Things that never actually happened in History but people say did

Here you can list things that people generally seem to beleive happened in History but never actually happened but you must be able to demonstrate your claim and it must be pre 1950 (no conspiracy nuts please).

Example 1) German failed to become the national langauge of the USA by just one vote.- widely beleived but its nonsense, there is no evidence for such a vote.

2) The US government gave blankets infected with Smallpox to native Americans- widely beleived but never happened. Actually in the 18th century a British officer in King Philips war suggested in a letter that this be done but it was immediately struck down as abhorrent.

 

One of the biggest lies is that NASA sent men to the moon.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487&p=4001964&viewfull=1#post4001964

 

How is that before 1950?

 

1. Hitler having huge support in Germany. He only won the national vote with 33.1%.

2. The USA being a military superpower pre WW2. The USA in 1941 actually ranked militarily as high as Portugal at that time, that's why Hitler never gave American troops much credit and declared war although he didn't have too (thank God).

3. February Revolution in Russia happened in February is a misconception. The orthodox Russians still used the julian calendar, not the gregorian. According to our calendar (and the one they use today) it was on March 8th.

4. First Council of Nicaea (325) in which all Catholic religions sat together and decided what the true catholic religion was, never happened.

5. In the medieval times they thought the world was flat. A widely spread misconception! Even the pope had always a ball as a symbol of his world-power. There were only 3 papers claiming the world was flat, all of them Arabic and not widely spread. Every sailor had to learn that the world was round because the guy on the top of the mast would see land before the others.

6. Jesus was born in the year 0. Also wrong. Roman numerals don't have the number zero. Zero was a late invention. They went from minus one to one. No zero in between. He was born in the year 1 (if it ever happened)

7. In WW2 France gave up very quickly. There are more French casualties in WW2 than the USA and British had with a total of 250,000 fallen French soldiers.

8. As soon as the USA got involved in WW1 the Entente was obvious to win. Very wrong! The USA had no standing army nor did they have the weapons. It took the USA nearly a year before the first Americans would find their way to Europe.

9. The term Dark Ages refers to the middle ages because nothing happened. The term "dark ages" was a term invented by the renaissance people and enlightenment period in order to lift them intellectually over the people before. There was much progress in the 10 "dark centuries".

I'll think of more. But these came to mind instantly.

 

good list but I will argue the point with a couple.

in WW2 The frech did give up very quickly. They actually had more troops than the Germans but their leadership was utterly appaling and morale collapsed. It took only 6 weeks from the german invasion to the total capitulation of France.

the Dark ages' is so called because unlike the preceding classical period we have very little written evidence of events. There is almost nothing written from the fall of the Romanocelts in britian until bede for instance. There may be some regional variation but in the Uk the dark ages end at the end of the 11th century after which the Middle ages commence. Being an afficianado of medeavel technology means I can attest to your celebration of the progress in that time.

The other 8 Are all good ones.

 

Keep in mind that the French gave up quickly was because their leaders were not as crazy as the German leaders. Look at Paris in 1945 and look at Berlin in 1945. If Hitler wasn't such a moron and just given up in 1943 or even 1944 there would have been 20 million casualties less in Europe. Nearly half the people in WW2 died from 1943 to 1945 just because one mad-man was unwilling to admit defeat. The French government wasn't that stupid and probably saved a couple million French lives. Over 600.000 died anyway. They fought as hard as they could, but their regime was sane enough to admit defeat when they were defeated. Surrounded troops always surrendered before the fanatics of WW2.
Only because we know now how crazy Hitler was and there was no other way than killing that loon, we can claim it was a mistake.

The dark ages claim to a period roughly between the 500 and the 1500 (primarily 6th to 8th century depending on the source), and it's a term used for all of Europe, not only Britain. And as a historian I can assure you there are lots and lots of documents all the way through. I haven't worked in Britain (yet), but there is loads here in Austria and Germany. It is still a terminology falsely later bestowed by people who felt they were superior which has no justification.

 

As you pointed out in No.2 the correspondence regarding smallpox blankets being given to Native Americans is from before there even was a US government. The intent of the British government to do so is mentioned in several correspondence and there is also a surviving journal entry referencing it in the past tense.

Fast forward to the US government's removal of the Native Americans and you have a more of an argument for lack of evidence. I certainly wouldn't put it past our morals in regards to Native Americans.

 

Sorry but your comment doesn't negate the fact that the French did give up very quickly.

