Topic: Popular Historical Misconceptions
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos started this discussion 13 years ago #25,199
- The Reichstag Fire was started by the Nazis as a false flag operation.
> the consensus of nearly all historians is that Van der Lubbe did, in fact, set the Reichstag fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
> the consensus of nearly all historians is that Van der Lubbe did, in fact, set the Reichstag fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
squeegee !first/o5zA joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later[^] [v] #385,169
everyone knows the Nazis were evil.
you're probably surprised though.
you're probably surprised though.
squeegee !first/o5zA double-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 4 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #385,170
also, another popular historical misconception is that Jesus was the son of God and died on the cross to save us from our sins and grant us a place in heaven. in fact, now that i've read that a couple of times i can see there's a few of misconceptions there...
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 8 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #385,175
squeegee !first/o5zA replied with this 13 years ago, 31 minutes later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #385,186
beckyderp !CATLDyPIBQ replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 41 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #385,187
Anonymous D joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 minute later, 42 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #385,188
I've never heard of this historical event in the first place. So I win.
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 4 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #385,192
> According to Ian Kershaw, writing in 1998, the consensus of nearly all historians is that Van der Lubbe did, in fact, set the Reichstag fire.
But there are historians other than Kershaw who claim otherwise, so this is not as definitive a statement as it sounds. We may, in fact, never know the whole truth.
But there are historians other than Kershaw who claim otherwise, so this is not as definitive a statement as it sounds. We may, in fact, never know the whole truth.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #385,202
Napoleon actually wasn't very short. He was 5'7", only 2" shorter than the average modern American male, and pretty average for that time period.
Anonymous F double-posted this 13 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #385,203
There is no evidence that Vikings ever wore horns on their helmets.
Anonymous F triple-posted this 13 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #385,204
Fuck it, I'll just post this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_misconceptions
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 12 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,243
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 39 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,245
9/11 was a false-flag operation.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,260
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 5 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,262
Anonymous K joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #385,295
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 5 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #385,399
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) double-posted this 13 years ago, 23 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #385,400
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #385,402
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 9 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #385,405
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #385,413
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
Read the articles you cite and stop quoting out of context. Thanks.
Read the articles you cite and stop quoting out of context. Thanks.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #385,418
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 2 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #385,426
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
My claim is supported by your own citation, which has been cited. Thanks.
My claim is supported by your own citation, which has been cited. Thanks.
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #385,437
@previous (E)
Notice that I quoted the relevant text, and where it was sourced from. You have not done this. Do this. Regards, mm.
Notice that I quoted the relevant text, and where it was sourced from. You have not done this. Do this. Regards, mm.
(Edited 9 seconds later.)
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 21 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #385,438
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
You quoted out of context and then cited a source that contradicted your claim. Now you are pretending you can't read the very text you cited.
If you want us to evaluate your claim honestly, then please provide a list of all historians who specialize in events surrounding WWII along with their CVs and citations from their published works regarding their theory on the causes of the Reichstag fire. You have already misrepresented the words of one historian arguing his case as an authoritative consensus of many. You have already been dishonest and evasive, so without a more complete source I can't take your claim seriously. Regards, Anon E.
You quoted out of context and then cited a source that contradicted your claim. Now you are pretending you can't read the very text you cited.
If you want us to evaluate your claim honestly, then please provide a list of all historians who specialize in events surrounding WWII along with their CVs and citations from their published works regarding their theory on the causes of the Reichstag fire. You have already misrepresented the words of one historian arguing his case as an authoritative consensus of many. You have already been dishonest and evasive, so without a more complete source I can't take your claim seriously. Regards, Anon E.
(Edited 56 seconds later.)
RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos (OP) replied with this 13 years ago, 1 day later, 2 days after the original post[^] [v] #386,048
@previous (E)
> You quoted out of context and then cited a source that contradicted your claim.
There was no context. It was an absolute, unmodified statement. Didn't contradict my claim at all. If you think it did, show the part that did.
> Now you are pretending you can't read the very text you cited.
No, this is you. I am waiting for you to point me to the part that says differently, but you seem unable to read it.
> If you want us to evaluate your claim honestly, then please provide a list of all historians who specialize in events surrounding WWII along with their CVs and citations from their published works regarding their theory on the causes of the Reichstag fire.
