How much of our history is incorrect?

[Roylion]

Did it sanction the creation of the state of Israel?

"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."

A venture of colonialism based on the false pretense of religious ownership of a land to a peoples who predominantly are of eastern european turkic speaking extraction?

Whether that is false or not is one perspective only. DNA sequencing is casting a fair bit of light as to whether this is correct or not.

All I am saying is we are all guilty of bearing false witness, and the truth lies at the end of the money trail whilst the power is in the hands of those we cannot criticize....

And that's only one perspective also.

 

[Todman]

The official British account of the battle of Waterloo for a start.

The British in many ways either totally ignored the contributions of some of their allied units or underplayed their contributions to the battle.

about 16 minutes in.

 

[Elroo]

So what's your point about mentioning the official British perspective of the Battle of Waterloo?

I thought that was made very clear in my previous posts!

The official English history was written post Waterloo by many historians who were paid by the various English regiments at Waterloo to highlight, glorify the regiments role in the French defeat. The official British history of Waterloo almost entirely wrote out any non-English units or commanders contributions to the battle of Waterloo; reading the English history of the battle you'd think most of the allied units fled at the first sight of the French or their allied commanders were incompetent.

The victory at Waterloo wasn't an English victory, it was an allied victory won off the backs of the allied contingents. Reading the official English history you'd think the allied contingents had a bit part in the battle and the battle was won purely off the back of the English.

 

[Roylion]

I thought that was made very clear in my previous posts!

The official English history was written post Waterloo by many historians who were paid by the various English regiments at Waterloo to highlight, glorify the regiments role in the French defeat. The official British history of Waterloo almost entirely wrote out any non-English units or commanders contributions to the battle of Waterloo; reading the English history of the battle you'd think most of the allied units fled at the first sight of the French or their allied commanders were incompetent.

The victory at Waterloo wasn't an English victory, it was an allied victory won off the backs of the allied contingents. Reading the official English history you'd think the allied contingents had a bit part in the battle and the battle was won purely off the back of the English.

And...so? The British emphasise their own role in the battle in their official history. Not new or surprising. Do historians have a misleading and incorrect view of Waterloo solely because the British gave their own version of the Battle of Waterloo?

Be that as it may, as I said, the official British history is but one available perspective of that particular event.

 

[Elroo]

Not at all. Check testing of stonework by independent scientists.

Just my research mate but glad it amuses you nevertheless.

See accounts from red cross and other views from people such as Mike King, Henry Makow and Gilad Atzmon...

You're a holocaust denier and a believer that Hitler was right in what Germany did?

There is zero evidence that there weren't gas chambers and a program of genocide prior to the Soviets finding Auschwitz.

Even the Nazi's themselves at the various camp court cases after the war didn't deny they built the gas chambers.

 

[Elroo]

And...so? The British emphasise their own role in the battle in their official history. Not new or surprising.

Be that as it may, as I said, the official British history is but one available perspective of that particular event.

And yes it's wrong. The official English history of Waterloo is wrong/incorrect; you know the heading in the thread; "How much of our history is incorrect"?

 

[Roylion]

And yes it's wrong. The official English history of Waterloo is wrong/incorrect;

And how do you know this?

you know the heading in the thread; "How much of our history is incorrect"?

Do modern historians have a misleading and incorrect view of the Battle of Waterloo solely because the British gave their own version of the Battle of Waterloo?

 

[BS_82]

You're a holocaust denier and a believer that Hitler was right in what Germany did?

There is zero evidence that there weren't gas chambers and a program of genocide prior to the Soviets finding Auschwitz.

Even the Nazi's themselves at the various camp court cases after the war didn't deny they built the gas chambers.

Rubbish.

Nuremberg was a witch hunt where forced confessions were obtained through various means of torture.

There are quite a few jews who say the Holocaust or shoah didn't happen. If you open your mind tou may venture to check.

The germans intentions were sound to begin with Elroo but there is nothing absolutely nothing honorable in or about war.

I believe the Holocaust is an industry, the proof is in the darkness of research I hazard a guess you will not sound out.

Incorrigible comes to mind.

If you are open to the other side of the argument you will check it out if not you will take the moral high ground and cite mainstream historians and revisionists.

I dont deny so much as question Elroo, amazing what you can learn along the way with such an approach

 

[Elroo]

And how do you know this?

Do modern historians have a misleading and incorrect view of the Battle of Waterloo solely because the British gave their own version of the Battle of Waterloo?

And how do you know this?

