|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Aug 8, 2016 1:04:21 GMT
Don't tag me as knowing everything. As a Jew I read a good amount about Jewish history, but not necessarily other groups' histories. And Tito, when you refer to some people by first name it's really weird People told me you knew about history sorry if I angred you and do you mean that I called stalin lenin gorbachev inatead of joseph stalin vladimir lenin and mikhail goebachev You didn't anger me, I just wanted you to know that I am not infallible. And I'm referring to the fact that you called him Mikhail instead of Gorbachov. Using only last name (family name, as many foreign languages know it) like Stalin, Dayan, or Churchill to refer to a historical figure is normal and accepted. Using the first name, like Joseph, Moshe, or Winston is weird |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Aug 8, 2016 1:09:01 GMT
Charles de Gaulle Winston Churchill Stalin Lenin Gorbachev Mac Arthur Rommel Guderian Hoishiro ( Jean-Luc Picard correct me I was talking about the japanese leader in ww2 ) Yamamoto Lincoln George Washington I just want to see peoples perspectives about history and the men and women that made it and I like talking about historical figures with people who love history Charles the man who kept the french empire alive Churchil he lived long through both ww and to the cold war he survived the battle of britian and defeteates the nazi war machine he kept the only light of democracy in europe burning. Stalin he was made of steel nothing could break him but that lead to many deaths Lenin I respect him he made a giant coummunist nation Mikhail He unified germany made good relations with nato MacArthur just awesome Rommel and Guderian both very good generals Rommel almost won in africa but he didnt have enough supplies reinforcments he was outnumbered and his enemies had more knowledge about desert fighting but he wasnt a nazi but sadly he was killed by hitler The japanese leader I dont know much about him but I hope to learn about from you guys Yamamoto I call him The King Of The Pacific Ocean Lincoln and Washington good men they made america a better country lincoln fought for the slaves and washington I also dont know a lot about him De Gaulle: Leclerc was a far better French general in my opinion, but De Gaulle did unify France after the initial turmoil following WWII. He did create a Republican Dictatorship, however, and decided to fight to keep French colonies instead of letting them all become independent like the British did. Churchill: Incredibly inspiring and just interesting figure. He fought in the Second Boer War, getting captured and then fleeing hundreds of miles to reach friendly territory after escaping, was initially a commander in WWI, but after Gallipoli decided to redeem himself by fighting in the trenches of the Western Front, and in WWII he was able to hold off the Germans for a good year until the USSR got into the war, famously saying "We shall fight in the hills, we will never surrender!" Stalin: Sure, he industrialized Russia...at the cost of MILLIONS of deaths. Terrible Human Being, at least he helped win the Second World War Lenin: Actual good guy, I think the USSR couldve maybe worked under him, but because of Stalin everything got screwed up. Gorbachev: I like him, but he wanted to keep the USSR intact when in reality it was going to collapse. He did withdraw troops from Afghanistan, good on him, and was goody goody with Reagan. I would not say he unified Germany though, Germany was reunited after German civilians decided to take to the streets and tear down the Berlin Wall. MacArthur: Made effective use of Tanks in the First World War, attacked and killed innocent Bonus Marchers in the 1932 March on Washington, was a pretty decent general in WWII, and during the Korean War was able to liberate most of Korea at Inchon, but once the Chinese got involved, he and Truman got into multiple arguments, which MacArthur then released to the press and was subsequently relieved of duty. Rommel and Guderian: What must I say? Two great German generals, especially Rommel, he wasnt a Nazi, actually opposed Hitler, but he was incredibly Patriotic and had to fight for his country. He actually refused to allow North African Jews to be sent to Germany despite Hitler's requests, but because of his bad relationship with Hitler and D-Day, he ultimately was forced to commit