I don't have to. I already cited an expert who had done this.
> You have already misrepresented the words of one historian arguing his case as an authoritative consensus of many.
Are you saying he was lying?
I know this is a troll, but there are very stupid posters on this site, so it does them well to do this.
> You quoted out of context and then cited a source that contradicted your claim.
There was no context. It was an absolute, unmodified statement. Didn't contradict my claim at all. If you think it did, show the part that did.
> Now you are pretending you can't read the very text you cited.
No, this is you. I am waiting for you to point me to the part that says differently, but you seem unable to read it.
> If you want us to evaluate your claim honestly, then please provide a list of all historians who specialize in events surrounding WWII along with their CVs and citations from their published works regarding their theory on the causes of the Reichstag fire.
I don't have to. I already cited an expert who had done this.
> You have already misrepresented the words of one historian arguing his case as an authoritative consensus of many.
Are you saying he was lying?
I know this is a troll, but there are very stupid posters on this site, so it does them well to do this.
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 1 hour later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #386,056
@previous (RandPaul2016 !4EB6xd.Oos)
The statement in the OP that you try to pass off as an authoritative consensus is merely the claim of one historian. Your cited material presents the views of historians who do not agree and mentions other theories regarding the events of that night. What you have presented sounds less like a popular misconception and far more like an open historical issue.
Look, I feel bad for you. I understand your desire to distance yourself from your earlier remarks. I enjoy popular historical misconceptions as much as the next guy, and I want to believe you. Unfortunately, your earlier dishonesty and evasive behavior have somewhat tarnished your reputation. If you want us to be able to evaluate your claim honestly, then please provide a list of all historians who specialize in events surrounding WWII along with their CVs and citations from their published works regarding their theory on the causes of the Reichstag fire.
The statement in the OP that you try to pass off as an authoritative consensus is merely the claim of one historian. Your cited material presents the views of historians who do not agree and mentions other theories regarding the events of that night. What you have presented sounds less like a popular misconception and far more like an open historical issue.
Look, I feel bad for you. I understand your desire to distance yourself from your earlier remarks. I enjoy popular historical misconceptions as much as the next guy, and I want to believe you. Unfortunately, your earlier dishonesty and evasive behavior have somewhat tarnished your reputation. If you want us to be able to evaluate your claim honestly, then please provide a list of all historians who specialize in events surrounding WWII along with their CVs and citations from their published works regarding their theory on the causes of the Reichstag fire.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #386,093
@previous (E)
Okay, so it looks like you might just be very confused.
> The statement in the OP that you try to pass off as an authoritative consensus is merely the claim of one historian.
The claim of a historian regarding the consensus. A historian said most historians hold a consensus on this issue.
> Your cited material presents the views of historians who do not agree and mentions other theories regarding the events of that night.
Yes, some historians do not hold to the academic consensus.
> What you have presented sounds less like a popular misconception and far more like an open historical issue.
All historical issues are open in that sense. It is a popular misconception that the academic consensus is in line with their conspiracy theory.
> Look, I feel bad for you. I understand your desire to distance yourself from your earlier remarks.
There is no such desire, nor any actions to indicate such a desire. You're full of it.
> Unfortunately, your earlier dishonesty and evasive behavior have somewhat tarnished your reputation.
I have concisely answered all your points honestly.
> If you want us to be able to evaluate your claim honestly, then please provide a list of all historians who specialize in events surrounding WWII along with their CVs and citations from their published works regarding their theory on the causes of the Reichstag fire.
I don't have to. I cited an authority in the field. If you want to challenge his claim, you should provide a list.
Okay, so it looks like you might just be very confused.
> The statement in the OP that you try to pass off as an authoritative consensus is merely the claim of one historian.
The claim of a historian regarding the consensus. A historian said most historians hold a consensus on this issue.
> Your cited material presents the views of historians who do not agree and mentions other theories regarding the events of that night.
Yes, some historians do not hold to the academic consensus.
> What you have presented sounds less like a popular misconception and far more like an open historical issue.
All historical issues are open in that sense. It is a popular misconception that the academic consensus is in line with their conspiracy theory.
> Look, I feel bad for you. I understand your desire to distance yourself from your earlier remarks.