Hmm let me see there History teacher; the English history was written after the battle by historians who were paid by English regiments to glorify the English role in the battle whilst reducing contributions of the Allied contingents. You only have to look at the official English history of the defence of Hougoumont to see how the battle was written by the English to only highlight their role whilst disregarding or simply ignoring the allied. You also have the work by English Captain Siborne´s which was incomplete, included fabrications or simply contradicted itself. Siborne´s account of the battle was used as the basis for many following works by English authors and took his work as complete and accurate; it wasn't.

Many English officers post the battle built careers on the BOW and none wanted to admit that the so called "official English" history of what occurred at Waterloo was wrong.

http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/Dutch/Cavalry1815/c_DutchCavalryThoughts.html

The consensus on both sides of the Channel that Waterloo had been an allied effort and not only a British one, radically changed when Captain William Siborne, an officer of Engineers in the British army, in 1848 published his “History of the War in France and Belgium in 1815”[5]. The book was a reflection of his earlier scale model about the Battle of Waterloo, which was first exhibited in London in 1838 and now rests at the National Army Museum in London. The uniqueness of this eminent work lay especially in the exclusive correspondence with hundreds of British and Hannoverian officers about the Battle of Waterloo. A work so fundamental that it found no equals in the Waterloo literature. It has been the “bible on Waterloo”since that time and most British accounts on the 1815 campaign have been based on it, up to the present day.

But Captain Siborne´s work, valuable as it undoubtedly is, was highly biased and incomplete. This is especially so with regard to the Dutch-Belgians. Siborne had little information on the Dutch-Belgians, not about their position nor their exploits, and many British officers, when asked in the wake of the 2nd and 3rd editions, explicitly told him that they had no idea. Siborne then chose not to pursue the matter any further by seeking correspondence with Dutch of Belgian sources, not even with the French or numerous German officers who had been present at the Battle.


Because of his lack of understanding what went on where the Dutch-Belgians stood, Siborne either put them in reserve or fabricated incidents from circumstantial evidence. This could not hide the clear contradictions in his account of the battle. For example, according to Siborne, the Netherlands heavy cavalry brigade in one instance charges upon their French adversaries with "utmost steadiness and gallantry”and the next instance, after the personal appeal of Lord Uxbridge to charge the French, supposedly retires in great haste and disorder[6]. A confirmation or even indication of this story, so eagerly picked up in much of the British literature, couldn't be found in any of the Dutch or Belgian literature. In any event, such a major incident, where not a regiment such as the Cumberland Hussars (who were Hannoverian mercenaries) quits the field, but an entire Brigade, would certainly not have gone unnoticed in the contemporary publications on Waterloo. It would have caused widespread outrage among the press and public in the Netherlands if any truth would have been in this story.

However, Siborne can´t be entirely blamed for this serious omission in his work, because after reading all the letters of his vast Waterloo Correspondence at the British Library, his judgment on the Dutch-Belgians seems to me merely an echo of the low opinion most British officers had of their Dutch-Belgian allies. So there was clearly a basis for this neglect or even dismissal of the role of the Dutch-Belgians in the numerous British sources, many of them written by officers and men who had taken part in the battle. These primary sources, which included such men as Lord Uxbridge, Captain Tomkinson and Captain Mercer, were mostly quite negative about the Dutch-Belgians.

Do modern historians have a misleading and incorrect view of the Battle of Waterloo solely because the British gave their own version of the Battle of Waterloo?

What? Many historians you included I might add call Waterloo an "English Victory"; it wasn't, It was an allied victory.

 

[Elroo]

Rubbish.

Nuremberg was a witch hunt where forced confessions were obtained through various means of torture.

There are quite a few jews who say the Holocaust or shoah didn't happen. If you open your mind tou may venture to check.

The germans intentions were sound to begin with Elroo but there is nothing absolutely nothing honorable in or about war.

I believe the Holocaust is an industry, the proof is in the darkness of research I hazard a guess you will not sound out.

Incorrigible comes to mind.

If you are open to the other side of the argument you will check it out if not you will take the moral high ground and cite mainstream historians and revisionists.

I dont deny so much as question Elroo, amazing what you can learn along the way with such an approach

Total tosh.

The fact that you actually think Hitler was some good guy along with the germans and that the holocaust was/is a fabrications shows you're void of anything approaching intelligence.

There was nothing sound about the Germans intentions, they'd committed to committing genocide against any person's they considered sub-human, you may want to read Hitlers Mein Kampf and see what he thought of the jews and the slav's.

You think the Soviets/allies fabricated the train networks, the Zyclon B orders, the orders for materials for the chambers, the Nazi's own paperwork for the running of trains to the camps??

Nurenberg and the various extermination camp trials put the scum who committed genocide against innocent people on trial.

