Historical figures who get too much hate

[Life]

You might wanna take a couple'a steps back there, chief

I don't remember Raven stating his religious identity (though I might've missed it I dunno). It's not like you have to be any particular religion, anti-semitic, or even non-Jewish to think the creation of Israel has at least lead to people being split along race lines. And having problems with the modern government/state of Israel isn't the same as having (racist) problems with all Jewish people.

And, uh, do you realize how it sounds when you say "followers of the Quran think racism against Jews is justified because they're pigs, not people?" You're talking about a lot of people that don't all have the same opinion, for one thing. For another, IIRC the Quran itself has at least one bit of instruction for Muslims to treat well "the people of the book," supposedly meaning Christians and Jews. Calling your statement "presumptuous" would be light.

I mean, saying "Israel is unpopular in the middle east" is obviously a big fat understatement, and a grand lot of voices calling/having called for the death of its people is no good or desirable thing, but IIRC Israel is unpopular in a lot of ways with a lot of Europe, even among countries that think it should exist and had a hand in creating it, particularly with regards to its treatment of Palestinians. You know it's not like the state of Israel was just carved up from land that nobody was living on beforehand, right?

The Middle East is one big mess where anyone who doesn't live here thinks that they know what's going on when we ourselves just say "fuck it, let us live our lives".

Like how the Daily Mail claimed that Israel attempted to drown Gaza by opening dams.

Right. Because we have dams in the middle of the Negev Desert.

Long story short, we're hated because we're Israel, not because we treat the Palestinians badly (which we don't but that's an argument for another day and one I'll win due to first-hand experience)

To the topic on hand, I am really surprised that nobody mentioned Ariel Sharon or Benjamin Netanyahu while we're on the subject of Israel.

[Philax]

I'm going to use the revival of this thread as an opportunity to mention Woodrow Wilson. He was the single worst US President, but he is treated as one of the best. He supported the KKK, and played a large role in slowing the Civil Rights movement. He also got the US into WWI, which was a mistake. It was his aggressive policies that provoked Germany into signing a defensive pact with Mexico in the first place. He also made terrible mistakes in terms of how the peace was handled. His decision to force Germany to abolish the Monarchy led to Communists almost taking over, which would have been disastrous, and also led to the Nazis taking control (Hitler manipulated the German Monarchists to appoint him Chancellor, thinking he would help them restore the Kaiser.) He claimed to support self determination, but obviously didn't care about all of the Indians, Africans, Koreans, Laotians, Cambodians, Vietnamese, and others that his allies kept under their thumbs. He also was apparently fine with American imperialism in Latin America and the Pacific. He was a racist self-righteous, hypocrite. While we're on the topic of WWI, Kaiser Wilhelm II does not deserve all the crap he got and continues to get from British media.

He also transferred Ottoman Arab territory to the British and French when the people there wanted nothing more than independence. No wonder why they hate America so much.

One could say he helped lay the groundwork for World War II. I always thought Wilson was America's worst president. The Kaiser, on the other hand, doesn't deserve the hate he gets, and I cringe when people compare him to Hitler. WWI was a totally pointless war, caused by nationalistic arrogance. The only result of it was millions of men getting killed and setting the stage for an even worse war.

Georges Clemenceau, France's leader during WWI, was ten times worse. He basically wanted Germany to suffer - seriously, this guy was hell-bent on revenge. His vindictive punishment for Germany helped make way for Hitler. Meanwhile, none of the other countries got punished nearly as bad. And this guy is seriously treated as a hero in France.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Philax

[blah the Prussian]

He also transferred Ottoman Arab territory to the British and French when the people there wanted nothing more than independence. No wonder why they hate America so much.

One could say he helped lay the groundwork for World War II. I always thought Wilson was America's worst president. The Kaiser, on the other hand, doesn't deserve the hate he gets, and I cringe when people compare him to Hitler. WWI was a totally pointless war, caused by nationalistic arrogance. The only result of it was millions of men getting killed and setting the stage for an even worse war.