There is no such desire, nor any actions to indicate such a desire. You're full of it.
> Unfortunately, your earlier dishonesty and evasive behavior have somewhat tarnished your reputation.
I have concisely answered all your points honestly.
> If you want us to be able to evaluate your claim honestly, then please provide a list of all historians who specialize in events surrounding WWII along with their CVs and citations from their published works regarding their theory on the causes of the Reichstag fire.
I don't have to. I cited an authority in the field. If you want to challenge his claim, you should provide a list.
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 4 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #386,123
@previous (L)
No, you seem confused. You made a claim in the OP that was taken out of context and which seems to be contradicted by the citation you provided.
> I cited an authority in the field.
You cited Wikipedia.
> If you want to challenge his claim, you should provide a list.
I honestly can't find his claim. The phrase from Wikipedia that you tout as "his claim" appears to be a paraphrasing of his statements from his book Hitler Hubris. Kershaw claims that the idea that van der Lubbe acted alone is "widely accepted", but he cites only two historians (Tobias and Mommsen) to support this. In fact, Kershaw even goes on to mention historians who aren't convinced. He does mention that the findings of the Luxembourg Committee are regarded by most experts as flawed, but this is only in reference to the counter-claims put forward by historians such as Hofer.
At no point that I can find does Kershaw actually claim that this is the "consensus of nearly all historians". Your quote mined from Wikipedia looks like it is just somebody's shitty paraphrasing.
The issue, however, is not about Kershaw's claim. The problem I posted about initially is that the claim made in the OP passes the (paraphrased, apparently) words of one historian off as a consensus. This is dishonest. If you want to back up your initial claim that "the consensus of nearly all historians is that Van der Lubbe did, in fact, set the Reichstag fire" you should be able to provide at least a listing of all relevant WWII historians and cited summaries of their positions.
No, you seem confused. You made a claim in the OP that was taken out of context and which seems to be contradicted by the citation you provided.
> I cited an authority in the field.
You cited Wikipedia.
> If you want to challenge his claim, you should provide a list.
I honestly can't find his claim. The phrase from Wikipedia that you tout as "his claim" appears to be a paraphrasing of his statements from his book Hitler Hubris. Kershaw claims that the idea that van der Lubbe acted alone is "widely accepted", but he cites only two historians (Tobias and Mommsen) to support this. In fact, Kershaw even goes on to mention historians who aren't convinced. He does mention that the findings of the Luxembourg Committee are regarded by most experts as flawed, but this is only in reference to the counter-claims put forward by historians such as Hofer.
At no point that I can find does Kershaw actually claim that this is the "consensus of nearly all historians". Your quote mined from Wikipedia looks like it is just somebody's shitty paraphrasing.
The issue, however, is not about Kershaw's claim. The problem I posted about initially is that the claim made in the OP passes the (paraphrased, apparently) words of one historian off as a consensus. This is dishonest. If you want to back up your initial claim that "the consensus of nearly all historians is that Van der Lubbe did, in fact, set the Reichstag fire" you should be able to provide at least a listing of all relevant WWII historians and cited summaries of their positions.
Anonymous L replied with this 13 years ago, 3 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #386,136
@previous (E)
> No, you seem confused. You made a claim in the OP that was taken out of context and which seems to be contradicted by the citation you provided.
There is no context needed. It is a self-contained statement of fact.
> You cited Wikipedia.
Yes, I cited an expert cited in wikipedia.
> I honestly can't find his claim. The phrase from Wikipedia that you tout as "his claim" appears to be a paraphrasing of his statements from his book Hitler Hubris. Kershaw claims that the idea that van der Lubbe acted alone is "widely accepted", but he cites only two historians (Tobias and Mommsen) to support this. In fact, Kershaw even goes on to mention historians who aren't convinced. He does mention that the findings of the Luxembourg Committee are regarded by most experts as flawed, but this is only in reference to the counter-claims put forward by historians such as Hofer.
> At no point that I can find does Kershaw actually claim that this is the "consensus of nearly all historians". Your quote mined from Wikipedia looks like it is just somebody's shitty paraphrasing.
I have a source for my claims. Find a better one saying otherwise. Thanks!