 

[Roylion]

Hmm let me see there History teacher; the English history was written after the battle by historians who were paid by English regiments to glorify the English role in the battle whilst reducing contributions of the Allied contingents. You only have to look at the official English history of the defence of Hougoumont to see how the battle was written by the English to only highlight their role whilst disregarding or simply ignoring the allied. You also have the work by English Captain Siborne´s which was incomplete, included fabrications or simply contradicted itself. Siborne´s account of the battle was used as the basis for many following works by English authors and took his work as complete and accurate; it wasn't.

Many English officers post the battle built careers on the BOW and none wanted to admit that the so called "official English" history of what occurred at Waterloo was wrong.

http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/organization/Dutch/Cavalry1815/c_DutchCavalryThoughts.html

Look that's great. So what you're in fact suggesting is that other historians used a combination of other primary sources (of which there are over 200) to corroborate, criticise, question...whatever... the official British version, and built up a more accurate picture of the events of the battle, the contribution of the various participants and the possible reasons for victory and defeat. In other words, the picture we now have of the Battle of Waterloo is much more 'correct' or accurate than it otherwise might have been.

How much of our History is incorrect? In relation to the Battle of Waterloo we most likely have a quite accurate picture of what actually happened. That's my point.

How much history of the Battle of Waterloo has been lost / covered up / changed? Not a great deal I'd be suggesting.

In relation to a great number of historical events that's also probably the case. Some we'd like to have more evidence...for example I'd love to see a thorough post mortem (including DNA analysis) on the bones of two children in the Tower of London reputed to be Richard III's missing nephews. Hopefully archaeology and yet to be discovered literary works will provide further light on historical subjects that we don't have a great deal of information on.

What? Many historians you included I might add call Waterloo an "English Victory"; it wasn't, It was an allied victory.

I didn't call it anything really. All I implied by my comment was that the British called Waterloo a British victory.

 

[BS_82]

Total tosh.

The fact that you actually think Hitler was some good guy along with the germans and that the holocaust was/is a fabrications shows you're void of anything approaching intelligence.

There was nothing sound about the Germans intentions, they'd committed to committing genocide against any person's they considered sub-human, you may want to read Hitlers Mein Kampf and see what he thought of the jews and the slav's.

You think the Soviets/allies fabricated the train networks, the Zyclon B orders, the orders for materials for the chambers, the Nazi's own paperwork for the running of trains to the camps??

Nurenberg and the various extermination camp trials put the scum who committed genocide against innocent people on trial.

Your poor parents and the exorbitant money they spent on your indoctrination.

Hitler didn't want war that was your heroes churchill and FDR at the behest of the internationalist bankers.

Hitler fought communism the single most murderous plague of ideology known to man responsible for 100 million deaths.

Your heroes are responsible for more deaths of civillians than hitler or any so called bad guy as labeled by the west.

Yes, you do bear false witness willingly it seems...

 

[BS_82]

Total tosh.

The fact that you actually think Hitler was some good guy along with the germans and that the holocaust was/is a fabrications shows you're void of anything approaching intelligence.

There was nothing sound about the Germans intentions, they'd committed to committing genocide against any person's they considered sub-human, you may want to read Hitlers Mein Kampf and see what he thought of the jews and the slav's.

You think the Soviets/allies fabricated the train networks, the Zyclon B orders, the orders for materials for the chambers, the Nazi's own paperwork for the running of trains to the camps??

Nurenberg and the various extermination camp trials put the scum who committed genocide against innocent people on trial.

I am a slav.

 

[sydney eagle]

How much of our history is incorrect ? That depends on who you ask. Try reading Russ Kick or Gavin Menzies or Erich Von Danniken for that matter; you may come away with the conclusion that history really is bunk !

 

[Power Raid]

history, especially politics and war is spoken of as black and white rather the shades of grey

 

[little graham]

The invasion of this country in 1788 is a prime example of the op's point. But the church is not the guiltiest here. The British version of history is one of the most bullshit stories you've ever heard.

Alll of the military reconnaissance this country from cook to Eyre to flinders ect, all logged in their diaries the intelligence and purpose of the civilization they were attackings, system. Darwin came along land said they were animals and the British gov said the and belonged to nobody. one also has to look at convicts and colonists who got lost or sick and were saved by darwins animals. There's many accounts of traditional medicine being used to save the colonists/military.


i won't name names but there's poster posting s**t and they know it, you would hope.

 

[John]

All not Alll. Maybe you meant Awl.

ect? What is ect?

Cook as well, not cook. Maybe you were meaning having a look?Rhyming slang?

The British gov said "the and". Yeah?

I never knew what you meant in the past so why should I now. What made me look here for the first time in ages?

