History's Underrated

[Behind The Mask]

Germany being bent out of shape for losing parts of Prussia would be as bad as Russians complaining about losing the Ukraine simply for it being the birth place of Russia in a way.

What has happened as happened.

[OneArmedScissor]

If you're making a post about a war, then get out, please.

Cry me a river. The Germans reaped what they had sown. The Nazi regime failed with everything they touched, and the Germans who had been cheering by the millions when the war went good, got what was coming. Given German behaviour in both the occupied territories and in the war on the whole, the vengeful side of me would say they didn't suffer enough...

So you are supporting the murder of innocent civilians?
Nice of you to contribute such profound insights.

[Odovacar]

Not to mention the army. Only a handful of those who actually had the ability to remove Hitler and his gang of lunatics from the equation used that chance to do so. They knew what was happening in the occupied territories. And to their eternal shame the Wehrmacht assisted the Einsatzgruppen and the SS in their insanities. And did...

-If you would any idea whats like living in a totalitarian state you wont wonder that they could not get rid of Hitlerr and that just so few people wanted to get rid of him...
-Only about 0.8 procent of Wehrmacht committed proven war crimes, my info comes from a book about Wehrmacht.

No one argues that Germany didnt make horrible crimes under nazi leadership but the Allies were not innocent too.
Mass execution of prisoners? You mean Katyn for example?
Allied pilotes reportedly shot parachuting enemy pilots which Luftwaffe considered to be dishonourable.

The germans had great role in their suffering but everyone else was innocent and that the common people deserved those suffering seems to be a nazi-type argument for me.

You know its not easy to get rid of opressive gov's as there is in american films....

Did all German soldiers, women and children that had supported a nationalist regime that promised to restore their country's honour get what they asked for? You're so short-sighted to think in right sides and wrong sides, and to equal a government's decision with the choice of the individual.

Very true. The nazis were bastards but the war was almost inevitable though. Germany was repetadly humiliated even under Weimar Republic..it was just a matter of time before they get their revenge.
The world paid dearly for two of its crimes:
-being cynical with far right wing movements and social problems (what were the liberals doing to stop mass work shortage?)
-making a slave treaty instead of peace treaty at Paris.

The germans paid for their crimes too, and I doubt you would say to a raped woman, or a not war criminal man returning from soviet mining labour camps or Gulag that he hasnt paid his bill.

[Shrapnel]

-Only about 0.8 procent of Wehrmacht committed proven war crimes, my info comes from a book about Wehrmacht.

So out of a moblised strength of 18.2 million that would be 180,000 soldiers committed warcrimes....seems rather a lot to me - though of course nothing comparing to the atrocities committed by the Russians.

Mass execution of prisoners? You mean Katyn for example?

That was the Soviets, not the Allies.

Allied pilots reportedly shot parachuting enemy pilots which Luftwaffe considered to be dishonourable.

The Luftwaffe deemed to be dishonourable? Oh no, I guess you would like to tell the people of Rotterdam that or any of the other cities which the Luftwaffe terror bombed; or maybe the pilots might have had a reason after Germany invaded their countries and commited the warcrime announced above.


But the rest of your post is fair.


Anyway if you want to continue the argument please continue it by private message, otherwise it just clogs up the thread.

[Visna]

-If you would any idea whats like living in a totalitarian state you wont wonder that they could not get rid of Hitlerr and that just so few people wanted to get rid of him...

I'm not denying that. That's where the backbone comes in. To see something is dreadfully wrong and decide to try and end it, even though there is a very high risk of it failing and you dying is a really hard choice. I have no idea if I would be able to make it myself. We're all conformists to some extent after all.

-Only about 0.8 procent of Wehrmacht committed proven war crimes, my info comes from a book about Wehrmacht.

The Wehrmacht engaged in numerous atrocities on their own during the invasion of Poland. But in the big picture, the percentage of Wehrmacht soldiers who commited (proven) war crimes is fairly low, yes.
They did, however, assist the Einstatzgruppen and the SS. So unless you think, that they had reason to believe, those poor souls who were being rounded up had been invited to a tea party, I don't really know what you're getting at here.

