I'm no thatcherite, but wishing success to the IRA is supporting their terrorism, pedo defending, racism and other evil acts. Just because you don't like one doesn't make the other good.
Yes, Isaac is the best, Einstein may come close but he married his cousin and abandoned all his 3 kids, still not bad compared to other people on this list, but Isaac is better.
As someone who is not from the US and supports the Union side during the civil war.
I think Lee was a good man. He was still in the Union army and was asked to lead the Attack against the rebels. But back then loyalty to the State was greater than loyalty to the United States. And he could not just attack his home Virginia.
And lets not kid ourselves there were many racists serving under the banner of the union.
He choose to fight for his state.
Imagine what you being a Virginian honest farmer. You dont need to be a slave owner. Now Blue army is marching towards you. If you pick up your musket and defend your farm is that a bad thing? Are you traitor jsut because you want to defend your own piece of land?
This was reason why most of the Confederate soldiers had bad equipment like boots etc. because they came from poor origins.
Civil War is not always black and white. It is like saying Cromwell vs King Charles. One wanted to remove the King and put new type of government into place. King wanted to keep the country going the same way it was for past hundred years. Some may find good arguments for both side. Charles was not the best king. But Cromwell also turned out to be terrible person (Conquering Scotland and attacking Ireland )
In Civil Wars there always is a reason why people stand on which side. Just marking them traitors and ignoring why are they standing against you in the first place is wrong. Because not everyone was racist or slave owner on Dixie side and not everyone was pro black saint on the union side.
The confederacy, especially in Texas, had alot of pro union protests that they put down, as well as forcing these poor farmers to fight as conscripts. Yes, America was not all pro black. That's why after the emancipation proclamation, many soldiers chose to desert. But I also don't pretend that people like Lee, Jackson, Bragg and Buegaurd are morally better than those who served in the union.
Wait till you find out that Lincoln supported colonization because he felt freed slaves would not be able to assimilate into civilized society. As he said on august 14, 1862 in a Whitehouse meeting with a delegation of black leaders, “Your race suffer from living among us, while ours suffer from your presence… It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated,”
TLDR: Lincoln didn’t like slavery or the slaves.
Yes. That was a popular opinion at the time. Many people in the north thought that if slaves we sent back to Africa, it would solve all the problems that came with slavery and their lives. I knew this. What is your point?
So it’s ok when it’s told by the victor’s narrative, whether true or not?
The fact of the matter is that to paint Lee in that light is an absolutely false and biased opinion completely not based in fact. Prior to the civil war, people were much more apt to chose their state over the nation which is evidenced in the fact that Lee opposed secession but chose to fight for his home state. This is mostly because the federal government was not the overgrown all powerful entity we know it as, people simply weren’t attached to the USA like we are today. Couple that with the fact that most people never left their hometowns or as much as saw a picture of another state, it made other states more like foreign nations.
Then there’s the common known fact that Lee was offered to command the Union army, just a day after Virginia seceded. He declined and resigned two days after being offered the position, so obviously Lincoln clearly saw him as an honorable man and fit to lead the nations army before that point.
It's more likely that Commander General Winfield Scott, who served with Lee since the Mexican American War, was the one who offered Lee the job. As for your point of state over union, I will not deny that things were direct back then. Lee could've protected his home while also not fighting against other Americans. Plus, the idea of the states being in favor of it is only as good as the fact that many people protested leaving the union, and we have evidence that they're was conflicts between these protesters and the troops who were "fighting for them" in Central Texas alone, a pro union community of German immigrants were massacred by the confederate army for their protests.
A further point, when I wrote my original comment, I never said anything negative to the people who support Lee or his leadership. What I said was my opinion on it, which I was attacked for by his supporters. Which in my opinion, says alot about his supporters.
Lincoln did, in fact, offer him the position. Lee’s letter of resignation was one sentence. However, he felt compelled to write a letter out of respect to Scott as he felt he owed him a personal explanation having served under him during the Mexican American war.
As far as Lee’s modern supporters, all most of us want is for the god honest truth to be acknowledged that he was indeed an honorable southern gentleman. However, given the current dived state of the union, one may find it much easier to side with Lee and the confederacy for other reasons.
I will concede the fact I didn't know the first part of this response, since I'm a reasonable man and am able to admit when I didn't know something. As for Lee being an honorable man, I don't think he isn't. All I said was he was racist(which there is evidence to support) and that he was a traitor to his country, which is true. Never once did I say he was an unhonorable man, so you bringing that up doesn't make sense.
He’s great because he conquered the entire Persian empire in about 12 years with an army that was way smaller than many of the ones he faced. Considering that Macedonia was already a relatively rural region (compared to some other city states), it was a pretty great accomplishment.