You claimed they didn;t give up quickly because they lost so many men, I stated that they did give up quickly. You giving a reason for giving up quickly is no way a negation. France did not lose more casualities than Britain or the USA. France took 220,000 Military casualities. Britain took 380,000 and the US 415,000 (figures round to nearest 5000)

When you say you are a historian do you mean you are a published academic? Either a tenured professor at a University or a published independent? or does it mean you have majored in History at undergraduate level?


I have no knowledge of German terminology but in the UK we use the dark ages as a colloquial term to refer to the early medeavel period by which we meanmean 420 -ether 1066 (traditionally) or more latterly 1100 broken down into Migration period ( 420to 600) The heptarchy (600-900) and The unification and danelaw period. (900-1066/1100)

Obviously in the Southern Mediterrenean there is a plethora of written records but outside the haven that is Ireland in the Migration period there is almost no documents at all and we have to rely heavily on Archeology and Genetic sampling

 

There was no intent of the British government to do so. As I stated one General suggested it and it was rejected by the British government as inhuman so how does that become 'the intent of the British government.

There is complete lack of evidence for any US action. Whether you wouldn't put it past them is quite irrelevant. You cannot convict someone of an unreported action on the basis that 'they were the sort of people who would do such a thing'.

 

There were several references to it.

http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/amherst/lord_jeff.html

 

Yes As I said It was a British Affair during the French and Indian wars. Amherst approves it and it is never carried out.

Since the Tory Earl of Bute had just been displaced by the Whig Grenville ( I went to school in his private house interestingly) Amherst was releived of his command and summoned back to Britain and Subject to orders in councl iand the letters were brought forward as evidence of his unfitness for command (amongst other issues).

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the 19th century US military. Why people attempt to libel them in this manner is off since the Forced migration of the Cherokee (colloquially 'The Trail of Tears') Cements Andrew jackson as probably the most calculatingly evil of US presidents and should give plenty of ammunition t those who wish to attack US police (let alone the later atrocities against the Lakota and Nez perce peoples)

 

That the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret the Constitution. Obviously untrue, or judicial review would have been used from the very beginning instead of waiting 12 years for the Supreme Court to declare its own superiority over the law. In Marbury v Madison, the Court committed the logical fallacy (petitio principii, poorly translated as "begging the question") of interpreting the Constitution to give it the right to interpret the Constitution. The reason for this usurpation of power was that the elitist wannabe aristocrats, the Federalists, had just been soundly and permanently defeated by Jefferson. The last holdover for oligarchy was the Chief Justice, John Marshall. So he proceeded to take "We, the People" away from us, the people. The Court has been an unauthorized law-making body ever since. Nullifying laws is the same as voting them down, which is a legislative function.

Showing how snide these pompous jackals were, the first thing they did in declaring their dictatorship was to refuse the power to rule on political appointees, which Marbury and Madison were. That was in order to fool people that they would use their unauthorized power sparingly. Believing instead that they were power-hungry threats to the nation, the outraged democrat, President Jefferson, started impeaching these usurpers. Temporarily, they backed down and claimed theirs was a non-binding opinion. They soon sneaked their dictatorial power back in once the political elite saw it as another tool to keep us, the people, out of government affairs.

 

France lost 250,000 military and 350,000 civilian casualties. So about 600k total. Britain 452,000 military and 60,000 civilian, so 510k total. The USA had very few civilian casualties, and not all fell in Europe; people tend to forget that. Hence France had more casualties than Britain and the USA.

France was at war with Germany from September 3rd 1939 till June 22nd 1940. People only refer to the attack of Germany which is wrong. The many people who died outside the few weeks of the attack would strongly disagree. Even worse is that they think the French stopped fighting with June 22nd. I think it's unreal what French troops had to go through since 1939 all the way to 1950 as they pretty much continuously were in battle. There are a lot diaries and research done now, which I highly recommend. These poor people went from war-zone to war-zone... Unreal. So it's a big misconception that the French gave up quickly!

I do not know how to properly answer the question of the historian. I have a Master's degree, but so far only one article publication. I'm working on a radio-broadcast and on a book at the moment, which should get published this year. After that I'm gonna start writing my thesis. I just haven't had the motivation to start with the paperwork yet. So no, I do not work at the university, but I'm there on a daily bases due to my research. Also I have to travel for research to other countries because the topic I research is triple-lingual. It takes time to get through. I cover a community or county and the effects WW2 had on them. I wouldn't want to go into greater detail as this is off topic enough I feel.

