They just vibin

And the most cause of cowboy deaths were by Native Americans AND other black cow lies when their cattle marches merged and they fought over who had what cow

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/jan/25/donald-trump-establishes-office-former-president-f/

I don’t remember if I already said this but fun fact: During the Invasion of Poland, no, the polish did not go charging German tanks, but instead engaged them at distance with Antitank rifles

The misconception that the polish charger German tanks comes from an engagement where after routing a German camp, several polish Calvary-men were gunned down by machine guns mounted in a half track

Then, while Italian Reporters were at the scene, they saw the dead Calvarymen, and a couple of tanks that happened to be there, and went with the conclusion that the poles were desperate to the point that they tried charging tanks on horseback, and the misconception stuck for the rest of the war and onwards

yee haw muchachos

Yeah, but leadership positions were still limited to whites.

hey in this server do we talk about WWII history only or like the history of humanity as a whole? indus, anubis, abraham....

literaly anything related to history

cool

the polish military actually did use cavalry, but not in battle, rather they used it to get their troops around quickly. Also, mire polish badassery, during the opening days of the war in Danzig, a couple of poles in the post office held out against nazi infantry, artillery, and armoured vechiles. These postmen were so vigilent that the nazi's had to blow up the entire building because they simply could not take it.

Can someone explain to me why the Confederate flag is problematic? And can another person also explain why it’s not problematic?

How it’s not problematic. It was a flag that was going to be used by the Confederacy when they tried to rebel from the Union because the northern states wanted to end slavery.
How it is problematic: the southern states where Democrats who wanted to keep their slaves. Any person who knows this knows that the same party that’s wanting it removed, was the same party that wanted to keep their slaves. Thus, said party called it “racists” because “white supremacists want to use it to justify slave ownership”

Here's the thing, the civil war didn't become a war about slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation happened, which allowed the Union to guilt trip European Nations into supporting them on account of them having already banned slavery

That’s also true.

Personally, I don’t really like it, but I’m not going to wet myself over it.

The European Nations had a role in the Civil War?🙀

Sort of, not really

The south tried to get European support due to them selling cotton to the British

But the British said no because 1. They could just get cotton from Egypt, 2, the south didn’t really have anything to offer them with the delegates being unprepared to actually negotiate, and 3. The north made it a conflict of slavery meaning that the British had to support the north considering they already outlawed slavery

Not to say that there weren't plenty of abolitionists in the North, and a great lack of them in the South. But politicians are politicians. Even the Founding Fathers didn't make slavery illegal, when they knew it was wrong. They wanted the support of the Southern States in the revolution (who wouldn't) and that meant getting in bed with the devil.

So of course Northern members of congress were hesitant to even approach the topic. They weren't so very different from today's politicians in that avoiding controversy altogether is the easier way of running a campaign.

well, early on in the Civil War, the Brits and the French had traded with the South for Cotton, however that quickly came to an end when the North utalized the Anaconda plan, which cut off the Confederates to Europe, which also as a side effect caused both france and Britian to enter a Cotton Famine and both nations gave the Confederacy a chance to either win a significant battle or punch through the Union Blockaid and they would send in their support

and since the South failed to do either, both Britain and France withdrew any support and delved into interests elsewhere

the issue of Slavery wasnt one that played a huge role in either nations support of the South, since both nations well practiced it in their territories outside of their nations borders, with Britian having used it well up till the early 20th century

what is interesting tho is that, while Canada was still a territory of Britian at the time and had to follow lock and step with their mother nation, they had pledged support to the North, going against their mother nation

frankly the issue of Slavery in the Civil War wouldnt pop up till after the battle of Gettysburge, in which the Address givin by Lincoln would state that only the rebelling Southern states slaves were to be declared free. However this was ultimately all for show as he had no power in deciding what the Confederacy did and explicity made it where it didnt ban slavery in the North, as there were still several very key Northern states that used slavery. the 2 most notable being both Maryland and Delaware. Going against their wishes was in essence a literal suicide move as it would give the Confederacy enough land and men where they could mount an actual offensive against the White House and win the war

politicians then were very much no different than they are today

and the only reason why Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address was because he was frankly losing the war not just on the frontlines, but inside the very homeland as citizens of several states were growing tired of sending their husbands and sons off to war just to die, even going so far as Draft Riots breaking out in New York City

Not "The only reason". By the time of the Gettysburg address, Lincoln was a staunch abolitionist. He had a personal interest in seeing the slaves freed.

He was not losing the war, but people were growing tired of it. The political willpower was there to win in the White House. Grant may have been a butcher, but he understood the numbers game. 5,000 Union troops were replaceable. 500 Confederate soldiers? Not nearly so much.

Add to this that the South was short on everything needed to win. Ammo, guns, food, clothes, horses, cannon, powder....Yeah. There was no way the South was winning that fight if there was the willpower on the part of the Northerners. Had we had the balls to use the same tactics we used on the South, we would have won in Vietnam, Korea would still be unified, and Afghanistan would have never been a problem.

That being said, there is no doubt that it was one of the most tragic events in our nation's history. The fact that Americans would take to the field against one another is one of those things that makes me wish to punch a wall. A kid from Texas is no less human than a kid from Minnesota. The fact that we spent nearly five years slaughtering each other pisses me off.

Well...are ya ready for round two....?

Do we count people who don't believe in the Constitution as Americans?

I mean.. “lawfully” they are. But hey soon everyone will be an American...sooo...yes...yes

I think it makes more sense to judge people by their practices than their words. They don't like our nation. They're actively seeking to destroy it. They say the people who founded it were evil. They enact segregationist policies. They view their fellow citizens as enemies in every sense of the word. As far as they're concerned, the Bill of Rights needs to be torched so that they can enact their grand cultural revolution. Which, in everything but name, is a witch-hunt for heretics and blasphemers against that which they hold sacred.

I don't believe they're Americans. It's not a civil war. It's...what is it exactly?....

Fascism/ communism

And not the good kind.

Ahhh. Radical fundementalist terrorism.