Unpopular opinions about history - Share your "unpopular" takes on historical events and people (Expecting highly original Hitler posts)

[WhiskeyJack]

The idea that Patrice Lumumba is Congo's Che and would have made the country prosper if he was not killed by CIA niggers is stupid.

Weirdly enough it's the most common narrative.

Simply put, Lumumba was not pragmatic enough and did the have the quality of a good African leader.


He had a short reign as prime minister and people only remember the ideology and forget the rest.


With him in power, the country was sent in a civil war he could not control.

Finally there's 0 proof the CIA killed him. They planned to poison him but did not go further.

They could not even reach him if they wanted since he was in house arrest.

Patrice O'Neal would've made a great African leader, and while the CIA might not have killed him, they didn't exactly help, sneaking him snacks every night.

 

[King George III]

Operation Rolling Thunder was not intended to bring North Vietnam to the negotiating table, but instead intended to prolong the war and maximize profits. The retarded RoE and starting at the bottom of the A List is all the proof I need.

 

[Heckler1]

Left to their own devices I think the Indians would have wound up building a huge densely populated hydraulic empire on the Mississippi that would be like a second China.

Unfortunately, American Indians are kind of fucked with a bad spawn point, as they have n natural draft animals. Outside of llamas in South America of course. Without draft animals, you are seriously capped with how fast you can grow, helps gain resistance to diseases, and is a key building block for any real civilization.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Unfortunately, American Indians are kind of fucked with a bad spawn point, as they have n natural draft animals. Outside of llamas in South America of course. Without draft animals, you are seriously capped with how fast you can grow, helps gain resistance to diseases, and is a key building block for any real civilization.

Fair point, I forgot about the importance of those for doing things like plowing and hauling.

 

[Candlelight Desolation]

Czarist Russia sucked for 99.99% of people.

Can confirm - my family came from Romanov Russia, and I've had older relatives tell me about it. My great grandfather came over here with his own father, and the latter went back for the rest of their family. WW1 broke out, my ancestor was conscripted and killed in action, the rest of the family he went to bring over to North America starved to death because of Nicholas II's policies toward peasants. My great grandfather was the only one of his family left after everything was said and done. This is why I shake my head when people lionize the Russian Empire and Nicholas II in the name of anti-communism; the tsar was massively useless in the end, though the "cure" in 1917 was far worse than the disease.

 

[Burd Turglar]

Ghengis Khan was a pussy. Arrows are for smelly men who suck other smelly men.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

Ancient Regime France was awful, too, and the French Revolutionaries were not that unreasonable. They had REGRESSIVE taxation in France. Nobility (the rich people who could afford the burden) don't pay the tax, but the poor people too. And the Church were pawns of the state and vice versa. The Revolutionaries were well justified wanting to liquidate them all, and they get played up as being these proto-socialists, but from what I've read most of them were very liberal. I think there was something seriously fucked up with them given how they preyed on each other (in contrast to America's Founding Fathers), and Louis XVI HIMSELF wasn't bad (just like Nicholas II wasn't), but the society of monarchist France wasn't one that deserved to exist.

Nationalist China is another one people lionize. They were awful. They accidentally flooded millions of their own people to death trying to stop the Japanese. Monarchist China was awful. China in damn near every iteration has been awful.

You just don't get successful revolutions unless a place is awful. The United States turned out well because it wasn't really a revolution here in the first place, it was an independence war.

 

[Unfiltered Sunshine]

Yugoslavia should not have split up.

 

[Alex Hogendorp]

The 1950s - 2000s are gay af. The 2010s and 2020s were better because we all woke up at that time to clear out the facade.

 

[TruffleSpark]

That fag in Kosovo who shoved a bottle up his ass has a lot to answer for

 

[George Floyd Sneed]

Richard Nixon did nothing wrong. The shit he got in trouble for was child’s play even then. He was the backlash to the 1960s era degeneracy they wanted to keep pushing (sound familiar?) and after annihilating George McGovern in 1972, they had to find a way to discredit the backlash. The uniparty stuck the knife in and America would be a much better place if Nixon was able to serve his second term, which of course is why he couldn’t be allowed to do that.

I get annoyed with modern historian faggotry. They believe that Indians in the Americas had some kind of supercivilization until wypipo showed up. They pretend the Western Roman Empire never collapsed. They avoid “great man” theory to an autistic degree; Napoleon for example was just some guy wandering around Europe and the really valuable stuff is textile designs in Paris while this random guy was out stumbling about. They pretend that Haiti was actually functioning until America occupied it. They never have facts to base it on, it’s disturbing and concerning how much they just make shit up. I used to assume that historians of today would try to preserve as much information as possible but nope, we’re back to making the same mistakes again.