suicide. Hirohito: He was really a puppet, but after the War was able to convince the Japanese people that they should not oppose the temporary American occupation and that they should not oppose the democratic institutions being placed upon the country. He was also staunchly anti-communist. Yamamoto: Very good Japanese generals, but Idk much about his ethics or morals. Lincoln: He preserved our Union and, while he really didn't want to free the slaves, did anyway (Albeit for ulterior reasons). He also led a Total War effort, dedicated to winning the war. Washington: Despite multiple defeats, held out and continued on. Without him, America may not have won the Revolution. |
|
|
|
Post by Tito on Aug 8, 2016 1:09:32 GMT
People told me you knew about history sorry if I angred you and do you mean that I called stalin lenin gorbachev inatead of joseph stalin vladimir lenin and mikhail goebachev You didn't anger me, I just wanted you to know that I am not infallible. And I'm referring to the fact that you called him Mikhail instead of Gorbachov. Using only last name (family name, as many foreign languages know it) like Stalin, Dayan, or Churchill to refer to a historical figure is normal and accepted. Using the first name, like Joseph, Moshe, or Winston is weird It is weird but the thing is when someone says chruchil almost all people will think about churchil and if you say stalin you think about joseph and i thought its easier to write mikhail than gorbachev and it would be really weird if I called him gorbi heh |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Aug 8, 2016 1:14:45 GMT
You didn't anger me, I just wanted you to know that I am not infallible. And I'm referring to the fact that you called him Mikhail instead of Gorbachov. Using only last name (family name, as many foreign languages know it) like Stalin, Dayan, or Churchill to refer to a historical figure is normal and accepted. Using the first name, like Joseph, Moshe, or Winston is weird It is weird but the thing is when someone says chruchil almost all people will think about churchil and if you say stalin you think about joseph and i thought its easier to write mikhail than gorbachev and it would be really weird if I called him gorbi heh But it isn't, at least not by societal convention. Only Stalin's family and closest friends thought of him as Joseph. And Joseph here could easily have referred to Józef Poniatowski. First names are way too ambiguous too. And same for Gorbachov. Few think of him as Mikhail, so in Historical discussion he is referred to by last name. It's always done that way |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Aug 8, 2016 1:16:33 GMT
Ill just say this:
Many people around the world are named 'Joseph'
A tiny fraction of people around the world have the last name 'Stalin'
|
|
|
|
Post by Tito on Aug 8, 2016 1:16:43 GMT
It is weird but the thing is when someone says chruchil almost all people will think about churchil and if you say stalin you think about joseph and i thought its easier to write mikhail than gorbachev and it would be really weird if I called him gorbi heh But it isn't, at least not by societal convention. Only Stalin's family and closest friends thought of him as Joseph. And Joseph here could easily have referred to Józef Poniatowski. First names are way too ambiguous too. And same for Gorbachov. Few think of him as Mikhail, so in Historical discussion he is referred to by last name. It's always done that way and that is why easytech puts generals last names but the only excpetion that I know is Napoleon |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Aug 8, 2016 1:19:25 GMT
But it isn't, at least not by societal convention. Only Stalin's family and closest friends thought of him as Joseph. And Joseph here could easily have referred to Józef Poniatowski. First names are way too ambiguous too. And same for Gorbachov. Few think of him as Mikhail, so in Historical discussion he is referred to by last name. It's always done that way and that is why easytech puts generals last names but the only excpetion that I know is Napoleon With Monarchs, the convention is different. Monarchs are referred to by number and name (George V, Henry VIII, Louis XIV). Napoleon was a monarch, so he is Napoleon I, or Napoleon for short since there were only 2 (him and Napoleon III, weird story) |
|
|
|
Post by Tito on Aug 8, 2016 1:19:49 GMT
