Commonly believed historical inaccuracies

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Actually never heard that, and it is strange since WW2 is known to have started on 1st September 1939 when Hitler invaded Poland, but given that talks had already taken place between Russia and Germany about carving up surrounding countries and Stalin then invaded Poland on 17th September himself, all widely known, I thought.

New book on World war 2 with Stalin , rather than hitler as chief architect:

https://www.amazon.com/Stalins-War-New-History-World/dp/1541672798

The Us sent about three times as much to Uk as they did to USSR. ($31.4b to $11.3b ).
While important, the USSR would not have been defeated by Hitler even without this aid.

However, without the USSR, the US might have used the atom bomb in Europe against Germany

Fritzbox wrote: »

That's hard to say. Without all those American trucks how would the Soviets have moved all those heavy artillery pieces and rocket launchers, hardly going to push them by hand?

True and in 1944 rations for the Russian troops came from the USA!
They were close to collapse in '42. Stalin considered making a deal with Hitler.

Conall Cernach wrote: »

On the Bayeux Tapestry itself there is a Saxon getting cut down by a mounted Norman right beside the guy who is shot in the eye. I have seen it conjectured that this is Harold getting killed as the Tapestry itself doesn't say "Harold gets shot in the eye" but "Harold is killed".

That's the version I heard that there was a misinterpretation of who Harold is in the tapestry

Caquas wrote: »

An important example of historical myth which has a basis in Irish reality. It is factually incorrect - Victoria gave £2,000 from her personal funds - but she did not show real concern for the fate of the Irish people. As a constitutional monarch, there were strict limits on her powers but she had more political authority than the current Queen and Victoria wielded immense influence over public opinion in Britain, the Empire and the whole world. Her failure to adequately mobilise the British government or philantropic organisations played a major role in the catastrophe of the Great Famine. Here is a good account based on historical evidence.

https://www.irishcentral.com/roots/history/queen-victoria-irish-famine

Jesus. Irish Central as a source! Are you for real??

Should be renamed: Irish Center of the universe

That Cathal Brugha died in a hail of gunfire trying to escape.
He died in the Mater Hospital a couple of days after being shot

Caquas wrote: »

......... Victoria gave £2,000 from her personal funds - but she did not show real concern for the fate of the Irish people.

Just to show how wrong you are on the topic and why I was so dismissive - Queen Victoria wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury what are known as the ‘Queen's Letters'. As monarch she was the titular head (Supreme Governor) of the Church of England) so effectively they were 'orders'; in the first of them she calls for a collection to be made in the churches to aid the Irish (and Scots) suffering from the famine. Her letter was to be read aloud in all Anglican churches and also was published in ‘The Times’ of London (22 Jan. 1847). Her first letter produced a very successful result - it raised £170,571. That amounts to about GBP 11 million in today’s terms.

Mick Tator wrote: »

Just to show how wrong you are on the topic and why I was so dismissive - Queen Victoria wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury what are known as the ‘Queen's Letters'. As monarch she was the titular head (Supreme Governor) of the Church of England) so effectively they were 'orders'; in the first of them she calls for a collection to be made in the churches to aid the Irish (and Scots) suffering from the famine. Her letter was to be read aloud in all Anglican churches and also was published in ‘The Times’ of London (22 Jan. 1847). Her first letter produced a very successful result - it raised £170,571. That amounts to about GBP 11 million in today’s terms.

Do you seriously think this was an adequate response to the famine in ireland for the head of state?
Do you think the same response would have prevailed if a million people died of famine in London?

Achebe wrote: »

He wasn't even from Garryowen.

He had quite "interesting" personal views as well, not mentioned in the pub ballad of course.

Several posters seem to think they are in AH where anything goes.

rock22 wrote: »

I am not saying that the USSR did not get lend lease aid from US. But to suggest that the USSR army would have been in capacitated without this aid does not stand up to scrutiny

The soviets relied at lot on SU 76 artillery which was self propelled.
There own tanks (T34) were far superior to most of what they got from UK or US. Of the best US tank, the M4 Sherman, they only received about 4000.

UK received over three times as much aid as USSR.

They may have been incapacitated at one stage. 90% of their army rations, the aluminium for the T34 tank engines and much machinery to build same.

Has there ever in history been a song, lament or ballad that actually told the truth about the "hero" of the piece

rock22 wrote: »

Where are you getting these figures from?

I responded because of a quote from a new book which suggested that US gave the Soviets whatever they wanted and therefore the US paid for the spread of communism across Eurasia. And that this was not reciprocated.
In fact the US refused many requests from the USSR.
And USSR provided much raw material, including hard to source chromium to US . They also paid for most of this , eventually, in dollars.

But the same is not being said about the UK which received three times as much.

By the way, the US troops in south Asia were almost totally provisioned by NZ ( and a bit by Australia).
If you read about the eastern front you will see that the troops, on both sides, travelled mostly by shanks mare, using horse drawn transport when available. So , no , they weren't travelling by Dodge truck. If fact the Dodge 3/4t truck was really a large 'jeep' type vehicle.
What defeated Hitler in the east was the Soviet army. All the truck s in all the Chrysler or GM factories in the world would have had anyno effect without that army.
Clearly the book referred to is just another revisionist volume , with an anti communist slant , to blame the soviets for ww2.