Georges Clemenceau, France's leader during WWI, was ten times worse. He basically wanted Germany to suffer - seriously, this guy was hell-bent on revenge. His vindictive punishment for Germany helped make way for Hitler. Meanwhile, none of the other countries got punished nearly as bad. And this guy is seriously treated as a hero in France.

Actually, Fascism was mostly his fault. Not making this up. The Italians, when they joined the war, were promised a bunch of Austria-Hungary's land. When Wilson stepped in, he basically said "Nope! I know you were promised this land, but I'm gonna give it to the Serbs instead to feel good about myself, despite the Serbs doing absolutely zilch to earn that land!" Then, when Mussolini came along, he used that blatantly broken promise to rally the Italians to his side. (Not that I support Mussolini or anything). Wilson, I think, didn't intend to fuck everything up so badly, but he essentially tried to enforce his vision of Europe's future without knowing a thing about European geopolitics. For example, he calmed Alsace-Lorraine should be restored to France, but forgot to mention that it was majority German at the time, and Germany annexed it after a war of aggression started by Napoleon III. Clemenceau didn't want Germany to suffer- he wanted Prussia, Bavaria, Hanover, the Rhineland, and Saxony to suffer. Yeah. He wanted to Balkanize Germany. On Wilhelm II, the next time I see BBC devote an ENTIRE EPISODE of a WWI documentary to his psyche without mentioning any other leader, I'm going to throw a wrench through the TV.

[KMT4ever]

Well, Wilhelm II was pretty nutty. Blaming him and Germany for WWI is just flat-out wrong though. In a rational situation the war would never have started over some Serbian nationalist killing Austria-Hungary's heir. Unfortunately the alliance system, pent-up rivalries, and national ambitions blew this completely out of proportion.

The issue with Wilson is the same issue my dad and I have with FDR: sheer naiveté about the realities of geopolitics. Wilson wanted self-determination for everyone, but he found himself unable to force his position on the British and French. This led to the Middle East imbroglio. As for the Serbs doing nothing, they held out for two years against Austria-Hungary, and it took the intervention of Germany and Bulgaria to turn the tide.

Regarding the Treaty of Versailles, it was was neither lenient enough nor harsh enough to keep Germany pacified. If the Allies had been more insightful and recognized that the actual reason for this whole war was moot after Austria-Hungary's collapse, they might have been relatively merciful and let Germany burn off its anger over the next few years before settling into normal society again. If they had just gone Clemenceau's route and utterly crushed Germany under their boots, it would have been bloody and painful, but there certainly wouldn't have been Hitler. They way they did it they were total a**holes to Germany but didn't actually use force to back it up, just making the Germans angry and giving them room to stew.

One group of historical figures I think gets too much hate is the Kim family. Absolutely despicable people certainly, but if you ask the average American they're just a bunch of nutjobs. They are far smarter and craftier than people give them credit for. They've got both China and the U.S. doing what they want, and they've maintained what is effectively a giant cult for 60 years. You cannot survive, much less lead, in that environment unless you are ruthless, clever, and downright amoral.

[blah the Prussian]

Well, Wilhelm II was pretty nutty. Blaming him and Germany for WWI is just flat-out wrong though. In a rational situation the war would never have started over some Serbian nationalist killing Austria-Hungary's heir. Unfortunately the alliance system, pent-up rivalries, and national ambitions blew this completely out of proportion.

The issue with Wilson is the same issue my dad and I have with FDR: sheer naiveté about the realities of geopolitics. Wilson wanted self-determination for everyone, but he found himself unable to force his position on the British and French. This led to the Middle East imbroglio. As for the Serbs doing nothing, they held out for two years against Austria-Hungary, and it took the intervention of Germany and Bulgaria to turn the tide.

