There were not sixty to ninety thousand black Confederate soldiers. There were black militiamen in the 1st Louisiana Native Guard, but the unit was quickly disbanded and saw close to no action. A small black unit was being formed in Viriginia in 1865 but didn't see action. 1/6 For the vast majority of the war, black people could not serve as Confederate soldiers. Only utter desperation changed that in 1865, and, even then, it was only on a limited basis.
Black people could be found in Confederate armies throughout the war, however. As slaves. 2/6

So this isn't true. Medieval Europeans did bathe and wash themselves fairly regularly. Was it as frequent as it is for modern people? No. There wasn't the infrastructure for that. But, there were a lot of public bathouses, and we have many depictions of Europeans bathing. 1/3 The "Moors" of Al-Andalus were generally quite advanced in many respects, and living in Al-Andalus would probably have been more pleasant than living in most Christian parts of Spain at times, but that is a large generalization of several centuries in a very dynamic region. 2/3

I don't think "everyone" dreams of fighting in a "last stand." That's a very weird thing to dream about.

As one may expect, this thread has some... interesting examples. 1/10 First off, the Franks weren't facing constant assaults on their positions for 7 days, which is what this makes it sound like. There were several days of skirmishing, but the battle itself happened on one day.
Second, Tours didn't ensure a Christian Europe. 2/10

Yes, Yasuke was a real person. He's a really interesting historical figure, and I'd suggest looking into him if you've never heard of him. Black people were very rare in Sengoku period Japan, but there's no reason Yasuke can't be a protagonist in an Assassin's Creed game. 1/4 Assassin's Creed has so, so many actual issues if you care about historical accuracy. It is absolutely wild that some people are making a big deal about being able to play as an actual historical figure while claiming to care about historical accuracy and immersion. 2/4

The only one of those that was remotely close to a counteroffensive against Western imperialism was the invasion of Czechoslovakia, but that's being insanely generous and asserting that anti-Soviet self-determination is automatically Western imperialism. 1/4 Calling the 1939 invasion of Poland (which was fighting the Nazis) a counteroffensive against Western imperialism is... a choice. Tbf, they could be talking about the 1919-1921 Polish-Soviet War, but I'm pretty confident that wasn't what @ConspiracyBull1 was talking about. 2/4

I can't believe I'm coming to the defense of Alex Jones, but yes, Hitler was responsible for millions of deaths (even ignoring all of the atrocities). Hitler started the war by invading Poland. France and the UK followed their treaty obligations. Germany wasn't a victim. 1/4

France and the UK should be criticized for not coming to the defense of Czechoslovakia in 38 and not doing more to aid the Poles once the war started. They should not be criticized for finally standing up to Nazi aggression. Peace with the Nazis was no longer an option. 2/4

Saying "Easterners lack the strength and discipline to come straight [at] a prepared enemy" sure sounds like a judgment. Many "Eastern" armies were disciplined. Some did focus on fighting in close-quarters. The overall East-West martial dichotomy is severely flawed at best. 1/6

Even if the op's definition of "East" was limited to Iran for some reason, he would still be wrong. Achaemenid Persian, Sassanid, and Afsharid armies were all quite disciplined and capable. The Daylamites were great infantrymen and were noted for their skill in close combat. 2/

The Nazis literally used child soldiers. That's not somehow better than using their own children as human shields. Nazi leadership certainly didn't care about the suffering of German civilians. More broadly, saying Hamas is worse than the Nazis is incredibly bizarre. 1/5 Elsewhere in the linked audio, Harris argues that, while Hamas is less powerful than the Nazis, they are ideologically worse than the Nazis. Which is just an odd way of thinking about things. Intent only goes so far. Especially when compared to the genocide of 6 million Jews. 2/

Japan wasn't colonized in any meaningful sense by "Western" powers at any point in its history. European merchants were present in Japan during the period depicted and they even owned some land, but they were very much subject to the will of local daimyo and later the shogun. 1/ Eventually the Portuguese were expelled and only the Dutch were allowed to trade in Japan, and their movement was very limited. Now then, Japan did have to deal with American, British, French, and Dutch gunboat diplomacy in the 19th century, but Japan still wasn't colonized. 2/

Nicholas II wasn't a "chad." And the fact that close to half of Nicholas II's "chad" traits are related to aesthetics demonstrates how shallow most monarchists' perception of the world is.

