Comments by "Ember Fist" (@emberfist8347) on "Columbus Day Is Worth Fighting For" video.

  1.  @mjolnirsoul9214  Except no he did not. Most of the claims about that originate from the Black Legend a period of anti-Spanish propaganda well after Columbus was dead.
    5
  2. @imnotatrojaniswear Unsourced quote so you wouldn't win any points.
    4
  3. @imnotatrojaniswear Again a quote you didn't source.
    4
  4. More anti-Spanish. Part of the reason for the defamation was he sailed under the Spanish Crown. Tehincally he wasn't even Italian he was just born in one of of the city-states that was Italy before Rome fell.
    4
  5.  @misarthim6538  Except he didn't miscalculate the circumference. Everybody believed there was just an ocean between Europe and Aisa. Also he wasn't hardly s brutal as claimed. Most evidence of these claims come from Anti-Spanish propoganda.
    3
  6.  @parytheplatipus  The reasons they took so long to remilitarize was for a number of reasons. They were war-weary, there was the regime change, but there was also the Great Depression which hit France particularly hard, and the fact Germany under the Weimar Republic was at least pretending to be following the Treaty of Versailles (New weapons such as the MG-15 were given designations that implied they were developed during WWI and most of fighters and bombers were "mail planes" and "airliners" respectively) whereas Hitler was flagrantly violating the treaty.
    3
  7. @imnotatrojaniswear If you cared about historical facts, look up the Black Legend.
    2
  8.  @debanydoombringer1385  Yep the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Similar story in North America. Both Britain and France made alliances with different tribes.
    2
  9. Actually Sean I am doing a paper on why France fell in six weeks and the answer isn't simple as you put it. Most of the evidence points to France soldiers fighting well and winning a few engagements but it wasn't enough because they were mostly deployed in the wrong area. France was expecting an invasion through North Belgium based on their experience from WWI and battle plans they captured from Germany. However, Germany instead invaded from the south. Germany, France and Britain were in no state to fight a war during the Rienland incident.
    1
  10. We cared about Hong Kong. The problem was the pandemic kinda overtook Hong Kong in the media.
    1
  11. @imnotatrojaniswear How about the fact the sources were translated which creates a very clear chance for bias from the translator.
    1
  12. @imnotatrojaniswear You provide no sources so I have only your word to go on which doesn't mean much.
    1
  13. @imnotatrojaniswear Peer-Reviewed doesn't always mean accurate.
    1
  14. @imnotatrojaniswear Except that is only if the source wasn't translated and it is easy to take quotes out of context.
    1
  15. I am actually doing a paper on this and the main reasons I have found is less due to the leaders or the military and more just bad luck. Great Britain and even Germany both had the same problems and it wasn't even their tactics were outdated it is just their overall style discouraged out of the box tactics. French soldiers weren't encouraged to sieze the initiative like their German counterparts.
    1
  16. Yeah they were out-maneuvered by part of the problem was Germany encouraged their soldiers to improvise and think outside of the box but the Allies did not. Britain had all the same problems as France in the early years of the war. The reason Britain was able to avoid falling was because of the English Channel separating them from the mainland. Britain always had a significant advantage when it comes to its Navy compared to other European powers.
    1
  17.  @Richard68434  No that is not the case. France was quite open to go to war after the Munich Conference. The only documented cases of Low Morale stem mostly from the Phoney War period where, as one soldier put it, "The war machine is running in neutral." The Germans also had the exact same problems with morale as none of their soldiers really cared about the war either.
    1
  18.    If there is a cure it would be far more profitable to sell it not suppress it. You could basically print money and hire Bill Gates to pick up your trash.
    1
  19.    Nah because creating a cure is basically a license to print money. Your stock prices will skyrocket you could afford to pay off all of Greece's debts. Your definition of profit is overly narrow for the argument to work.
    1
  20.  @JRocka114  Columbus discovered two new continents and changed World History as we know.
    1
  21.  @gav2057  Except how could have discovered it if they didn't show it to the world?
    1
  22.  @gav2057  Intention or not. Sharing is a required part of discovery. The process of discovery in a legal case refers specifically to both sides sharing evidence it is a requirement.
    1
  23.  @gav2057  They shared their discovery
    1
  24.  @TheMadmax03  The West Indies is Part of North America.
    1
  25.  @wetnoodlex  Also most of the claims from accounts after his death during a time of anti-Spanish propaganda. It would be like just using Confederate accounts to document Lincoin.
    1
  26. ENter the Anti-Semite.
    1
  27.  @TheMadmax03  The West Indies is part of North America. It is like no the Vikings weren't part of Europe they were part of Scandanavia.
    1
  28. He was a legal US citizen. According John Bryne's Run. He was born in the US because he was launched as a fetus.
    1
  29. Anti-Spanish. Colombus was sailing for Spain as Italian didn't exist at the time.
    1
  30.  @Suprentus  rimshot.
    1
  31. Colombus technically wasn't Italian. Italy was divided into a bunch of city-states at the time. Most Scholars put him as Genoan
    1
  32. Except most of the claims do not come from Colombus but anti-spanish propoganda.
    1
  33. Except that is once again based on biased Anti-Spanish Propoganda.
    1
  34. No World War I was clearly a good vs evil. It all started because Germany and Austria-Hungray were going after the wrong people. France had no involvement in Serbia unlike Russia but they were invaded because of who their friends were. Britain was fairly neutral during the early part of the war and only joined because their ally Belgium was invaded by Germany and the US didn't join the war until near after multiple incidents with Germany including the sinking of the Luistania (which was a war crime because they didn't wait until the ship was evacuated before they started shooting) the Zimmerman Telegram and attacking American shipping. Also Turkey was pretty much a war monger themselves as they attacked Russia just to get into a war with Russia.