Not every guy who didn’t marry or had a close friendship with a man is gay. Fags are quick to assume Abraham Lincoln is one but not James Buchanan, of which there is a much stronger case for.

Eastern Europe would be a lot less fucked up if the Pale of Settlement citizens didn’t spend hundreds of years sucking up all the wealth, pitting communities against each other, and corrupting the populace. Spain saw that shit happening to them so 1391-1492 was the end result. Spain thereafter had unprecedented amounts of wealth after colonialism because they didn’t have usurers suck up all the wealth. They just chose to get into the slave trade instead.

 

[ReasonablyRetarded]

This is a VERY unpopular theory and I know most people don't think this is the case (for what I assume are good reasons) and I'm not even sure I "believe" it, but I kind of suspect Hellen Keller was lead around by the nose by her communist nurse, taught a lot of insane socialist shit to parrot or outright puppeteered at times. This theory got a lot of backlash when people first started speculating but it just makes so much sense. I tend to believe the things that just "fit" or seem a lot more likely than a miracle, yknow?

Maybe a US thing then? Everyone I talked to where I live about the HQ agrees that she was nothing more than a ventriloquist dummy for Anne Sullivan.
The podcast PKA had a pretty funny segment about the HQ, Taylor (the funniest host) absolutely nailed it.

 

[Cats]

Maybe a US thing then? Everyone I talked to where I live about the HQ agrees that she was nothing more than a ventriloquist dummy for Anne Sullivan.
The podcast PKA had a pretty funny segment about the HQ, Taylor (the funniest host) absolutely nailed it.

Yeah, I've seen a couple people talking about it and having some pretty convincing arguments, even if they weren't really necessary to suspect the theories they put forth. What upsets me the most about this topic is how violently some people will attack others for even trying to talk about the possibility that Helen Keller was inauthentic. I mean I've never had that happen to me, I don't use social media or hold conversations with people online outside of here really. They rarely have anything to say that isn't some NPC babble or parroted slice of propaganda that could have come from any of a number of millions of twitter users that offer up retarded takes on things they know little or nothing about. But I've seen some of these people go positively fucking Nuclear on comments sections of videos or in forum posts that are just trying to have rational discussion and start accusing everyone of every "-ism" you can imagine just for the crime of being healthily skeptical.

When that happens all I can think is that on the other end of those words is either a bot that has been taught how to be a faggot or else some tubby blue haired pronouned hatemonger that I always imagine looks like one of these things:

Spoiler

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

They pretend the Western Roman Empire never collapsed.

What are you talking about?

Not every guy who didn’t marry or had a close friendship with a man is gay. Fags are quick to assume Abraham Lincoln is one but not James Buchanan, of which there is a much stronger case for.

I once read a book on slavery in Mauritius where the author went on a random ramble about how she personally thinks (with no evidence) that two slaves mentioned in some public document are gay for each other (who cares).

Romantic friendship was an idea academic types used to tout about how people acted a lot more touchy-feely gay with each other back before we had homosex shoved in our faces all the time, went out the door with the Victorians and was dead by present day. You still see it with a lot of people men from Asia that act bizarrely cuddly with each other in a way straight White men never would.

Ironically, it's flipped back now - due to these sex perverts - to reading the Big Gay into everything. I saw one guy point out that matelotage contracts (muh gay pirate marriage) often had articles referring to the pirates' wives. Just one example of them blowing something out of proportion. Or taking specific social institutions and then presenting them as equivalent to Western sexual degeneracy.

 

[Slap47]

Hirohito himself blamed the bombs. Unless someone can produce some testimony from Japanese leadership (it must exist, but I never see it in these arguments), it seems silly to me to argue with the God-Emperor about his own thought processes.

>asks for evidence for someone’s claim
>doesn’t provide evidence for his own claim
In regards to what you said, the emperor did mention the bomb but focused mainly on the fact that alternative plans (i.e. preparing to repel the allied invasion) were not going to plan and any mistakes with those plans in his worlds, “[could] not be rectified”.

In his speech the time devoted to nukes is minuscule compared to anything else.

What is cited during Hirohito's speech regarding their surrender is kinda irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that they clearly lost.

The US was strategically bombing all of their cities and the nukes were just an extension of that.
Alot of Japanese industry was in Manchuria and Japan had been moving factories to Manchuria to avoid bombing. The Soviets had just conquered Manchuria.
All of their forces over their extended empire were starving to death and their own country was starving to death.