Regarding the Treaty of Versailles, it was was neither lenient enough nor harsh enough to keep Germany pacified. If the Allies had been more insightful and recognized that the actual reason for this whole war was moot after Austria-Hungary's collapse, they might have been relatively merciful and let Germany burn off its anger over the next few years before settling into normal society again. If they had just gone Clemenceau's route and utterly crushed Germany under their boots, it would have been bloody and painful, but there certainly wouldn't have been Hitler. They way they did it they were total a**holes to Germany but didn't actually use force to back it up, just making the Germans angry and giving them room to stew.

One group of historical figures I think gets too much hate is the Kim family. Absolutely despicable people certainly, but if you ask the average American they're just a bunch of nutjobs. They are far smarter and craftier than people give them credit for. They've got both China and the U.S. doing what they want, and they've maintained what is effectively a giant cult for 60 years. You cannot survive, much less lead, in that environment unless you are ruthless, clever, and downright amoral.

The Serbs held out for two years against Austria-Hungary when A-H were fighting off a massive Russian offensive in Galicia and there were plenty of rivers that provided the Serbs with excellent defensive positions. When the Bulgarians entered the war, they fell quite easily. The Germans had to get involved because the Italians entered the war, and Austria-Hungary had to shift even more soldiers from the Serbian front to fight them.

Wilhelm II was nutty, but he had little power in practice. According to the German constitution, he could appoint a Chancellor, but the Chancellor did most of the heavy lifting. All he wanted for Germany was what the UK and France already had. It is hypocritical to call him an aggressor.

FDR was naive to think Stalin would respect the rights of the people of Eastern Europe, but America did very well in WWII, while in WWI, America won with hugely disproportionate casualties. The idea of self determination itself is a flawed one. It assumed that the Hapsburgs couldn't rule over the various ethnicities of their empire because they were different, which is a racist assumption and one that reared it's ugly head when the Serbs committed outright genocide against the rest of Yugoslavia, which the Hapsburgs never did. Finally, FDR did many other good things like stopping the Great Depression. Wilson's legacy is pretty much limited to the League of Nations, who were notoriously ineffective at stopping power hungry dictators.

If the Allies had crushed Germany utterly, it would have been very easy for Stalin to roll over it, take France, and control Europe. Then where would we be? We were incredibly lucky that there were two totalitarian dictatorship in Europe who hated each other so they would cancel each other out. If, however, there were merciful conditions, then the German Republic (or maybe Empire) would have stood proudly alongside France and Britain against Stalinism. The best option by far.

As for the Kims, agreed, but that seems more to be an issue of underestimation. Also, they are not manipulating the Chinese. China wants a buffer state, North Korea fits the bill. It's that simpl.

[KMT4ever]

Wilhelm II was nutty, but he had little power in practice. According to the German constitution, he could appoint a Chancellor, but the Chancellor did most of the heavy lifting. All he wanted for Germany was what the UK and France already had. It is hypocritical to call him an aggressor.

He had little power because the government didn't trust him to rule responsibly.

FDR was naive to think Stalin would respect the rights of the people of Eastern Europe, but America did very well in WWII, while in WWI, America won with hugely disproportionate casualties. The idea of self determination itself is a flawed one. It assumed that the Hapsburgs couldn't rule over the various ethnicities of their empire because they were different, which is a racist assumption and one that reared it's ugly head when the Serbs committed outright genocide against the rest of Yugoslavia, which the Hapsburgs never did. Finally, FDR did many other good things like stopping the Great Depression. Wilson's legacy is pretty much limited to the League of Nations, who were notoriously ineffective at stopping power hungry dictators.

Self-determination had less to do with the Hapsburg capability to rule and more to do with the various ethnicities not wanting to be ruled from Vienna. That's what started the whole war in the first place. Yugoslavia was a stupid idea in the first place. As for the League, it was only really ineffective because the U.S. wasn't participating. Blame Congress for that.