No one argues that Germany didnt make horrible crimes under nazi leadership but the Allies were not innocent too.

Some psychologists believe that human behaviour, for all it's complexities can be broken down until you reach only 2 patterns. Action. And reaction. Germany acts. Allies react.

Mass execution of prisoners? You mean Katyn for example?

A lot of things wrong with that example. It was done by a German ally for one thing.
And second, an estimated 16,376 Poles were executed by the Wehrmacht and the SS during the invasion of Poland in 1939 alone.
Richard C. Lukas. Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles Under German Occupation 1939-1944
The Katyn massacre was in 1940. So, Germany started.
Do you have other bad examples?

Allied pilotes reportedly shot parachuting enemy pilots which Luftwaffe considered to be dishonourable.

Considering it was the Luftwaffe who brought terror bombing of civilian urban areas into the equation, (something the British wouldn't do until the German bombing of Rotterdam), I'd be a bit cautious using their distinction between honorable and dishonorable behavior as a general guideline. Just a suggestion of course...

The germans had great role in their suffering but everyone else was innocent and that the common people deserved those suffering seems to be a nazi-type argument for me.

Action. Reaction. Cause. Effect.

You know its not easy to get rid of opressive gov's as there is in american films....

What?! You mean to tell me that reality is rarely like in American movies?
*slits wrists*


EDIT.

Anyway if you want to continue the argument please continue it by private message, otherwise it just clogs up the thread.

Or make a new thread? I'm up for it. Bring it!

On topic: the suffering of those who had the guts to oppose Hitler. Hats off to the social democrats, Stauffenberg and his gang plus those few who acted on an individual basis or in small groups for that one.

[Lysimachos11]

...

Off-topic: Germans civilians had to endure Allied war crimes en masse (late-war executions by Eastern European thugs, senseless bombing of German cities without reason unlike Rotterdam, etc.) because of the actions of a few in the Einsatzgruppen. Blaming the Wehrmacht for similar crimes is always false as it were only sporadic events, about as sporadic as the killing of German POW's and civilians by Western Allied forces. Ofcourse the Germans lost so their story gets no attention, while incidents such as Malmedy get blown into the sky.

On topic: the suffering of those who had the guts to oppose Hitler. Hats off to the social democrats, Stauffenberg and his gang plus those few who acted on an individual basis or in small groups for that one.

You're so wrong here. Stauffenberg has streets named for him and receives alot of media attention and praise (at least in Germany). Stauffenberg is a hero, while the ordinary Landser that got sent off to die a meaningless death somewhere in Russia is an evil jew-killer. You are defeating yourself in this discussion by bringing up Stauffenberg and the like.

[Shrapnel]

Could we please stick to the topic...start a new thread or pm please...

[jimkatalanos]

Basically, this thread is about history's most underrated moment. Moments/Events where there was little attention to it.

IMHO I think that the Korean War was underrated and hardly known (except under the Koreans) and the English Civil War.

Guys, this is the topic. So try to stay on topic.

[Romano-Dacis]

The spread of Christianity is pretty underrated. I mean, in comparison to the spread of Islam, which is covered quite well and in-depth (most of us know of Ummayads, Mughals, Fatimids and other caliphates) the spread of Christianity is not known that well at all. Maybe it's because it's not that well recorded and it was kind of residual after the Roman Empire. For instance in Romania there are Christian relics from the time of Roman colonization, and even long before any sort of organized church was established on its modern territory. Densus Church, one of the oldest churches in Europe (built on top of a Roman tomb), has no known founder. The spread of Islam is quite well recorded in comparison.

[HorseArcher]

4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th century history not about Rome or Byzantine or Europe but somewhere else.

[Carpathian Wolf]

4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th century history not about Rome or Byzantine or Europe but somewhere else.

In American schools you learn about Europe but somewhere else always and Roman Empire doesn't exist after the capital moved.

[Odovacar]

In American schools you learn about Europe but somewhere else always and Roman Empire doesn't exist after the capital moved.

Who are you kidding? Even Central-East Europe doesnt exist...