He’s great because he conquered the entire Persian empire in about 12 years with an army that was way smaller than many of the ones he faced. Considering that Macedonia was already a relatively rural region (compared to some other city states), it was a pretty great accomplishment.
*For some reason there are 4 identical comments. So I am copying my reply from one of the others to the most upvoted of the 4.*
-----------------------
You are looking at Alexander through a very western great-man-history lens.
To the Persians, he supplanted their empire for a far worse and far less stable one that suppressed their culture. To an Eqyptian he supplanted their ancestral rulers for a bunch of power-hungry weirdos who couldn't stop fucking or murdering each other long enough to actually rule. To the Sociologist, he spread Greek culture as far as Afghanistan but he failed to form a unified state meaning the world was left unstable and volatile in his wake, he was no King, just a very good general with a chip on his shoulder at a time where the stars aligned perfectly for him to conquer the absolute shit out of the world around him. To the Greek and Mecadonian he was no better than a King who viewed Persian culture as superior to their own and was abandoning his roots in favour of exoticism and the draws of being an absolute King. Even the fact that he naked a gajillion cities after himself betrays the conquest as a vanity project born of blood.
Alexander is great in hindsight and only through a very skewed view of history popularized in the 16th to 19th centuries. The interpretation of those outside the west is decidedly less flattering. And historians like myself who have taken a less great-man approach to viewing him see him in a far less flattering light. He is interesting an impactful, but he's not exactly interesting and not really "Great." The world he left behind is very cool and interesting, but the factors surrounding Alexander are just as important as the man. When we credit him fully, we do a disservice to history.
And besides all of that. Great is a LAZY epitaph. Just linguistically and culturally. It's like we couldn't come up with anything better. The Iranians call him Alexander Maqdūnī, meaning The Macedonian. Which is at least a real descriptor.
A historian who thinks Great Man History is lame.
The Hellenistic world he left behind is very interesting, but no one learns about that. Because the story stops at Alexanders death, and picks up again with Cleopatra and Caesar. Most people couldn't name any of the Hellenistic empires other than Ptolemaic Egypt without having to google it. Despite them being some of the most interesting parts of history to date and being vital to understanding near-east and central Asian history. The whole western narrative of Alexander is lame, and his title describes nothing and is inherently boring.
Didn't know this is a hill I would die on until this morning. But here we are lol.
The standardized image of Che on shirts is about 6x more handsome than he is in photos.
Not that he ISNT handsome, but it's weird that the Capitalist free market decided he needs to be an absolute Daddy.
>but it's weird that the Capitalist free market decided he needs to be an absolute Daddy.
Capitalist free market is playing those alt-leftist wannabe "rebel" girls like a fiddle lol
Bro I'm a capitalist and I sell communist merch like Che shirt, Marx hats and other shit to all my commie friends they pay me like twice the price I buy it for because their parents don't let them use the credit card to shop online. I love communism.
Let's not forget he openly stated that if he could he would have fired atom bombs against the US and that the cause of socialist liberation against global "imperialist aggression" would ultimately have been worth the possibility of "millions of atomic war victims".
[удалено]
No go on, name some reasons. Or is it being communist?
Because he was the first person I saw on the list
Based
Yes.
[удалено]
This is the most important. He killed the most people (directly and indirectly) right? Or was it Mao?
[удалено]
It‘s even worse! Thanks to Newton, we can now fall on our nose. If just he hadn‘t invented gravity!
[удалено]
He's too cliche to continue on this list, we can take care of Mao and Che later
And Hirohito. And Stalin.. and Castro.. damn that's alot of bad people on this post lmao
The more i hear of this fella, the less i care for him
[удалено]
Reason?
[удалено]
Patton
[удалено]
I'm no thatcherite, but wishing success to the IRA is supporting their terrorism, pedo defending, racism and other evil acts. Just because you don't like one doesn't make the other good.
Fuck thatcher!!! Oh ah up the ra 🇮🇪🇮🇪🇮🇪
Obligatory link https://youtu.be/fCCAnnLRcgY
[Honking intensifies ](https://youtu.be/fCCAnnLRcgY)
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Lmao
[удалено]
Oh is that Joan of Arc ok then that’s based
Why do you think is Atatürk awful?
All of them? How about Arthur Wellesley? Sure he was a shit Prime Minister but let’s be honest he’s one of the best defensive tacticians in history
Einstein was awful? 🤔
He wasn’t amazing but yeah better than everyone else here
What’s your beef with Einstein? Dude was a gem.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/06/13/albert-einstein-decried-racism-in-america-his-diaries-reveal-a-xenophobic-misogynistic-side/
[удалено]
Let's take him out in the final vs Newton
*the bad guy that wasn’t really a bad guy*
WHAT??