If the Allies had crushed Germany utterly, it would have been very easy for Stalin to roll over it, take France, and control Europe. Then where would we be? We were incredibly lucky that there were two totalitarian dictatorship in Europe who hated each other so they would cancel each other out. If, however, there were merciful conditions, then the German Republic (or maybe Empire) would have stood proudly alongside France and Britain against Stalinism. The best option by far.

Agreed.

As for the Kims, agreed, but that seems more to be an issue of underestimation. Also, they are not manipulating the Chinese. China wants a buffer state, North Korea fits the bill. It's that simpl.

What I meant is that people view them as bloodthirsty maniacs, which they aren't. The killing has a legitimate purpose: intimidation. I may have a different definition of hate here.

The North doesn't need to get aid from China. It can easily trick the West into giving it. China, from its own point of view, needs a buffer state just like the Soviets needed the Warsaw Pact and Putin needs Ukraine: to prevent American forces from bordering it directly. Therefore it is obligated to provide Kim with whatever he wants. Any complaints they give aren't really sincere. They have to put up with Kim whether they like it or not.

[blah the Prussian]

Point One: That is irrelevant. The fact that he had little power, for whatever reason, meant that he wasn't fully responsible for Germany's decision to go to war, and thus it is unjustified for certain news agencies that shall remain nameless to paint him as a bloodthirsty, warmongering, lunatic.

Point Two: But the reason the ethnicities didn't want to be ruled from Vienna was because of nationalism, which can very easily spiral out of control into something like the Yugoslav Wars. Self determination was a bad idea because of this. Once these ethnicities get independence, that nationalism is not going to go away. It will be redirected towards their neighbors. Hungary, Romania, and Yugoslavia all became,right wing dictatorships because of nationalism. Also, the desire for independence from Austria-Hungary wasn't as great as historical revisionists would have you believe. Hungary basically had equal representation. Croatia was given a fair amount of leeway, as was Bohemia. There were several Croat and Czech MPs in the Austro-Hungarian Riechstag. Ultimately, what Wilson did with self determination was to hand power to a few radical nationalists or have them annexed into existing countries. Most Croats preferred the Austro-Hungarians to the Yugoslavs, anyway, because the Austro-Hungarians respected their religion.

Point 3: As one last jab at Wilson, keeping the German monarchy but with Wilhelm II's son would have been far superior to a republic. It would be a lot harder for the Nazis to take over if they were dealing with the Kronprinz, who opposed WWI from day one.

Point 4: Yes, but China clearly is the senior partner in the alliance. North Korea is to China what Israel is to America: no matter how much of a show they both put on, if it weren't for their ally they would get birch slapped so hard it's not even funny. Disclaimer: this comparison is only in international relations. Israel is not nearly as bad as North Korea.

[Timely Rain]

Imagawa Yoshimoto, lord of the provinces of Suruga, Toutomi and Mikawa during the 16th century in Japan. He was a great leader and administrator. In the time period he lived in, having 3 provinces under your control was not common at all! (On top of my head, I cannot tremember any other leader that had that many, although there are a few).

His plan was pretty good, he just had to move in one direction because he had the Houjou in Sagami and the Takeda in Kai as allies, provinces that bordered Yoshimoto's, so he was protected. The alliance was not very strong, but he could have thought or something in the capital!

He made a mistake that cost him his head, but if he was a better strategist he would probably had become Shogun.

[blah the Prussian]

Imagawa Yoshimoto, lord of the provinces of Suruga, Toutomi and Mikawa during the 16th century in Japan. He was a great leader and administrator. In the time period he lived in, having 3 provinces under your control was not common at all! (On top of my head, I cannot tremember any other leader that had that many, although there are a few).

His plan was pretty good, he just had to move in one direction because he had the Houjou in Sagami and the Takeda in Kai as allies, provinces that bordered Yoshimoto's, so he was protected. The alliance was not very strong, but he could have thought or something in the capital!