I read them in a few books but can't find an online link now. Of course the Soviets defeated the Nazis but see these opinions from Russians of note..


Soviet dictator Josef Stalin raised a toast to the Lend-Lease program at the November 1943 Tehran conference with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. "I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war," Stalin said. "The most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war."
Nikita Khrushchev offered the same opinion.
"If the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war," he wrote in his memoirs. "One-on-one against Hitler's Germany, we would not have withstood its onslaught and would have lost the war. No one talks about this officially, and Stalin never, I think, left any written traces of his opinion, but I can say that he expressed this view several times in conversations with me."

breezy1985 wrote: »

Has there ever in history been a song, lament or ballad that actually told the truth about the "hero" of the piece

Well, close enough!

breezy1985 wrote: »

A song that Dylan himself stopped singing due to becoming unsure as to the credentials of the "hero"

Well there was a retrial and he was found guilty and then another and found innocent but I dont think thats the main reason Dylan stopped. There were legal implications to the song because he named people.

Very much on the nose for Dylan. He only played it live on one part of a tour over 10 weeks in late 75 and early 76. Very Bob.

breezy1985 wrote: »

A song that Dylan himself stopped singing due to becoming unsure as to the credentials of the "hero"

Can you explain , genuinely interested.

Caquas wrote:

You dismiss IrishCentral as a source but you don't point out any inaccuracies.

I and lots of others dismissed IrishCentral as a source. The nonsense purveyed by that site is patent rubbish from the outset. Asserting that Victoria was ‘the Famine Queen’, a name that the American nationalist community tried (unsuccessfully) to stick to her, is plain silly
Queen Victoria was greeted by rapturous crowds everywhere she went when she visited Ireland in the last days of the Famine (1849); Cork, Dublin, etc. all had firework displays, triumphal arches (one for e.g. on the canal to greet her entry into Dublin). It was not just the aristocracy, but the ordinary poor who turned out in their hundreds of thousands to greet and welcome her. Go explain that if you can (because the tiny nationalist community were unable to do so at the time and said her visit had been a huge setback to their ‘cause’. And reflect, while you are at it, the visit was a year after the Young Irelander ‘rising’. Who was shown more support?

Caquas wrote:

My post pointed out the widely believed historical inaccuracy that Queen Victoria only contributed 5 Pounds but I believe this myth has a kernel of truth.

Confused. What is your position? Do you believe the myth? Or the kernel of it? Or do you agree it is historically inaccurate (i.e.rubbish)? You also are being rather economical with the truth – what you said was

Caquas wrote:

-but she did not show real concern for the fate of the Irish people. ………… Her failure to adequately mobilise the British government or philantropic organisations played a major role in the catastrophe of the Great Famine.

That statement is patently untrue. You misunderstand her role and powers, and you also dismiss her ‘Letters’.

Caquas wrote:

There was considerable generosity among British people but public opinion in Britain was infused with Malthusian beliefs about population, a lassez-faire approach to economics generally and very negative feelings about the Irish.

Contradicting yourself again there. Public opinion in Ireland was also infused with ‘Malthusian beliefs’, laissez-faire economics and blamed the blight as a ‘visitation from God’. Not of course that it stopped the Irish merchants form shipping out foodstuffs. Go read the minute books of any of the Workhouses, or sermons by priests of various denominations, or the contemporary newspapers. Read for example ‘The Great Famine in Tralee and North Kerry’ by Bryan MacMahon. It would open your eyes on the role God played.

Caquas wrote:

GDP11 Million in today's money would be regarded as a very minor gesture towards a famine. For example, in the current dreadful famine in Yemen, the international community is seeking to raise US$3.5 Bn. for a population about twice the size of Ireland's pre-famine population. That would mean about GBP 1.3 Bn. relative to the scale of the famine so the collection you mention raised about 1% of what we would now expect as a global famine effort.

Nonsense. Have you any idea of the difference between what is agreed as aid and what is actually delivered? Do you know that the Yemini war has cost that country MORE THAN $100 BILLION? Are you aware of the bureaucracy, corruption, total absence of infrastructure, etc., etc., in Yemen? Or that an oil tanker, the ‘Safer’ (oh the irony!) has been rotting away off the coast and could – at any moment dump more than a million gallons of oil into the Red Sea?
The majority of people around the world have ceased to give a rats about Africa and places like Yemen. Supporting them with ‘aid’ is money down the drain, it lines the pockets of the rulers..

Caquas wrote:

It seems the Sultan had a better understanding of the scale of the Irish famine.

I see you are falling into the trap of the hoary old chestnut of the Ottoman nonsense. Go read about it in a history book, not some fairytale created for Yanks. The Ottoman regime was hardly a poster boy for democracy!

Caquas wrote:

If you want to convince the Irish that Queen Victoria did the best she could in response to the famine, be prepared to meet with scepticism!

Dream on! I never contended that, nor have I asserted that the British government did a good job – clearly they did not.
Your comments show an ignorance of historical fact, of matters surrounding the Famine and an ignorance of the role of a constitutional monarch including the role (and power) of Victoria after her accession.
If you want to revive a post pages back from last month and pick a fight, at least go do some factual homework first.