As I said the "dark ages"-term are a European wide phenomena misconception which came from the renaissance and later the enlightenment period. It depends on the source like I said, and it usually covers 500 to 1500 - in other words the entire middle ages. Some sources primarily put the "dark ages" between 476 (fall of the west-Roman Empire) to 800 (coronation of Charlemagne as emperor). This is the continental-west-European model. There are British models as you see, but since the terminology in it's bases is completely false, I don't see the argument. Keep in mind that the renaissance people primarily lived in Italy and they didn't refer to the British or English history but their own as the "dark ages".

And as we're talking I thought of another misconception:

10. The term "migration period" is completely false. As many of my colleagues keep saying in their publications. This term should disappear from every history book. It even says on wikipedia that it was from 400 to 800, which is complete hogwash! People always migrated and never stopped. There was no period. Like Slavic groups and Hungarians in the 10th century never migrated and just appeared from thin air. Or like the Greek never migrated 600 BC, or Europeans never migrated from 1500 onwards to the Americas. Migration is normal and always did happen and always will happen. There was no period of it. Period would mean it had a start and an end which it clearly did not.

 

You specifically spoke of Soldiers. Now you are changing the parameters. You seem to make a habit of this.

The French did nothing but man the Maginot line until the German invasion. The French didn't stop fighting on June the 22nd they then switched sides and fought for the Germans when they joined the Axis powers 6 months later. Interesting that you give an end in 1950 rather than 1956.

You have a masters degree with no thesis? How odd. I did theses both for my Masters and Doctorate.

And I say that is not how we use the term in the UK.

such as?

Even in Wikipedia! Gosh! Why are you consulting Wikipedia?

So you don't think that the period from 300 -500 on the European continent had notably higher levels of migration than others....interesting.

 

Where did I say only? I said "with a total of 250,000 soldiers". With doesn't mean only.

I think if I'd been mean I could have even gone into the 1960s as WW2 veterans continued fighting all around the world. But you did catch a typo. 1950s and 1950 is quite a difference unfortunately. But as you know they continued fighting even in France against the Nazis. The really poor souls were had to fight for the Germans. Afterwords they were unable to come back home honorably and often got shipped to another war zone. But in France the question really was if you belong to the right resistance. It is a misconception that France just gave up. To this day the French get little credit for their WW2 contribution, which is greater than what the wide spread conception would lead to believe.

I have a thesis. I had to look the proper term up in the dictionary. I figured theses meant the book for the PhD too. My mistake if only dissertation refers to to the doctorate.

I take it back. The "dark ages" are a proper term. There must be a different heritage for this word in the English then. Be my guest to clarify it's heritage. I'm curious to know.

Most of my sources are in the German language I'm afraid and I have to look up the German terminologies and translate them into English; which is rather handy on wikipedia. That way I also get to know if it refers to the same thing and period. As a historian you know period classifications can differ from country to country - or rather culture to culture.

I don't see the big difference really if you start with the eastern Goths, Huns, or Greeks and end with Vandals or Mexicans. As people always migrate it's hard to claim this specific period is the "real" "migration period". In the end more people went from Europe to America or Australia than Goths, Huns, etc. from 400 to 800 put together. Or can you think of a 400 year period in which people didn't migrate in the last 3000 years? Maybe even before that if enough records exist. Or think the other way around: Given the migration of the last 400 years how would the "migration period" outperform in order to have such significant claim? If you think of how many peoples traveled in the last couple of centuries all around the world, would this not classify as a "migration period" too?

 

I skipped over this one. In the English-speaking world you have Walter Andre Goffart and Peter Heather who complain about the terminology "migration period". Goffart fundamentally disagrees with the terminology and Heather complains about it's inaccuracy. But as I'm no medievalist I'd have to research for more if you wish a longer list with English speaking researches. With the German historians a friend of mine could help me out, whom I see on rather regular bases. He's a medievalist specializing on the Mongol invasion of Europe who doesn't even want to hear the term "migration period". He's been rather busy holding lectures lately as the budget cuts to the local Universities have not spared his devision and he has to teach now several classes. I don't know whether he has now time for further research, but if you really want to I'll ask him for a longer list.

 

WW2 was a disaster for western civilization. Tehran, 1943, Churchill and Stalin would have oppted for
a peace settlement. Rossevelt rejected. Result, half of europe occupied by the scourings of the Soviet
Union.