    1
  35. No think equality atones for Slavery.
    1
  36.  @professionalbozo4396  OP doesn't think current racial equality atones for Slavery.
    1
  37.  @FP194  Actually they landed in Iceland (part of Europe) and Greenland (in North America but legally it is part of Denmark.)
    1
  38. Technically he was born in US soil as per John Bryne's run.
    1
  39. It isn't even that. According to the current version of Superman's Origin (John Bryne's run from Post-Crisis who is the same Superman we have in the current comics) he was born in US soil and was launched in that ship as a fetus.
    1
  40. Well in South America you have plenty of impressive civilizations like the Aztecs, Mayans and Inca who built Empires on part with Greece or Rome.
    1
  41. Nah I disagree. A confederacy was what they did in the US before the Constitution was and the government was too weak.
    1
  42. Not as much as finding not one but two continents. Only founding a colony on another planet or meeting Aliens would be more significant.
    1
  43.  @FP194  Well the West Indies is officially part of North America.
    1
  44. They actually did go through Belgium but the thing is they went through the Ardennes in South Belgium. Also Germany did get damn close to Paris in WWI. It was said that in Paris in the early months, you could actually hear the shots of the battlefield in the city. The French drove them back towards eastern France.
    1
  45.  @Nick-ce6lt  Except that isn’t even what my comment is about. In WWI and WWII they both went through Belgium and both times they did manage to reach Paris
    1
  46. They dind't share it with the world so doesn't really count.
    1
  47. Texas was its own nation. They broke off from Mexico and wanted to be part of the US but while they were waiting to become a state, they became an independent Republic
    1
  48. Yep and most of the ice actually refreezes when it reaches the South Pole.
    1
  49. The answer is more complex. France's tactics weren't flawed it was just Germany had troops that could think on their feet and sieze the initiative. France had learned from WWI and were prepared for a German Invasion. They even had plans of what path Germany was going to invade. Unfortunately, Germany changed their plans at the last minute because of the leak invaded somewhere else while sending not one but two decoy armies against France. There was one that hit the Maginot Line, and another that hit the Allies in the Low Countries.
    1
  50. ​ @comentedonakeyboard  France heavily discouraged improvisation but their tactics weren't flawed they were just using them against the wrong enemy.
    1
  51.  @comentedonakeyboard  Germany was so close to actually invading through the Low Countries as planned
    1
  52.  @comentedonakeyboard  Yes but France had a plan for when the attack happened.
    1
  53. You are clueless.
    1
  54.  @karljonson3287  I actually majored in History so I know what I am talking about.
    1
  55. They never documented it.
    1
  56. That is a very oversimplified and frankly incorrect interpretation. France started militarizing in the mid-30s after Hitler came to power. The Appeasement wasn't Britain and France allowing Hitler to have Czechlesolvokia but a measure to avoid going to war before they were. They took the time to build up their military and this practice was done on both sides even during the early months during the period between the Invasion of Poland and the Battle of France you had what is called the Phoney War where both sides were technically at war but too busy building up their forces to wage any offenses.
    1
  57. It wasn't really the US's fault. France was allied with Britain and they did well without many allies in 1914.
    1
  58. Blitzkrieg wasn't even a thing back then. Germany just had soldiers that were better of thinking on their feet as this was encouraged. France and Britain did not nurture improvization.
    1
  59.  @FP194  Nah they didn't. Their plan was for the Germans was to move into Belgium through the low countries and meet them there. They didn't account for them moving through the southern Ardennes because 1. It was thought impossible for a mechanized force to do so. 2. The German's original plan was to do just that and the Allies got a hold of said plans and 3. Germany did send a decoy force through the Low Countries.
    1
  60.  @Boo-jk3ii  They weren't actually. They were planning on Germany to go through Belium but they were waiting in the wrong part of the country for them. They thought Germany was going to attack through the Northern Low Countries (which to their credit wasn't that far off as Germany did initially plan to do that) but they went through the Ardennes in the South instead.
    1
  61.  @Nick-ce6lt  It wasn't their inability it was just their doctrine didn't preclude radios. France was paranoid about the enemy intercepting radio communications hence why they went old-fashioned. They also built around plans that didn't offer room for improvisation. If a French soldier got an order to take a hill they were expected to take the hill and that's it. They were encouraged also to take the farmhouse a quarter-mile away that provided a better vantage point.
    1
  62.  @WarComet  Blitzkrieg wasn't even a word in the Wehrmacht Lexicon. It was coined by the English but it was playing on the contemporary idea that the Germans were technologically superior to the Allies which we know now to not be the case. They were still heavily reliant on horses and the closest we got to Blitzkrieg was Operation Barbarossa and we all how that turned out. Also in your original comment, you are only half right. The French didn't believe Germany could move as quickly as they did but it wasn't because of the meth but they were considering the fact that all the mechanized support would have to slow down because of logistics.
    1
  63.  @WarComet  Except the plan wasn't actually blitzkrieg and any historian worth their salt agrees on that point. Blitzkrieg requires a fully mechanized army which Germany did not have. Also you are overstating the importance of meth. Germany didn't go in with just infantry they brought tanks aircraft armored cars, trucks horses, artillery. They need a supply chain for all of that for the operation to succeed.
    1