If you're not talking about direct military history, like this squadron attacked that one on this date... then what we are taught is a complete pack of lies.
The problem with just calling all of history a pack of lies, is that more often than not the alternative history put forward has no citations and is based mainly on personal incredulity towards the accepted narrative.
Okay... I agree... History can be and is manipulated for political purposes. One thing can be taught because it helps a certain agenda, while another thing can be berried because it hurts the agenda.
But both things can still be true at the same time. At least try to find and demonstrate the real truth with more than just "nuhh uhh, they're lying, I don't believe it."
You got an alternate theory for some historical event? Great. Sounds interesting. Please back it up with sources that positively confirm your claim, instead of just trying to poke holes in the other theory you don't agree with. That's all.
Oh, maybe I was unclear. I'm not making a blanket statement that 'history' is a pack of lies, but that the dominant narrative of WWII is a pack of lies.
Consider: one of the reason that Hitler wanted to expel the jews is because he saw how the (lying) jew media had demoralized Germany into surrendering in WWI (this is verifiable). So... why not say that instead of going with the 'narrative' that the Germans hated the jews for no reason at all. For example, you could present Hitler's argument, and then show that the jewish media was very, very supportive of the Kaiser (good luck!!!) which would, in fact, make Hitler a bit of a lunatic.
Consider: According to Patton's letters, post-war Germany was crawling with jews (1M+ of them, many of whom can be seen fat an smiling in archival photos). Why not point out that the German final solution didn't, for some reason, include jews in Germany?
Consider: (after 'Hitler's willing executioners') that there were 100s of thousands of part-jews in the German army, including to the level of Field Marshall. Why not point that out and let people make up their own minds.
Consider: even if the holofrost happened (lol!), the firebombing of Germany and Japan are some of the worst crimes against humanity in history. Why is that obscured?
Consider: Bayonetting babies/nuns, and 'Death Factories' were part of the (allied) WWI propaganda against the Germans, while the Germans had effectively no propaganda against the allies in either war. Why not mention that it's the allies that are clearly the liars?
I could go on, but really -- Why the constant lying? Remember, the dominant narrative is that the jews did nothing wrong, and Hitler wanted to kill all of them for no reason. This is demonstrably false at all levels. Also, we feel that the Allies were fighting the ultimate 'evil' of the 'Axis', and yet Germany, at least, was purely good by any reasonable (non-jewish) definition of the word.
If you're not talking about direct military history, like this squadron attacked that one on this date... then what we are taught is a complete pack of lies.
The problem with just calling all of history a pack of lies, is that more often than not the alternative history put forward has no citations and is based mainly on personal incredulity towards the accepted narrative.
Okay... I agree... History can be and is manipulated for political purposes. One thing can be taught because it helps a certain agenda, while another thing can be berried because it hurts the agenda.
But both things can still be true at the same time. At least try to find and demonstrate the real truth with more than just "nuhh uhh, they're lying, I don't believe it."
You got an alternate theory for some historical event? Great. Sounds interesting. Please back it up with sources that positively confirm your claim, instead of just trying to poke holes in the other theory you don't agree with. That's all.
Oh, maybe I was unclear. I'm not making a blanket statement that 'history' is a pack of lies, but that the dominant narrative of WWII is a pack of lies.
Consider: one of the reason that Hitler wanted to expel the jews is because he saw how the (lying) jew media had demoralized Germany into surrendering in WWI (this is verifiable). So... why not say that instead of going with the 'narrative' that the Germans hated the jews for no reason at all. For example, you could present Hitler's argument, and then show that the jewish media was very, very supportive of the Kaiser (good luck!!!) which would, in fact, make Hitler a bit of a lunatic.
Consider: According to Patton's letters, post-war Germany was crawling with jews (1M+ of them, many of whom can be seen fat an smiling in archival photos). Why not point out that the German final solution didn't, for some reason, include jews in Germany?
Consider: (after 'Hitler's willing executioners') that there were 100s of thousands of part-jews in the German army, including to the level of Field Marshall. Why not point that out and let people make up their own minds.
Consider: even if the holofrost happened (lol!), the firebombing of Germany and Japan are some of the worst crimes against humanity in history. Why is that obscured?
Consider: Bayonetting babies/nuns, and 'Death Factories' were part of the (allied) WWI propaganda against the Germans, while the Germans had effectively no propaganda against the allies in either war. Why not mention that it's the allies that are clearly the liars?
I could go on, but really -- Why the constant lying? Remember, the dominant narrative is that the jews did nothing wrong, and Hitler wanted to kill all of them for no reason. This is demonstrably false at all levels. Also, we feel that the Allies were fighting the ultimate 'evil' of the 'Axis', and yet Germany, at least, was purely good by any reasonable (non-jewish) definition of the word.