 

At Tehran, Churchill and Roosevelt consented to the USSR setting up puppet communist governments in Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic states, Romania, and other Eastern European countries but it was a price they had to pay to ensure the Soviet Union's continued participation of the West's war efforts to defeat Nazi Germany. With the considerable delay of Operation Overload to open a second front, Stalin had a strong bargaining position to negotiate a deal favourable to Soviet Russia because it was the Soviets who were doing the hard part by fighting the Germans on the Eastern Front.

 

Mihapa.

Merely because there are other periods of moted migration doesn't mean that we cannot call this specific period of very high migration 'the migration period', Ireland refers ,in its popular usuage' to the period of saints and sinners ( for this period) which doesn;t exclude their being saints and sinners from other periods.

Secondly History is a multi faceted dicipline with many approaches, the idea that someone is 'right' merely because they assert it is fallacy. A Marxist , an Annalisian, a Whigg or Conservative Historian are going to take very different approaches and it is often worth checking those who do not share your histirographical method for altenate views.

Then there is also politics. people impose demands based on their own political demands., one only needs to0 look at the utter mess that is Israel palestine to see how history is based out of shape.

Lastly I don;t think true translation is actually possible. Even when words have exact correspondence usage is so different in even closely related langauges such as German and English that one can be laden with all manner of implications

As a post script I know Pete Heather as he lectures at Kings, he deals almost exclusively with German issues, he wrote The Visigoths from the Migration Period to the Seventh Century: an ethnographic perspective which implies that he uses the term even if he has difficulties with his usage. This is quite different from demanding that the term not be used. I have never met Goffart but I have read his monograph on Beowulf.

 

That Native Americans were an inferior fighting force that our technology overcame:

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/article_1986...eve-about-founding-america.html#ixzz2JL7qkz7S

 

The term is simply completely misleading. That's the problem! The rejection of this terminology may be bigger here. But in the end it's still a wrong term. It implies that there was less migration later as well as before and that it has a rather specific beginning and end. I don't see how this terminology possibly is accurate even though it's widely used. You have to see the problem with this terminology and why it should disappear as an overall chapter for peoples migrating from 400 to 800. It doesn't make sense that if you look up the terminology "migration period" you get stuck with certain peoples and a certain period.

Since you know Heather, ask him (if you get the chance) what he thinks. Whether "migration period" refers to the proper thing, or if it is misleading.

 

Coming back to the "dark ages" terminology.

Source

I thought your "dark ages" terminology in English might have a different heritage and hence referred to something different. Now it may be that wikipedia is wrong here, as it often can be, so I'd want to see counter argument and sources of your's.

Reading this, it confirms the terminology's use in a way which is familiar to me: negative and misleading terminology of the Middle Ages with the renaissance "superiority-complex" origin.

 

Strangely at social gatherings we talk about Football, TV and sex and rarely about History. I am aware that there is ALWAYS arguments about terminology, indeed there is constant toing and froing over every part of history which makes it interesting.

I have noted that there is a big difference between the USA and the UK in attitudes towards authority. I was a guest lecturer at UConn in Storrs, Connecticuta and found that Undergraduates just accept lectures and never try and ask challenging questions. The only challenges that I ever got were on some politically correct basis or , even worse, religious basis and grounded in ignorance.
'
We don;t use 'dark ages' any more in academic terminology we use' Early Medeval ', teminology is constantly in flux but if you say Dark ages in the UK you always mean before 1100 and traditionally 1066, for us the Medeval period ends at 1485, obviously the rest of the world isn't bound by this.

 

I'd certainly hope that the "dark ages" term got kicked out the academic terminology a long time ago. This condescending term has no room in the scientific community. Unfortunately it hasn't left the general perception of the people. Many people still refer to middle ages as the "dark ages" because of the lack of progress. This terminology as I said from the start has a very different origin, and in todays world brings with it a misconception of the middle ages which is just not true. Whether it's early medieval or any other medieval period it's really besides the point. The term just fuels the misconception.

I hope that the "migration period"-term will follow soon.

It surprises me though that you guys would talk about TV or football. I have friends who are not historians with whom I cover these topics. Personal problems and issues I understand; but that you don't talk about history to the people who really know what you're talking about and might have a great insight and perspective seems odd to me.

 

We talk history all the time when we are working, when we socialise we don't. We READ each others works and reply to them in journals or we organise seminars to discuss certain issues.

What I want to keep out of History is all the political nonsense that has permeated other social sciences. We aren't a movement for 'scoial progress' we are a movement to try and understand the past. I realise that in the US the repulsive Post Modern movement has permeated almost every part of academia. Well not here.