> The issue, however, is not about Kershaw's claim. The problem I posted about initially is that the claim made in the OP passes the (paraphrased, apparently) words of one historian off as a consensus.
lol. It is an expert in the field stating the consensus of the field. What don't you understand?
> This is dishonest. If you want to back up your initial claim that "the consensus of nearly all historians is that Van der Lubbe did, in fact, set the Reichstag fire" you should be able to provide at least a listing of all relevant WWII historians and cited summaries of their positions.
I don't have to. I have a source that makes such a claim. Feel free to find a better source claiming otherwise, or to make such a list and challenge my source.
> No, you seem confused. You made a claim in the OP that was taken out of context and which seems to be contradicted by the citation you provided.
There is no context needed. It is a self-contained statement of fact.
> You cited Wikipedia.
Yes, I cited an expert cited in wikipedia.
> I honestly can't find his claim. The phrase from Wikipedia that you tout as "his claim" appears to be a paraphrasing of his statements from his book Hitler Hubris. Kershaw claims that the idea that van der Lubbe acted alone is "widely accepted", but he cites only two historians (Tobias and Mommsen) to support this. In fact, Kershaw even goes on to mention historians who aren't convinced. He does mention that the findings of the Luxembourg Committee are regarded by most experts as flawed, but this is only in reference to the counter-claims put forward by historians such as Hofer.
> At no point that I can find does Kershaw actually claim that this is the "consensus of nearly all historians". Your quote mined from Wikipedia looks like it is just somebody's shitty paraphrasing.
I have a source for my claims. Find a better one saying otherwise. Thanks!
> The issue, however, is not about Kershaw's claim. The problem I posted about initially is that the claim made in the OP passes the (paraphrased, apparently) words of one historian off as a consensus.
lol. It is an expert in the field stating the consensus of the field. What don't you understand?
> This is dishonest. If you want to back up your initial claim that "the consensus of nearly all historians is that Van der Lubbe did, in fact, set the Reichstag fire" you should be able to provide at least a listing of all relevant WWII historians and cited summaries of their positions.
I don't have to. I have a source that makes such a claim. Feel free to find a better source claiming otherwise, or to make such a list and challenge my source.
Anonymous E replied with this 13 years ago, 7 hours later, 3 days after the original post[^] [v] #386,165
@previous (L)
What part of "your own source contradicts your claim" don't you understand?
- The quote you mined from the Wikipedia article isn't a claim actually made by that historian. (Kershaw)
- Kershaw explicitly mentions several other historians (Hofer, Fischer) who hold differing opinions.
- The Wiki article you cited mentions Hofer and the Luxembourg Committee who hold differing opinions.
- The Wiki article you cited mentions the confession of Gestapo officer Hans Gisevius which is at odds with your claim.
- The wiki article you cited mentions historians Bahar and Kugel who, working from newer evidence, contend that the Nazis set the fire.
- The Wiki article you cited links to articles detailing how a German court posthumously exonerated van der Lubbe in 2008.
> I have a source that makes such a claim. Feel free to find a better source claiming otherwise
The problem is that your own source (Wikipedia) is arguing against you.
> make such a list and challenge my source.
Again, I can't find any place where Kershaw actually makes the claim you made in the OP. As such, you haven't cited (directly or indirectly) any source for your claim other than a Wikipedia article that doesn't even support you.
What part of "your own source contradicts your claim" don't you understand?
- The quote you mined from the Wikipedia article isn't a claim actually made by that historian. (Kershaw)
- Kershaw explicitly mentions several other historians (Hofer, Fischer) who hold differing opinions.
- The Wiki article you cited mentions Hofer and the Luxembourg Committee who hold differing opinions.
- The Wiki article you cited mentions the confession of Gestapo officer Hans Gisevius which is at odds with your claim.
- The wiki article you cited mentions historians Bahar and Kugel who, working from newer evidence, contend that the Nazis set the fire.
- The Wiki article you cited links to articles detailing how a German court posthumously exonerated van der Lubbe in 2008.
> I have a source that makes such a claim. Feel free to find a better source claiming otherwise
The problem is that your own source (Wikipedia) is arguing against you.
> make such a list and challenge my source.
Again, I can't find any place where Kershaw actually makes the claim you made in the OP. As such, you haven't cited (directly or indirectly) any source for your claim other than a Wikipedia article that doesn't even support you.