 

[Subutai]

Total tosh.

The fact that you actually think Hitler was some good guy along with the germans and that the holocaust was/is a fabrications shows you're void of anything approaching intelligence.

There was nothing sound about the Germans intentions, they'd committed to committing genocide against any person's they considered sub-human, you may want to read Hitlers Mein Kampf and see what he thought of the jews and the slav's.

You think the Soviets/allies fabricated the train networks, the Zyclon B orders, the orders for materials for the chambers, the Nazi's own paperwork for the running of trains to the camps??

Nurenberg and the various extermination camp trials put the scum who committed genocide against innocent people on trial.

Are Germans bad people? Are Australians and English 'good people' and the Germans not? Some sources claim:

- In WW2 Churchill deliberately starved 6-7 million Indians to death



What about Russians?

- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued a public statement giving the death toll at about 10 million, during the Holodomor.


“Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”

Hermann Wilhelm Göring



The Germans plan was to send the Eastern Europeans/Jews to Africa. The final solution only came about as an idea after losing key battles which strained resources dramatically.The Soviets/allies knew about the camps, the trains, what was happening. For quite a long time, via Jews that had escaped and been able to communicate information to the relevant authorities. They had the means to stop it (bombing train lines etc.) at an earlier time yet did not.

 

[Subutai]

There's a number of sources for Hitler's death. Eyewitness accounts from transcripts of interviews both from Soviet soldiers and German POWs, photographs from Soviet archives, dental records, and so on.



No I wouldn't agree. Teachers are not told which side of a historical argument they should teach. Given time restraints we encourage students to be as objective as possible in their views of various historical controversies / questions.

Doesnt the story go; Hitlers favorite nazi bodyguard burned the bodies of him, eva and the dog?

if so what do the Soviet soldiers and German POWs claim they saw, a pile of Hitler-ash? Ditto photographs from Soviet archive

The skull was proven to be a female so im skeptical in regards to dental records.

His inner circle, those in the bunker were fairly pro-Hitler types. So Eyewitness accounts should be taken with a few grains of salts no?

 

[Roylion]

Doesnt the story go; Hitlers favorite nazi bodyguard burned the bodies of him, eva and the dog?

if so what do the Soviet soldiers and German POWs claim they saw, a pile of Hitler-ash? Ditto photographs from Soviet archive

The charred remains of the bodies which were burnt by dousing them with petrol. I don't think there is any suggestion that the remains of Hitler and Braun were ever totally reduced to ash, before their recovery by Soviet soldiers in May 1945.

The skull was proven to be a female so im skeptical in regards to dental records.

The skull fragments were recovered a full twelve months after the discovery of Hitler's remains in the bunker crater in 1946. These remains lay in the Russian State Archives until 1993, when they were re-found. According to American researchers, DNA tests in 2009 appear to have revealed that the skull was female and the examination of the sutures where the skull plates come together placed her age at less than 40 years old. (Incidentally Eva Braun was 33 when she died).

The jaw fragments which had been recovered in May 1945 have not been tested.

Incidentally just on that...Nicholas Bellantoni and Linda Strausbaugh who dealt with the DNA analyses of Hitler’s skull believe that Hitler died in the bunker in 1945. Bellantoni stated:

“As Dr. Strausbaugh has stated, we are in agreement that Hitler died in the bunker. The cranial vault fragment in question was recovered a full year (May 1946) after the initial discoveries of the bodies (May 1945). As we say in archaeology, “context” is everything. The context had been destroyed in waiting over a year to return to Berlin. The mandible [i.e the jawbone] that was sent to Moscow in 1945 is, I believe, that of Hitler. The cranial vault is someone else.”

DNA tests on blood on Hitler's sofa where he reportedly committed suicide - by the same American researchers that claim the skull is a woman's - have suggested that the sofa blood came from a male and did not match the DNA of the skull.

His inner circle, those in the bunker were fairly pro-Hitler types. So Eyewitness accounts should be taken with a few grains of salts no?

You appear to be the expert. You tell me.

Hitler's last will and testament

"I myself and my wife - in order to escape the disgrace of deposition or capitulation - choose death. It is our wish to be burnt immediately on the spot where I have carried out the greatest part of my daily work in the course of a twelve years' service to my people."

Given in Berlin, 29th April 1945, 4:00 a.m.

Two copies of the Will ended up in American hands, one set in British hands. Traudi Junge, Hitler's secretary, regularly recalled at various stages of her life, that she herself typed Hitler's last Will in the Fuhrerbunker and that Hitler's wishes as to the disposal of his remains were carried out.

