Thread: OMFG SOMEONE SUE THE HISTORY CHANNEL!

LOOK AT THIS SHIT!





Ok, so first of all it gives NO REFERENCE onto WHO wrote the Flying Silver shields crap. Personally i've read the Roman sources several times, and no mention of it. Unless they're doing some Oriental crap but they do NO MENTION OF IT and claim primary source Greek historians said it, which texts are gone.

but then again they might have done a crappy job in the references and there may be some actual historic account of it i'm not aware of right?

BUT LOOK YOU HERE!

Were was Alexander in 329BC?

329 February Armies unite in Arachosia
April Alexander advances to Gandara
Late May Alexander crosses the Hindu Kush (text)
c. 1 June Alexander advances to the Oxus (text)
Alexander captures Bessus
Alexander advances to the Jaxartes
July Alexander founds Alexandria Eschat?
Revolt in Sogdia, led by Spitamenes; battle of the Jaxartes
Cavalry reorganized

Were the fuck is this region? Its around Pakistan Afghanistan and he's making his way into India (at that time THAT was India). Cyrus is dead and Alexander has taken his empire.

But then History Channel claims that 7 years latter another Silver shield helps him to conquer Tyre. O FUCKING REALLY!?

332
January Beginning of the siege of Tyre
Spring Disintegration of Persian fleet
July Fall of Tyre (text)

TYRE WAS CONQUERED BEFORE 329! BEFORE CYRUS WAS DEAD AND ALEXANDER WAS MASTER OF ASIA!

FUCK YOU HISTORY CHANNEL!




Chronology of the reign of Alexander the Great

The whole "History was influenced by Aliens" was a bigger shock I might say. But I suspect they didn't get anything wrong, but outright LIED!

What really, western historians lied huh? Read Ludo Martens - "Another View of Stalin".

You need to make a thread about this? I'm pretty sure south park just did an episode about the ridiculousness of it as well. All I can say is "ARGH!!!!"
I hope that shit isn't shown internationally. Reeeeaaally makes us look dumber than we are. History channel is kind of on par with MTV for me, now.
Dumb dumb dumb.

Originally Posted by Crusher

I hope that shit isn't shown internationally. Reeeeaaally makes us look dumber than we are.

Why do you say that? I think it makes you look smarter than you are. Most americans wouldn't be able to tell when world war 2 happened. If you add to this that the D-Day was the opening of the second front and then you ask them where was the FIRST front, their head is going to explode.

Americans deserve the title of the dumbest nation of the Western "civilization".

Read this Nikolai Starikov: How to learn history the American way

«I live in America and I wanted to tell you about how the US views the Second World War. The first thing that hit me was that most Americans believe that it is they who made the main contribution in defeating the Nazi Germany. Their knowledge about the Soviet Union’s contribution is a very vague notion at best.

Many Americans even go as far as to think that Soviet Union fought on Hitler’s side. You can often hear Russian gays say “Unlike you, the West told the truth about everything and condemned this and that!” – while we are supposedly lagging behind them. Very few people in Russia would believe that in reality only a scant of Americans possess even distorted, ideologized or any knowledge at all about the war or the world history. The general American public knows very little and contents itself with passively assimilating one-sided view they are presented with by the mass media.

But let’s move on from the general impression to raw facts. How can one falsify history without abating oneself to producing blatant lies? The answer’s simple – by telling only certain parts of the truth.

For example, you’re reading in a book that late in the evening a man killed another man in a park. Did it really happen? Yes, it did. Your reaction is bound to be negative – we’re talking about a killer! You’ll feel no sympathy for this man, only repulsion.

Were you lied to? No, you were simply told a part of the truth. The whole truth consists of the fact that the man killed another man, who was trying to rape a woman. Stumbling upon the act, he threw himself to the defense of the lady and in an armed struggle, ended up killing the assailant.

As you can see, as soon as you “add” information, your reaction to the event changes drastically. Now the man is not a killer. Now he’s a hero who did what any real man would’ve done.

That’s exactly how they write history in the West. Ideological tasks are achieved through distortion and suppression of information.

Let’s take a look at one of the history school books for 13 year old children: Prentice Hall – History of Our World, 2007.

In section 4, Chapter 21, only a single paragraph is devoted to the course of WWII in Europe during 1943-1945. Here’s the complete passage:

«Victory in Europe. Following campaigns in North Africa and Italy, the Allies opened a western front against the weakened Germans. On June 6, 1944, Allied warships carrying 156,000 troops landed at Normandy, on the northern coast of France. Known as D-day, the Normandy landing was the start of a massive Allied campaign eastward. Within six months, the Allied armies had reached Germany. After one last attempt for success in December 1944, known as the Battle of the Bulge, the German army collapsed. The Allies declared victory in Europe on May 8, 1945.»

