History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.
What are your favourite beefs with historical received wisdom and/or conspiracy/alternative theories [about what you think actually came to pass] that you subscribe to or are tempted by?
Originally posted by FMF To paraphrase Napoleon, if I may:
[b]History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.
What are your favourite beefs with historical received wisdom and/or conspiracy/alternative theories [about what you think actually came to pass] that you subscribe to or are tempted by?[/b]
History repeats itself because each successive generation has to learn all over again what the previous generation learned in the same way. It's the same story retold time and again. Brother killing brother.
Originally posted by josephw History repeats itself because each successive generation has to learn all over again what the previous generation learned in the same way. It's the same story retold time and again. Brother killing brother.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it! 😉
Thanks. But something more directly connected to the OP question would be even more interesting. 😉
Originally posted by FMF To paraphrase Napoleon, if I may:
[b]History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.
What are your favourite beefs with historical received wisdom and/or conspiracy/alternative theories [about what you think actually came to pass] that you subscribe to or are tempted by?[/b]
WW2 myths
The Spitfire was the plane that won the Battle of Britain.
We (Allies) were fighting against Fascism/Jewish Persecution.
The US came to Europe's aid.
The Interregnum (1649–1660)
An important part of British History "brushed under the carpet"
Royalists = "Goodies"
Roundheads = "Baddies"
Originally posted by JS357 Well we'll all get to work on making it more interesting. Any suggestions?
'History repeats itself' and 'History is all about brother killing brother' would perhaps make interesting threads in their own right. wolfgang59 on the other hand, I would suggest, has understood the point of this thread. 🙂
Originally posted by wolfgang59 WW2 myths
The Spitfire was the plane that won the Battle of Britain.
We (Allies) were fighting against Fascism/Jewish Persecution.
The US came to Europe's aid.
The Interregnum (1649–1660)
An important part of British History "brushed under the carpet"
Royalists = "Goodies"
Roundheads = "Baddies"
Myth: The coup d'etat in Indonesia starting on 30 September 1965 was staged by the PKI (Indonesian Communist Party).
If personal history is irrelevant, as it pales in comparison to the
meaninglessness of such a brief existence, why would collective history
be any more worth pondering about?
Originally posted by Seitse If personal history is irrelevant, as it pales in comparison to the
meaninglessness of such a brief existence, why would collective history
be any more worth pondering about?
The worthiness is not being debated is it? ... although that might make an interesting thread.
Do you believe all history?
Do you know some "accepted" history is bunk?
Originally posted by wolfgang59 WW2 myths
The Spitfire was the plane that won the Battle of Britain.
We (Allies) were fighting against Fascism/Jewish Persecution.
The US came to Europe's aid.
The Interregnum (1649–1660)
An important part of British History "brushed under the carpet"
Royalists = "Goodies"
Roundheads = "Baddies"
Although the Spitfire is a beautiful plane, the version that fought in 1940 was inferior to its main German rival, the Messerschmitt 109E. Spitfires merely had eight Browning machine guns with 14.7 seconds worth of ammunition, which compared badly to the ME-109E with its 55 seconds of ammunition and two 20mm cannon. Although the Spitfire may have been more manoeuvrable at high speeds, such an attribute was not particularly relevant for the form of air-to-air combat being practised above the skies of Southern England. The Me-109E could climb faster, accelerate faster, and dive faster – three attributes that made it a far more effective fighter than the 1940 Spitfire.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Although the Spitfire is a beautiful plane, the version that fought in 1940 was inferior to its main German rival, the Messerschmitt 109E. Spitfires merely had eight Browning machine guns with 14.7 seconds worth of ammunition, which compared badly to the ME-109E with its 55 seconds of ammunition and two 20mm cannon. Although the Spitfire may have bee ...[text shortened]... ar more effective fighter than the 1940 Spitfire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moreRketqek
Really? Then the Germans won the Battle of Britain?
Defenders always have more to fight for than the invaders.
History is a myth agreed upon
14 Mar '16 00:52
YouTube
Back to Top