[gaius valerius]

Underrated overrated... I don't get this thread. First of all it's impossible to make that many claims about it. A western European person can pose that everything not European is underrated, a Chinese could pose the for everything not Chinese. Most importantly... on what level? Highschool? University? Cause there is a huge difference. In short, in highschool and the like, you can safely pose that everything is underrated, ill explained, basically a load of superficial - excuse me - crap. As far as higher education is concerned the first example of geographical location goes, although that according to ones interests one can generally choose to diversify on not-*insert geographical location here* subjects. Even so, history unless you specialise - even the basic higher education - is always superficial since it so complex.

Ppl here are talking about underrated... The last century has been a complete turnover in the field of history. Specialisation is higher than ever, more subjects than ever have been touched. Issues like histories of native inhabitants in colonies, pre-European societies, etc etc etc. If you are interested, there are even interested works on the history of sex, marriage and :wub:... What is underrated about it?

The whole 'my school didn't teach that' or 'my teacher forgot to mention that' doesn't mean that is something obscure and forgotten by history.

[justicar5]

Carthage before Hannibal.

His fathers conquest of what would become spain for instance. The fact that they had a long republican tradition etc.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Don't take it so seriously. This seems to be a pretty lax laid back thread where people just chill and mention "well how bout that thing" together and nod or might make a slight disagreement with.

I mean you're completely right, but...so what?

[gaius valerius]

I know but the point has to be made.

Who are you kidding? Even Central-East Europe doesnt exist...

From 1707 onward you exist again for my country Odo (just until 1795 though), oh yes, and somewhere before in the 15th century when the Burgundians went on a crusade near your place and then there is that one time in 1096 ppl from over here passed through there as well and made a big mess

[Lysimachos11]

I got another one that's underrated at all levels of education and public attention: Human history before civilization. Basically there is 2 million years of proto-human and around 100-200,000 years of modern human history that gets almost no attention. The only thing I can think of is Ötzi. But even in my university there is no course on early human history, it all starts with the Sumerians etc. What I want to know is how early humans lived, what tools they used, which diseases they coped with, how they handled death, how their place in the foodchain was etc. It's basically history of who humans really are. Out of the say 200,000 years of modern human existence, only history of the last 4,000 years gets attention.

[Romano-Dacis]

I got another one that's underrated at all levels of education and public attention: Human history before civilization.

Now you're just being desperate. I've learned a lot about human history before writing or "civilization", including the directions and dates of migration. Second of all, this is not "history" because history requires writing. Anything before the Sumerians is not history by definition. Human prehistory is covered quite well both in Arts and Science departments.

The Hittites are pretty under-represented in comparison to other civilizations. The Hittites were one of the three powers of the Middle East at one point (alongside the Egyptians and Assyrians, both of which get good coverage) but their coverage is miniscule. I do not even know too much about their artwork except that they made giant lion statues.

The relation between Khazars and modern Jews is pretty shady as well. I've heard many Jews today are actually descended from the Khazars, rather than the Israelites.

[Lysimachos11]

Second of all, this is not "history" because history requires writing. Anything before the Sumerians is not history by definition. Human prehistory is covered quite well both in Arts and Science departments.

I guess you're right there considering it's pre-history. Still I consider history to be about human life and experience in earlier times, not per se if something written was left behind. But I'm wrong there and I know it. Personally, I also like to read and hear about the "history" of the Earth, I think it's fascinating that all material on our planet right now originated elsewhere in the Galaxy. For instance, all the oxygen we breathe on our planet today originates from the Nuclear reaction of stars that died and exploded billions of years ago. Equally, all the water present at our planet today originates from giant icy asteroids that flew through our solar system before Earth was created. Your body is made up of hydrogen and oxygen that was floating around in space at some point in time.

Though luck dude, at my uni, it pre & proto-history was a course we had to take... It's a perfect example of the variety in curricula, stuff does exist even if you aren't taught about it.

Then I kind of envy you. Ofcourse if you have to learn it you only do as much as is required to pass for the next year, but I would really like to know more about it, and be certain that what you read is commonly accepted theory.

[Carpathian Wolf]

Oh here is one. Romanian involvement in the wars against the Ottoman Turks. Most western sources make it seem like it was just Austrians and Hungarians fighting Turks while Romanians (as well as other people of the area) sat around cheer leading.