And that’s how the war ended. In fairness, the chapter does mention the Battle of Stalingrad and the Battle of Moscow. But as soon as the Americans land in Europe, the authors suddenly forget about the Russians altogether. There are no massive strikes by the Soviet Army in 1944-1945, there is no Battle of Berlin. There are only weakened Germans. Weakened by the strategic air raids of the Allies.

Now let’s drop in at the local library (http://www.monmouthcountylib.org/).

The shelves are filled with books about World War II. Most of them talk about American battles and Holocaust. A lot of books deal with the Japanese attack on the Pearl Harbor or the D-day. For those who don’t know, “D-day” is how they call the opening of the Second (or Western) front on July 6, 1944. It’s a military term that designates the day a major attack begins.

It wasn’t called like that by chance.

It is very convenient that Americans don’t talk about the opening of the Second Front, but rather remember a «D-day: the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany», the most important battle of the WWII in their understanding.

If you start talking about the Second Front, all kinds of question suddenly come to mind. Where was the First Front and which front was more important? So it’s short and clear – the D-day.

But let’s get back to the library. On a conspicuous shell, I notice three copies of a book with a beautifully designed cover. It’s a book by a famous American historian Stephen E. Ambrose – «The good fight. How World War II was won, 2001».

The annotation is promising. It says “Stephen E. Ambrose, one of the finest historians of our time, has written an extraordinary chronicle of World War II for young readers”.

I open the double-page spread, read a list with the main events of the war and freeze with shock.

1939:
September 1. Germany invades Poland, World War II begins.

1940:
September 27. Japan signs Pact of Steel treaty.

1941:
November 5. Secret decision by Japanese government for war with United States.
December 7. Japanese launch sneak attack on US military bases at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
December 8. U.S. declares war on Japan.

1942:
January 20. Wannsee Conference.
April 18: Doolittle Raid on Japan.
June 4. Battle of Midway, Japanese forces seize Alaskan islands of Attuand Kiska.
August 7. U.S. Marines invade Japanese-held island of Guadalcanal.
November 8. Operation Torch, the Allied invasion of North Africa.

And so on and so forth. Almost not a single word about the struggle of the USSR against the Nazism.

So in an attempt to answer the question how WWII was won, “one of the finest historians of our time”, calmly and without a twinge of conscience, talks only about battles in which Americans took part.

And this is considered normal practice in America. Go on amazon.com and see for yourself. The book’s got mainly positive reviews (except for your most humble servant’s comment).»

Tigran Halatyan, Candidate of Technical Science (PhD)

Have I mentioned the podcast "Dan Carlins hardcore history"? There are 4 episodes titled "The ghosts of the Ostfront" that you may find interesting. I generally find it to be a well researched and often controversial (in the west at least) series of programs.

He covers a host of topics, most of history really, in an interesting and thought provoking way. Dan Carlin - Hardcore History Archive

Edit: Sorry forgot why I was here, I cannot watch the history channel, I tend to spend the entire time harrumphing and complaining that the whole thing is total tripe.

WHAT THE FUCK!









Is there even history in the channel anymore?

http://www.history.com/schedule

Originally Posted by gittish

Have I mentioned the podcast "Dan Carlins hardcore history"? There are 4 episodes titled "The ghosts of the Ostfront" that you may find interesting. I generally find it to be a well researched

I checked out the description of "Ghosts of Ostfront part 4".

"Dan looks at the German retreat from Soviet territory and the retaliation by traumatized Soviet soldiers and civilians on their former tormentors as Berlin falls"

Is this about that mass rape bullshit? If so, then I don't want to listen to this, it's utter lies, this Dan hasn't researched anything at all.

It's simple, really. Two German feminists took the statistics of women who were having abortions in ONE hospital in Berlin. Seeing as that week, there were more abortions than usual, they concluded that additional abortions were due to rapes (see feminist obsession with rape in the neighbor thread), and then extrapolated the statistics onto the whole country, and then said "SOVIETS RAPED 2 MILLION GERMAN WOMEN!". If this is scientific approach or a proof of anything at all, then be my guest, continue reading wikipedia and listening to this "Dan".

If he's talking about something else, then what is it? Because however "traumatized" Russian soldiers might have been, we never executed POWs (not as a general rule anyway) and we've fed them 2000 calories/day, with 60 grams of proteins/day (I obviously don't remember the exact figures, but I remember being surprised by how well they were taken care of). They were more comfortable being POWs than our own soldiers who received less than that.

If this Dan does adequate research, I'd very much like to hear what he has to say, but the description is promising of typical western bullshit, unfortunately. Have you listened to these Ostfront episodes, gittish?