He made a mistake that cost him his head, but if he was a better strategist he would probably had become Shogun.

So what exactly do people hate him for?

[Timely Rain]

Because he died being too busy in a banquet. He got killed in a sneak attack and when somebody asks someone asks another person about their favourite feudal lord in Japan, they sometimes say Imagawa Yoshimoto as a joke. And in media he is portrayed as a coward, and his only mistake overshadows the good stuff he did.

Edited March 7, 2015 by Prototype

[SirBrickingtonCrushworthy]

I'm not going to minimize what Hitler did, but does anyone else feel like you could say whatever about Hitler, and people would likely believe it?

[blah the Prussian]

I'm not going to minimize what Hitler did, but does anyone else feel like you could say whatever about Hitler, and people would likely believe it?

Oh my god, we had this exact same conversation in this thread version 1. And it was just as false then. Here, I'll show you: Hitler was a Pokemon Master. Did you believe that?

[SirBrickingtonCrushworthy]

Oh my god, we had this exact same conversation in this thread version 1. And it was just as false then. Here, I'll show you: Hitler was a Pokemon Master. Did you believe that?

If you're going to be nitpicky about language, then yes, I'll give you that. I have heard baseless claims about Hitler in school, like the reason he killed himself was because he was related to Jews to name one thing, that no sort of fact was provided to back it up, at all; you can't back up a claim like that. I know there were many classmates who believed it.

Edited March 10, 2015 by SirBrickingtonCrushworthy

[blah the Prussian]

If you're going to be nitpicky about language, then yes, I'll give you that. I have heard baseless claims about Hitler in school, like the reason he killed himself was because he was related to Jews to name one thing, that no sort of fact was provided to back it up, at all; you can't back up a claim like that. I know there were many classmates who believed it.

But if Hitler didn't kill himself because he was related to Jews, he's still just as evil as if he did. Even if you can make up anything about Hitler and have people believe it, that doesn't mean that he's any less evil.

[SirBrickingtonCrushworthy]

But if Hitler didn't kill himself because he was related to Jews, he's still just as evil as if he did. Even if you can make up anything about Hitler and have people believe it, that doesn't mean that he's any less evil.

I'd like to take this time to reiterate that I said earlier, I in no way would diminish his actions, I was simply making a somewhat humorous observation.

[blah the Prussian]

I'd like to take this time to reiterate that I said earlier, I in no way would diminish his actions, I was simply making a somewhat humorous observation.

Fair enough. It was easy to misinterpret because of the thread.

[Jedi]

Conquerors in general are a hot topic, because usually to do what they want. I.E take over an area or such. They have to commit some horrendous things. Even if the conquering is for in their mind good intentions.

Two examples I can think of from the top of my head that both get loathed and praised depending on the historian are Alexander the Great and Oda Nobunaga.

[blah the Prussian]

Conquerors in general are a hot topic, because usually to do what they want. I.E take over an area or such. They have to commit some horrendous things. Even if the conquering is for in their mind good intentions.

Two examples I can think of from the top of my head that both get loathed and praised depending on the historian are Alexander the Great and Oda Nobunaga.

Nobunaga wasn't invading other countries, though, he was trying to unite feudal Japan. The hierarchy of historical bias is non whites who fight whites are given villain upgrades, english speakers are favored over everyone else, and Americans are favored most of all.

[Jedi]

Nobunaga wasn't invading other countries, though, he was trying to unite feudal Japan. The hierarchy of historical bias is non whites who fight whites are given villain upgrades, english speakers are favored over everyone else, and Americans are favored most of all.

