The corruption of history

[justaguy313]

Kudos, someone who who listened in history class. Just one little detail:

While nationalism was highly practised around that time, the real reason for WWI (and especially the size it had) was internationalism. Rarely before had there been alliances with more than two or three players. And when there were, like against Napoleon, they formed during the war. Prior to WWI there were two blocks facing each other and only because of that face-off could an incident in Serbia involving an Austrian national lead to Germany triggering the war.

The WWI Conspiracy | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

 

[Heyo]

The WWI Conspiracy | The Corbett Report

www.corbettreport.com

The Corbett Report - Bias and Credibility
Who ever is tempted to view it should have a look at that.

I watched the first 20 minutes and I can't comment on the conspiracy but the history seems to be accurate.

 

[Stevicus]

Kudos, someone who who listened in history class. Just one little detail:

While nationalism was highly practised around that time, the real reason for WWI (and especially the size it had) was internationalism. Rarely before had there been alliances with more than two or three players. And when there were, like against Napoleon, they formed during the war. Prior to WWI there were two blocks facing each other and only because of that face-off could an incident in Serbia involving an Austrian national lead to Germany triggering the war.

All true, although it's doubtful that Britain, France, and Russia would have gotten together to form a pact without their shared fear of Germany.

Russia and Austria were both multinational empires, each facing nationalistic opposition within their borders. Some may ask why Austria couldn't just stay out of the Balkans, while others may ask why Serbians couldn't simply be content as subjects within the multinational Austro-Hungarian Empire. Both were motivated by nationalistic ideals.

 

[justaguy313]

I don't know if that would be the majority. However, there are quite a few people who seemingly misunderstand many aspects of U.S. history. History is easier to corrupt when there's a significant degree of ignorance and historical misinformation floating around out there.

Well, not every democrat is in KKK, but a lot of them are.
Not every republican is a racist but a lot of them are.

I hope this clears up the mist

Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Stevicus]

Well, not every democrat is in KKK, but a lot of them are.
Not every republican is a racist but a lot of them are.

I hope this clears up the mist

Ku Klux Klan members in United States politics - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's a good deal more complicated than that, although I don't think anyone has denied that there were Democrats in the KKK in the past.

There's obviously been some changes and historical progression which have taken place over the past 150 years. This is just as true for America as a whole as it has been for the political parties. Just because Andrew Jackson and Barack Obama joined the same political party, it doesn't mean their politics were the same.

 

[justaguy313]

It's a good deal more complicated than that, although I don't think anyone has denied that there were Democrats in the KKK in the past.

There's obviously been some changes and historical progression which have taken place over the past 150 years. This is just as true for America as a whole as it has been for the political parties. Just because Andrew Jackson and Barack Obama joined the same political party, it doesn't mean their politics were the same.

Well, nobody can't deny that the founding fathers and most of the presidents of USA were freemasons and they were not Christians. Many researchers have pointed that out. So much for the thesis that USA was founded on Christian principles what most people argue about in America nowadays.