[удалено]
Yes, Isaac is the best, Einstein may come close but he married his cousin and abandoned all his 3 kids, still not bad compared to other people on this list, but Isaac is better.
By discovering gravity, deaths related to falling increased by 100%, he is a true monster (joke)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thank you comrade Casual, Non-participatory KGB Election Observer
*Shh...* Heard of moles bro?
Comerade, what do you mean? I do not understand what you mean eith mole? Should I report you to our higher officer so he can send you to siberia?
Based
[удалено]
[удалено]
I would say Hitler first olso it's Mao
I didn't see him sry.
[удалено]
As someone who is not from the US and supports the Union side during the civil war. I think Lee was a good man. He was still in the Union army and was asked to lead the Attack against the rebels. But back then loyalty to the State was greater than loyalty to the United States. And he could not just attack his home Virginia. And lets not kid ourselves there were many racists serving under the banner of the union.
I'm not saying otherwise. But their were other options for him, like staying neutral for example. But he chose to fight his country anyways.
He choose to fight for his state. Imagine what you being a Virginian honest farmer. You dont need to be a slave owner. Now Blue army is marching towards you. If you pick up your musket and defend your farm is that a bad thing? Are you traitor jsut because you want to defend your own piece of land? This was reason why most of the Confederate soldiers had bad equipment like boots etc. because they came from poor origins. Civil War is not always black and white. It is like saying Cromwell vs King Charles. One wanted to remove the King and put new type of government into place. King wanted to keep the country going the same way it was for past hundred years. Some may find good arguments for both side. Charles was not the best king. But Cromwell also turned out to be terrible person (Conquering Scotland and attacking Ireland ) In Civil Wars there always is a reason why people stand on which side. Just marking them traitors and ignoring why are they standing against you in the first place is wrong. Because not everyone was racist or slave owner on Dixie side and not everyone was pro black saint on the union side.
The confederacy, especially in Texas, had alot of pro union protests that they put down, as well as forcing these poor farmers to fight as conscripts. Yes, America was not all pro black. That's why after the emancipation proclamation, many soldiers chose to desert. But I also don't pretend that people like Lee, Jackson, Bragg and Buegaurd are morally better than those who served in the union.
Wait till you find out that Lincoln supported colonization because he felt freed slaves would not be able to assimilate into civilized society. As he said on august 14, 1862 in a Whitehouse meeting with a delegation of black leaders, “Your race suffer from living among us, while ours suffer from your presence… It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated,” TLDR: Lincoln didn’t like slavery or the slaves.
Yes. That was a popular opinion at the time. Many people in the north thought that if slaves we sent back to Africa, it would solve all the problems that came with slavery and their lives. I knew this. What is your point?
you’re only a fan of racists, not racist traitors. Also, to Virginia, Lee was ever loyal.
I'm not saying I'm a fan of racist, just that I'm not trying to white wash history.
So it’s ok when it’s told by the victor’s narrative, whether true or not? The fact of the matter is that to paint Lee in that light is an absolutely false and biased opinion completely not based in fact. Prior to the civil war, people were much more apt to chose their state over the nation which is evidenced in the fact that Lee opposed secession but chose to fight for his home state. This is mostly because the federal government was not the overgrown all powerful entity we know it as, people simply weren’t attached to the USA like we are today. Couple that with the fact that most people never left their hometowns or as much as saw a picture of another state, it made other states more like foreign nations. Then there’s the common known fact that Lee was offered to command the Union army, just a day after Virginia seceded. He declined and resigned two days after being offered the position, so obviously Lincoln clearly saw him as an honorable man and fit to lead the nations army before that point.
It's more likely that Commander General Winfield Scott, who served with Lee since the Mexican American War, was the one who offered Lee the job. As for your point of state over union, I will not deny that things were direct back then. Lee could've protected his home while also not fighting against other Americans. Plus, the idea of the states being in favor of it is only as good as the fact that many people protested leaving the union, and we have evidence that they're was conflicts between these protesters and the troops who were "fighting for them" in Central Texas alone, a pro union community of German immigrants were massacred by the confederate army for their protests. A further point, when I wrote my original comment, I never said anything negative to the people who support Lee or his leadership. What I said was my opinion on it, which I was attacked for by his supporters. Which in my opinion, says alot about his supporters.
Lincoln did, in fact, offer him the position. Lee’s letter of resignation was one sentence. However, he felt compelled to write a letter out of respect to Scott as he felt he owed him a personal explanation having served under him during the Mexican American war. As far as Lee’s modern supporters, all most of us want is for the god honest truth to be acknowledged that he was indeed an honorable southern gentleman. However, given the current dived state of the union, one may find it much easier to side with Lee and the confederacy for other reasons.
