick and total blitzkrieg victory. FDR got us into the war thinking Hitler would soon control Russia's oil and be invincible if not slowed down. Historians don't connect the dots, they only collect the dots. You don't see the world in the Ivory Tower, all you see is walls.

 

Without our ill-informed and foolish collaboration, both the Nazi and the Communist threats would have been eliminated in the mutually assured destruction of the Eastern Front.

 

"Trail of Crybabies" is more like it. If we keep listening to sore losers and the weakling snobs who support them, we will become losers.

 

I see no evidence whatsoever that Stalin did any such thing.

- - - Updated - - -

Who are these stone age tribes?

- - - Updated - - -

What a pointless comment.

 

This quote has me stumped also. At the beginning of the Roman empire, "tribes" throughout Europe had already engaged in agriculture and were using metals. Celts were already using iron by 300BC.

 

Goths, ancient Teutonic people, who in the 3rd to the 6th century AD were an important power in the Roman world. The Goths were the first Germanic peoples to become Christians. According to the 6th-century Gothic historian Jordanes, the Goths came from Sweden across the Baltic Sea to the basin of the Wis³a (Vistula) River. By the 3rd century AD they had migrated as far south as the lower Danube, around the Black Sea. For a time the Goths ruled a great kingdom north of the Danube River and the Black Sea. Then, in AD 375, the Huns swept into Europe from Asia. They conquered the Ostrogoths, or East Goths, and forced the Visigoths to seek refuge across the Danube within the boundaries of the Roman Empire. In a battle fought near the city of Adrianople in 378, the Visigoths defeated and murdered Emperor Valens. For a time they lived peaceably on Roman territory. On the death of Emperor Theodosius in 395, they rose in rebellion under their ambitious young king Alaric and overran a large part of the Eastern Empire. Rome itself fell into the hands of the Visigoths in 410. Alaric led the attack. Alaric's successors led their people out of Italy and set up a powerful kingdom in southern Gaul and Spain. In the year 507 the Visigoths in Gaul were defeated by the Franks and were forced beyond the Pyrenees. For 200 years their kingdom in Spain flourished.

http://history-world.org/goths.htm

 

The study of history has been politicized in American universities at the undergraduate level. The curricula has been dumbed down, core courses reduced, and grades have been inflated. It's very sad from the perspective of someone who loves the discipline.

 

Who lived in Europe before the Indo-European invasions and how did they live? They were fugitives from evolution, either ultra-violent or incompetent. These people were not exterminated; their genes remain in European blood even now.
Each invading IE tribe wound up with different proportions of indigenous blood.

Post-modern academics alway select between two logical possibilities the one that most fits their decadent fantasies. Even in linguistics, it is far more likely that consonant changes ("pater" to "father") were the result of the indigenous tribes difficulty with pronouncing IE than some "natural" slurring by homogenous IE tribes as time went by. The Nazi phenomenon has been attributed to reversion to Dark Age dominance by barbaric genes, but it is verboten to suggest that the Germans never had much Aryan blood in the first place. It could even be that the perception that blondes are dumb could be an insight into their descent from hybrids with Neanderthals. But today, things are so constantly degenerating that even Neanderthals have been elevated to being wise and gentle people in touch with Nature.



Those incapable of greatness are unfit to discuss Greek, Roman, and Renaissance achievements. They elevate the aimless and savage Dark Ages and the stagnant and stifling Middle Ages. They nest in Ivory Towers and drop bird(*)(*)(*)(*) on everybody. Someone should clip their wings.

 

Another loon added to my ignore list

 

In 1914, the French took the full force of a fresh German army and stood their ground. A whole generation was either killed off or demoralized. In 1917, the Americans finally showed up and defeated an exhausted German army.

In 1940, the French crumbled before an overwhelmingly powerful German army. The British, whom no one could accuse of being cowards, also ran for their lives. In 1944, the Americans finally showed up and defeated an exhausted German army.

In Vietnam, starting in the late 40s, the French, with a weak army, fought the Communists for 7 years and were defeated. Also showing up there, in the mid-60s, the Americans, with a superpower army, fought the Communists for 7 years and were defeated.

In Algeria during the 60s, in a dress rehearsal for the world war against the Islamic jihad, the French were defeated. In 200l, the Americans finally started fighting the jihad and will lose in Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, and Syria.