Yeah, Nobunaga was just trying to unite Japan. Also revolutionized some tactics such as the various Musket tactics he employed against the Takeda clan. I also think it was pretty cool he appreciated people regardless of class (see Hideyoshi)

[Timely Rain]

Nobunaga doesn't deserve the fame he has. Demon king? Well, Shingen boiled criminals alive. Nobunaga also was the one with enough ambition to start unification and his tactical prowess was huge (I mean, what he did at Okehazama was suicide!). Also people seem to consider evil the fact that he killed his brother in law, Nagamasa, but he had to fight him because Nobunaga attacked the Asakura clan, who was an ally to Nagamasa, and he had to switch sides. Nobunaga was not going to attack his brother in law at all! Hes biggest mistake, however, was being a prick to nice Mitsuhide. In the end he kind of deserved a punishment in my opinion, but there were more evil people at the time.

[blah the Prussian]

Nobunaga doesn't deserve the fame he has. Demon king? Well, Shingen boiled criminals alive. Nobunaga also was the one with enough ambition to start unification and his tactical prowess was huge (I mean, what he did at Okehazama was suicide!). Also people seem to consider evil the fact that he killed his brother in law, Nagamasa, but he had to fight him because Nobunaga attacked the Asakura clan, who was an ally to Nagamasa, and he had to switch sides. Nobunaga was not going to attack his brother in law at all! Hes biggest mistake, however, was being a prick to nice Mitsuhide. In the end he kind of deserved a punishment in my opinion, but there were more evil people at the time.

Eh. Everyone did the bad stuff he did, and he did more good than most. I remember being so pissed when he was the villain of Pokemon Conquest. Nobunagas deserves better than being in the same camp as the likes of Ghetsis!

[Acacia Sgt]

Nobunaga doesn't deserve the fame he has. Demon king? Well, Shingen boiled criminals alive. Nobunaga also was the one with enough ambition to start unification and his tactical prowess was huge (I mean, what he did at Okehazama was suicide!). Also people seem to consider evil the fact that he killed his brother in law, Nagamasa, but he had to fight him because Nobunaga attacked the Asakura clan, who was an ally to Nagamasa, and he had to switch sides. Nobunaga was not going to attack his brother in law at all! Hes biggest mistake, however, was being a prick to nice Mitsuhide. In the end he kind of deserved a punishment in my opinion, but there were more evil people at the time.

Well, in a sense, it's baggage that's been carrying itself for centuries. Back then Demon King was kinda deserved since without hindsight, it was mysterious that both Shingen and Kenshin died while leading succesful campaigns against Nobunaga. Also if I remember correctly, it was him who called himself that. Or more accurately, it was Demon King of Hell's Sixth Circle. And regarding Nagamasa, once the Azakura were crushed he didn't had to, but he still went on to wipe the Azai anyway.

Eh. Everyone did the bad stuff he did, and he did more good than most. I remember being so pissed when he was the villain of Pokemon Conquest. Nobunagas deserves better than being in the same camp as the likes of Ghetsis!

Considering his role in Conquest, I highly doubt Nobunaga is in the same camp as Ghetsis...

Edited March 11, 2015 by Acacia Sgt

[Jedi]

Nobunaga did burn temples of Warrior Priests who opposed him. Killing a number of innocent people, this is the main thing that typically gets brought up against my view that Nobunaga overall wasn't supremely "evil" to use a black and white term.

He was one of the only Japanese lords who allowed Christians to be in their land as well, the other most notable Lord who did this in the Waring States was of course Masamune Date.

[blah the Prussian]

Nobunaga did burn temples of Warrior Priests who opposed him. Killing a number of innocent people, this is the main thing that typically gets brought up against my view that Nobunaga overall wasn't supremely "evil" to use a black and white term.

He was one of the only Japanese lords who allowed Christians to be in their land as well, the other most notable Lord who did this in the Waring States was of course Masamune Date.

Innocent people die in wartime. This is inevitable. I can't think of a single war where the "good" guys didn't kill any innocent people.

[Jedi]

Innocent people die in wartime. This is inevitable. I can't think of a single war where the "good" guys didn't kill any innocent people.

Exactly and some people I've discussed this stuff with get all offended when I look at conquerors because. "Oh they killed x amount of people"