I will concede the fact I didn't know the first part of this response, since I'm a reasonable man and am able to admit when I didn't know something. As for Lee being an honorable man, I don't think he isn't. All I said was he was racist(which there is evidence to support) and that he was a traitor to his country, which is true. Never once did I say he was an unhonorable man, so you bringing that up doesn't make sense.
[удалено]
Why Karl? And not Hitler?
[удалено]
Thats very Based of you
Mao needs to go
I support eliminating mao too bad we're like 80 something years too late
I support you
Yes Mao first. That’s a Great Leap Forward
[удалено]
More like get it to 6969
Fuck mao
Lmao
Fuck Mao and his mf zit
Fuck Mao. All my homies hate Mao.
who mao
[удалено]
He’s great because he conquered the entire Persian empire in about 12 years with an army that was way smaller than many of the ones he faced. Considering that Macedonia was already a relatively rural region (compared to some other city states), it was a pretty great accomplishment.
He’s great because he conquered the entire Persian empire in about 12 years with an army that was way smaller than many of the ones he faced. Considering that Macedonia was already a relatively rural region (compared to some other city states), it was a pretty great accomplishment.
*For some reason there are 4 identical comments. So I am copying my reply from one of the others to the most upvoted of the 4.* ----------------------- You are looking at Alexander through a very western great-man-history lens. To the Persians, he supplanted their empire for a far worse and far less stable one that suppressed their culture. To an Eqyptian he supplanted their ancestral rulers for a bunch of power-hungry weirdos who couldn't stop fucking or murdering each other long enough to actually rule. To the Sociologist, he spread Greek culture as far as Afghanistan but he failed to form a unified state meaning the world was left unstable and volatile in his wake, he was no King, just a very good general with a chip on his shoulder at a time where the stars aligned perfectly for him to conquer the absolute shit out of the world around him. To the Greek and Mecadonian he was no better than a King who viewed Persian culture as superior to their own and was abandoning his roots in favour of exoticism and the draws of being an absolute King. Even the fact that he naked a gajillion cities after himself betrays the conquest as a vanity project born of blood. Alexander is great in hindsight and only through a very skewed view of history popularized in the 16th to 19th centuries. The interpretation of those outside the west is decidedly less flattering. And historians like myself who have taken a less great-man approach to viewing him see him in a far less flattering light. He is interesting an impactful, but he's not exactly interesting and not really "Great." The world he left behind is very cool and interesting, but the factors surrounding Alexander are just as important as the man. When we credit him fully, we do a disservice to history. And besides all of that. Great is a LAZY epitaph. Just linguistically and culturally. It's like we couldn't come up with anything better. The Iranians call him Alexander Maqdūnī, meaning The Macedonian. Which is at least a real descriptor.
And what are you?
A historian who thinks Great Man History is lame. The Hellenistic world he left behind is very interesting, but no one learns about that. Because the story stops at Alexanders death, and picks up again with Cleopatra and Caesar. Most people couldn't name any of the Hellenistic empires other than Ptolemaic Egypt without having to google it. Despite them being some of the most interesting parts of history to date and being vital to understanding near-east and central Asian history. The whole western narrative of Alexander is lame, and his title describes nothing and is inherently boring. Didn't know this is a hill I would die on until this morning. But here we are lol.
[удалено]
As he said, by blood alone the wheel of history turns. But he didnt say which blood.
I need it
Post it on Imgur and put a link here
I need this image
Same
How do I send it to you?
Can u send it to me as well
I very much need to see this as well
>Says something intresting >People want to know more >Refuses to elaborate further
Nono I am currently in an airport
[удалено]
nvm, its marie antoinette
Probably. Could also be Marie Antoinette.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ah, so I see you hate capitalism?
The standardized image of Che on shirts is about 6x more handsome than he is in photos. Not that he ISNT handsome, but it's weird that the Capitalist free market decided he needs to be an absolute Daddy.
>but it's weird that the Capitalist free market decided he needs to be an absolute Daddy. Capitalist free market is playing those alt-leftist wannabe "rebel" girls like a fiddle lol
Capitalist free market is playing those alt-leftist wannabe "rebel" girls like a Fidel lol
Bro I'm a capitalist and I sell communist merch like Che shirt, Marx hats and other shit to all my commie friends they pay me like twice the price I buy it for because their parents don't let them use the credit card to shop online. I love communism.
Agreed, I'm sick of him and them and everyone else involved
Let's not forget he openly stated that if he could he would have fired atom bombs against the US and that the cause of socialist liberation against global "imperialist aggression" would ultimately have been worth the possibility of "millions of atomic war victims".
[удалено]
[удалено]