In 2013, the French are fighting the jihadists in Mali. Without American help.

To the French, GI Joe has always been Johnny Come Lately.

 

Say what??

 

It's meaningless drivel. I just put these people on ignore. Discussing anything with them is pointless.

 

Don't expect me not to expose what you are doing. Rather than trying to answer unorthodox but plausible claims, dishonest debaters skim over anything leading to a conclusion that they don't want to hear and hope other people will do the same.

 

You forgot to mention that the British inflicted the first major defeat of Nazi Germany - the Battle of Britain - before the USA entered the war and after the French had surrendered.

 

One big historical myth is that people centuries ago thought the world is flat.

They thought no such thing.

 

Another myth:

Muslims invented the zero and the arabic numbering system. Actually they got it from India.

 

Yes it did.

There is a small yet vocal minority which believes that the Council of Nicaea was about "a bunch of Christians inventing a new faith," but it's just not true.

1.) The council was attended by several hundred bishops, all of whom had spent much of their lives suffering for their faith. It's absurd to think that they would just abandon it.

2.) There is no record of anybody claiming this against the Council.

3.) This erronous assumption presumes that Christianity only existed within the confines of the Roman Empire.

It didn't!

By the beginning of the 2nd century, Christianity had spread to western India. (Look up the St. Thomas Christians.) By tue time of Nicaea, 325 AD, it had spread as far east as western modern-day China.

This is significant for a reason. When Nicaea convened, the only bishops present were ones who lived in the Roman Empire. If your claim is true, then all we would have to do is compare the Christianity of post-Nicaea to those Christians living elsewhere.

Well, such a thing already happened. In 420 AD, nearly a century after Nicaea, the bishops living in the Persian Empire learned about it. In response, they held a council of their own (The Synod of Isaac). They analysed the teachings of Nicaea and proclaimed their acceptance of it, based on the fact that it taught the SAME faith as handed down to them by their own ancestors.

4.) You can find "legitimate" researchers who make bold claims about Nicaea. You can also find "legitimate" researchers who claim that aliens built the pyramids!

When you have 9 out of 10 historians saying one thing, why would you side with the 1 who claims the opposite?

 

To begin, there are no "Ancient Times, Dark Ages, Middle Ages, (high or low), Renissance, or Modernity. History is a seamless webb. All these periods were made up by 19thc German University Academics and they were all emphasised, at the time, that they were didactic conveniences, pure abstractions without real meaning. The people who originated them thought later generations would have enough common sense to use their teaching conveniences in the proper way. Like the founders of the US Constitution, they were abysmally wrong, but then P.T. Barnum (or whoever actually said one of the true statements about the human race) hadn't been born yet.

The "Dark Ages" are generally seen as the period which these same German Historians called the "Volkenvandervung" (sp) generally meaning "the wandering of the various peoples". During this time the "Nobility" of Europe, by which we we mean those either big and/or mean and/or, strong and/or wealthy enough to impose their will on everybody else, wandered about the countryside and did so without a whole lot of effective control. Everybody else stayed put, or were killed, or joined the wanderers if they they were big and lucky enough and eventually all the meanest, most unscrupulous and cruelest of these worthies became Europe's "leading families", which they remain to this day.

This generally happened between 400 and 800 CE. If you insist on an actual date Romanus Augustulus was overthrown in 476 and Charlemagne was crowned in 814. Both of these dates are utterly meaingless, much like the "periods" they are said to define, but they are conveient didactic reference points.

 

it certainly verifies that the knowledge to carry out biological warfare was known...whenever a weapon is available someone will use it sooner or later...

 

accepting defeat and avoiding senseless loss of life and destruction is not the same as "giving up quickly" and the implied cowardice...it's facing the reality of the situation, fighting on would serve no purpose it was the intelligent thing to do, continuing on would not have changed the outcome...

 

that's a generalization...some certainly would've thought the world was flat, and more educated may have known it was round, for most I doubt if they thought about it all...

 

that doesn't confirm that it never happened...

 

my daughter is a archeologist/historian she confirms the origin of "dark ages" and attributes it to the people of the Renaissance who felt superior to their predecessors...

my 13 yr old claims it was because they had no electricity

 

now you've met prometheus, he has an alternate version of history you never imagined possible...