Also, Nicholas II very much did not almost win WWI. 1/3 He severely limited the scope and democratic nature of the Duma once Russia regained some level of stability in the aftermath of 1905. Russian economic growth in the early 20th century had little to do with Nicholas II himself.
Nicholas II bad actually. 2/3

1. Native tribes hunted buffalo, but did not bring them to the brink of extinction via mass slaughter, unlike white settlers and the US army (source below).
2. The US absolutely broke treaties with Native tribes. Even SCOTUS recognized that in US v. Sioux Nation of Indians. 1/9

https://twitter.com/BlueandGray1864/status/1766978312948044243

Notable broken treaties include the Treaties of Fort Laramie in 1851 and 1868. Frequent promises throughout American history to respect native land rights have been broken, with the US army either directly encouraging settlement or refusing to enforce treaty provisions. 2/

Cute philosophical statement on the pointlessness of war. But the Confederacy ceased to exist. It failed all of its political objectives. It lost by any reasonable definition. Even if we do the "everyone loses in war" bit, Confederates lost a lot more than everyone else. 1/4 Complaining about keeping tallies and treating war as a game is particularly ironic coming from a Lost Causer, considering how much most Lost Causers love talking about the Confederates' kill/death ratio as though war is a Call of Duty match. 2/

Many Confederate soldiers fought specifically to preserve slavery. They said so themselves (sources below). Now then, some did fight solely to defend "hearth and home," but that motivation was usually mixed with hatred for "abolitionists" and fears of servile insurrection. 1/6 Defending Southern society, liberties, and institutions was defending slavery.
And yes, secession led to slavery ending earlier than it otherwise would have. But we know that with the benefit of hindsight. Secessionists believed they were going to save slavery. 2/6

Netflix didn't "turn him gay." While we can't say with certainty that Alexander and Hephaestion were lovers, it's a semi-common view among historians with some support from ancient texts. And we have even more evidence for a romantic relationship between Alexander and Bagoas. 1/6 Now then, sexuality in the Hellenistic world doesn't really fit modern identities. While the most accurate modern descriptor of him would probably be bi, having sexual relations with both men and women probably wasn't particularly uncommon (at least in the upper classes). 2/

Alright. So, my thoughts on Ridley Scott’s “Napoleon.” It was bad. And not just due to historical inaccuracies, it was also a poor cinematic experience. If you’re truly curious about the film then you should wait for it to come out on a streaming service. Value your time. 1/25 If you know nothing about Napoleon it might at least spark some interest, but there are better ways to do that. And most people who know nothing about him will be bored for 3/4s of the movie. And if you know stuff about Napoleon, you’ll just be frustrated the entire time. 2/

A constant refrain from Confederate sympathizers is that the majority of US generals and officials were racists and their personal reasons for remaining loyal were not due to abolitionisn. Which is true.
However, this doesn't mean the war wasn't about slavery. 1/10

https://twitter.com/Jeff_Davis1808/status/1718795006398321126

The South attempted to secede to protect the institution of slavery. You can try to dress it up however you like, but slavery was the root cause of the US Civil War. They feared that Lincoln and the "black Republicans" would restrict and attack the institution of slavery. 2/

So first off, the framing of whatever immigrants racists are afraid of this week as comparable to the "barbarian" invaders of the Roman Empire is incredibly disingenuous. The Goths, Vandals, Alans, Huns, etc. were militarily organized. Modern immigrants are not. 1/6 Secondly, the fact that most Romans were Christians by the end of the 4th century AD had very little to do with the "fall" of Rome. They didn't stop defending the frontiers and "turn the other cheek." They did plenty of fighting. Which was actually the problem on occasion. 2/6

"Name a single thing fascists did that liberals haven't done."
Ummm... the Holocaust?!?!?

1/3 Mussolini did not in fact do liberalism.

I understand not liking liberals, but they aren't fascists. Yes, plenty of liberals have done terrible things. Fascism is a specific ideology, not just people doing stuff you don't like.

2/3

So this got a fair amount of backlash from people who seem to have only read Christopher Clark's "The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914." This article goes a bit into some criticisms of the book and the wider historiography of the July Crisis. jstor.org/stable/43965205

https://twitter.com/bad_histories/status/1685694241261920256

"The Sleepwalkers" is undoubtedly well-written and provides valuable information on the complicated motivations of Serbia and the Entente, but it fails to fully engage with some key research on Germany and AH during the July Crisis & is generally overly forgiving of both states.

While the Entente were not necessarily "good guys," the Central Powers were very much the "worse guys." They were the aggressors, violated international norms, and committed the vast majority of war crimes. Them winning the Great War would have been disastrous. 1/3 Was the Treaty of Versailles too harsh? Not really. Especially compared to the other treaties during and after WWI. Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were both destroyed. Germany was simply humiliated, much as France had been at the 1871 Treaty of Versailles. 2/3

The Holodomor wasn't made up by Ukrainian nationalists. We have first-hand accounts. It did happen.

And while Japanese internment was definitely bad, it was not worse than the deaths of millions. Historians debate how directly responsible Stalin was for the Holodomor as a whole, but they agree he was responsible for many deaths. Even the most generous interpretation shows him as a negligent leader who didn't care about the deaths of millions and made the famine worse.