Ivan Kolev I saw you know a lot about history so could you tell ne what Rasputin the one who puppeted the Tsar and Eissenhower but In ww2 not when he was predient
|
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Aug 8, 2016 1:21:34 GMT
Ivan Kolev I saw you know a lot about history so could you tell ne what Rasputin the one who puppeted the Tsar and Eissenhower but In ww2 not when he was predient Like what specifically? Do you just want to know about them? |
|
|
|
Post by Tito on Aug 8, 2016 1:22:03 GMT
and that is why easytech puts generals last names but the only excpetion that I know is Napoleon With Monarchs, the convention is different. Monarchs are referred to by number and name (George V, Henry VIII, Louis XIV). Napoleon was a monarch, so he is Napoleon I, or Napoleon for short since there were only 2 (him and Napoleon III, weird story) I dont know the weird story but I know that he helped the unification of italy |
|
|
|
Post by Tito on Aug 8, 2016 1:23:59 GMT
Ivan Kolev I saw you know a lot about history so could you tell ne what Rasputin the one who puppeted the Tsar and Eissenhower but In ww2 not when he was predient Like what specifically? Do you just want to know about them? What have they done I know that eissenhower was famous in ww2 but what did he do and what did Rasputin do when the Tsar was his puppet and what happend to russia I think the bolscheviks overtgrew right? |
|
|
|
Post by Quintus Fabius on Aug 8, 2016 1:24:25 GMT
Ivan Kolev I saw you know a lot about history so could you tell ne what Rasputin the one who puppeted the Tsar and Eissenhower but In ww2 not when he was predient Rasputin? He was a mad monk who healed the Tsar's son, so got important as the Tsar didn't want his son to die. He became a favourite of the royals whilst being rich off the backs of the people and angering many nobles. Sprouted nonsense and claimed it to be 'god's word', which caused many russian armies to be shoved into the tiger's mouth. Got killed by nobles. |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Aug 8, 2016 1:29:16 GMT
and that is why easytech puts generals last names but the only excpetion that I know is Napoleon With Monarchs, the convention is different. Monarchs are referred to by number and name (George V, Henry VIII, Louis XIV). Napoleon was a monarch, so he is Napoleon I, or Napoleon for short since there were only 2 (him and Napoleon III, weird story) Actually, there were four: Napoleon I-I think we all know about him Napoleon II-Duke of Reichstadt in Austria Napoleon III-Leader of France from 1852 to 1871, drastically affected Victorian Europe Napoleon IV-Never an official Head of State, but Bonapartists in France proclaimed him Head of the House of Bonaparte following his father's death. Ended up dying in the Anglo-Zulu War where he was a lieutenant. |
|
|
|
Post by Ivan Kolev on Aug 8, 2016 1:32:37 GMT
Like what specifically? Do you just want to know about them? What have they done I know that eissenhower was famous in ww2 but what did he do and what did Rasputin do when the Tsar was his puppet and what happend to russia I think the bolscheviks overtgrew right? Eisenhower: He was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe during WWII and was the man who influenced D-Day the most, planning and such. After the war, he briefly became Head of the defense of NATO and later become President of the U.S in 1952, his principal achievements being the end of the Korean War and Brown vs. BOE Rasputin: He made terrible decisions for the empire and was assassinated in 1916. His influence resulted in mass unrest in the empire, influencing the Russian Revolutions. |
|
|
|
Post by Jean-Luc Picard on Aug 8, 2016 1:35:22 GMT
With Monarchs, the convention is different. Monarchs are referred to by number and name (George V, Henry VIII, Louis XIV). Napoleon was a monarch, so he is Napoleon I, or Napoleon for short since there were only 2 (him and Napoleon III, weird story) Actually, there were four: Napoleon I-I think we all know about him Napoleon II-Duke of Reichstadt in Austria Napoleon III-Leader of France from 1852 to 1871, drastically affected Victorian Europe Napoleon IV-Never an official Head of State, but Bonapartists in France proclaimed him Head of the House of Bonaparte following his father's death. Ended up dying in the Anglo-Zulu War where he was a lieutenant. Napoleon II was not recognized as legitimate and claimed a rule for 2 days. The 4th was never a monarch |
|