Hirohito was a "God Emperor" but he also had to be strategic. Saying "the commies might get ideas" or "we lost on the battlefield" is obviously verbotten stuff. Citing the Americans as the reason for your defeat makes sense as they would keep him around and at that moment history they were guaranteed to be the force who would be able to occupy 99.999% of Japan.

 

[Ughubughughughughughghlug]

>asks for evidence for someone’s claim
>doesn’t provide evidence for his own claim
In regards to what you said, the emperor did mention the bomb but focused mainly on the fact that alternative plans (i.e. preparing to repel the allied invasion) were not going to plan and any mistakes with those plans in his worlds, “[could] not be rectified”.

In his speech the time devoted to nukes is minuscule compared to anything else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito_surrender_broadcast#:~:text=Let%20the%20entire%20nation%20continue,to%20construction%20for%20the%20future.

I just kind of glanced over it, but I didn't notice anything about Manchuria.He does say:

Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

That reads to me like the bomb is at least part of his vision of Japan being annihilated.

And again, there's arguments for not just taking people at their word - strategic reasons to misrepresent motivation - but I don't just take their word for it it was Soviet Manchuria either. I don't think Soviet Manchuria isn't a part either, my understanding is they cared about that because they were hoping for the Soviets to help them negotiate better terms, but that's still a surrender.

What is cited during Hirohito's speech regarding their surrender is kinda irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that they clearly lost.

The US was strategically bombing all of their cities and the nukes were just an extension of that.
Alot of Japanese industry was in Manchuria and Japan had been moving factories to Manchuria to avoid bombing. The Soviets had just conquered Manchuria.
All of their forces over their extended empire were starving to death and their own country was starving to death.

Hirohito was a "God Emperor" but he also had to be strategic. Saying "the commies might get ideas" or "we lost on the battlefield" is obviously verbotten stuff. Citing the Americans as the reason for your defeat makes sense as they would keep him around and at that moment history they were guaranteed to be the force who would be able to occupy 99.999% of Japan.

Satisfying to hear my Axis and Allies strategy (industrialize Manchuria) was a real thing. Didn't know they had their version of the Soviet relocation.

Do you think it was a case where the Japanese were searching for an excuse, and if one didn't serve itself up they woudl have had to suck it up and fold anyways?

I myself have started wondering if, based on the civilian members of the junta wanting to surrender, the Japanese people wouldn't have devolved into civil war (or at least just not fought back like robots) if the US had invaded. That those islands where they resisted so viciously weren't just more of a special circumstance.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

Yugoslavia should not have split up.

Yugoslavia was a united nation state not to dissimilar to Italy, Germany, or Romania.

 

[madethistocomment]

Anne Boleyn's henpecking of Henry and her inability to keep her head down and mouth shut around him (or anyone else, for that matter) is probably the main reason why she ended up losing her head.

Poor Catherine of Aragon lost many more children than Anne did, but she also knew to look away when Henry's eye started wandering and was much less forceful with her policy suggestions, while Anne insisted on being his one and only and openly challenged him on policy. I feel bad for Anne, genuinely, but I can't help but think that it was ultimately her own arrogance, stubborness, and temper that helped lead to her downfall.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

That reads to me like the bomb is at least part of his vision of Japan being annihilated.

It was a part, no one’s arguing about that.

And again, there's arguments for not just taking people at their word - strategic reasons to misrepresent motivation - but I don't just take their word for it it was Soviet Manchuria either. I don't think Soviet Manchuria isn't a part either, my understanding is they cared about that because they were hoping for the Soviets to help them negotiate better terms, but that's still a surrender.

They did want the Soviets to help mediate stuff between them and US and Japan did try to negotiate.

Soviet invasion was important because not only were they buttfucked by the Soviets on a front they had little defense on, but they also no longer had any means of peace. Allies refused to negotiate, and the Soviets betrayed them. The entire reason why the Japanease gov thought that resisting would have been a viable effort, was because they were hoping to force US to negotiating table (using the Soviets as Mediators) after inflicting great casualties on US landing troops.

Japan didn’t begin to think about unconditional surrender when the bombs dropped. They began to think about it when the Soviets invaded. In fact they declined to consider surrender to the first nuclear bomb (1,2). In fact the second bomb dropped after the Emperor had already decided that they could not win the war. The Emperor decided this before 10:30 that day, the bomb dropped at 11:02. So what happened on that day to force the Emperor’s hand? The 4 am Soviet invasion of Manchuria which the Emperor found very troubling.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

The Titanic was a European tragedy am I'm tired of pretending it's not.