If you want to believe in an alternative fate for Hitler feel free. At the moment its my view that the balance of evidence suggests that Hitler died in the Fuhrerbunker, Berlin in April 1945.

 

[Subutai]

The charred remains of the bodies which were burnt by dousing them with petrol. I don't think there is any suggestion that the remains of Hitler and Braun were ever totally reduced to ash, before their recovery by Soviet soldiers in May 1945.



The skull fragments were recovered a full twelve months after the discovery of Hitler's remains in the bunker crater in 1946. These remains lay in the Russian State Archives until 1993, when they were re-found. According to American researchers, DNA tests in 2009 appear to have revealed that the skull was female and the examination of the sutures where the skull plates come together placed her age at less than 40 years old. (Incidentally Eva Braun was 33 when she died).

The jaw fragments which had been recovered in May 1945 have not been tested.

Incidentally just on that...Nicholas Bellantoni and Linda Strausbaugh who dealt with the DNA analyses of Hitler’s skull believe that Hitler died in the bunker in 1945. Bellantoni stated:

“As Dr. Strausbaugh has stated, we are in agreement that Hitler died in the bunker. The cranial vault fragment in question was recovered a full year (May 1946) after the initial discoveries of the bodies (May 1945). As we say in archaeology, “context” is everything. The context had been destroyed in waiting over a year to return to Berlin. The mandible [i.e the jawbone] that was sent to Moscow in 1945 is, I believe, that of Hitler. The cranial vault is someone else.”

DNA tests on blood on Hitler's sofa where he reportedly committed suicide - by the same American researchers that claim the skull is a woman's - have suggested that the sofa blood came from a male and did not match the DNA of the skull.



You appear to be the expert. You tell me.

Hitler's last will and testament

"I myself and my wife - in order to escape the disgrace of deposition or capitulation - choose death. It is our wish to be burnt immediately on the spot where I have carried out the greatest part of my daily work in the course of a twelve years' service to my people."

Given in Berlin, 29th April 1945, 4:00 a.m.

Two copies of the Will ended up in American hands, one set in British hands. Traudi Junge, Hitler's secretary, regularly recalled at various stages of her life, that she herself typed Hitler's last Will in the Fuhrerbunker and that Hitler's wishes as to the disposal of his remains were carried out.

If you want to believe in an alternative fate for Hitler feel free. At the moment its my view that the balance of evidence suggests that Hitler died in the Fuhrerbunker, Berlin in April 1945.

I don't "want to believe" anything in particular. I just find it interesting the more I read/watch the less proof there seems to be in regards to the mans death. Perhaps the most influential person in the last 1000.

In regard to the original post its an example how something taught as fact is rather flimsy and lacking proof or evidence. I am not an expert just curious. I am not comfortably satisfied on the the balance of evidence. Which appears to be the word of his inner circle in the bunker and not much more.

 

[Roylion]

I don't "want to believe" anything in particular. I just find it interesting the more I read/watch the less proof there seems to be in regards to the mans death. Perhaps the most influential person in the last 1000.

But all you've offered as an alternative is a piece of skull (recovered in 1946) that probably was a woman's. That doesn't disprove the generally accepted theory that Hitler committed suicide on 30th April with his wife and that their remains were doused with petrol and buried in a crater to be discovered by the Soviets on May 4th 1945.

In regard to the original post its an example how something taught as fact is rather flimsy and lacking proof or evidence.

Eyewitness accounts, a jawbone, official SMERSH records, dental records and x-rays all exist.

 

[Pessimistic]

So what's your answer? Have you got some examples of misleading and incorrect history to draw upon?

Proof that things were destroyed long ago actually existed? Good one

How about a historically significant figure like Anne Boleyn, yet very few images exist and not many agree the ones we think are of her actually are?

Its as close as you get to prove that things were systematically destroyed

 

[Roylion]

How about a historically significant figure like Anne Boleyn, yet very few images exist and not many agree the ones we think are of her actually are?

Its as close as you get to prove that things were systematically destroyed

Yes, no contemporary portraits of Anne Boleyn survive.

However we do have contemporary accounts of aspects of her life such as Lancelot de Carle, a secretary to the French Ambassador who was a witness to her trial and execution.

What examples of what we do know about her life are misleading and incorrect?

 

[Pessimistic]

The difference in perception about the dardanelles campaign - ANZAC to australians - between current britons an current australians is stark

Its not really a big deal in british conciousness, it was a massive failure not really talked about. Churchills reputation suffered terribly, and many think his depression stemmed from that.

The perception of ANZAC oin australian consciosness is well known, but the fact other allieid troops such as british suffered or died in far greater numbers is a minor point in this version