The Touchy Subject of Black Confederate Soldiers

[DukeU]

View attachment 1227014
View attachment 1227015
View attachment 1227016
View attachment 1227017
View attachment 1227018

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[JoeB131]

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Those pictures don't say much except that 400 years of racism can create some self-loathing black people.

Then again, here in Chicago, we had a Nazi party that was run by a Jew (before his fellow Nazis ratted him out to the Feds on kiddie porn charges.)

 

[DukeU]

Those pictures don't say much except that 400 years of racism can create some self-loathing black people.

Your self-loathing aside, those pics affirm the op.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Uh, no, guy, I have a degree in history, thanks...

Phew! You have a degree in history?! You certainly don't talk like someone who has a degree in history!

Tell me: How many of your history professors embraced your obscene nutty views such as your claim that the Nazis had valid reasons for hating the Jews, that "Hitler wasn't the problem" (that's an exact quote) but that those vermin Jews were to blame, that the Nazi libel that the Jews wrecked Germany after WWI is actually true, that Israel purposely attacked the USS Liberty, that Jews controlled the Navy Court of Inquiry investigation into the Liberty incident, that there is a worldwide Zionist conspiracy, to name a few?

Huh? Did a single one of your history professors endorse any of those bizarre, embarrassing claims?

and the fact is, you haven't really presented anything but anecdotal evidence that blacks fought for the Confederacy, which was ILLEGAL in the Confederacy until the last months of the war.

And you claim to have a degree in history. Uh-huh. Anecdotal evidence, i.e., firsthand eyewitness accounts from credible sources, is frequently and repeatedly considered compelling evidence in courts of law and is the basis of guilty verdicts by juries all across the country. Most of the evidence of the Holocaust is anecdotal evidence.

When an eyewitness account comes from a credible source and is also corroborated by other credible eyewitness accounts, it is usually considered solid, verified evidence. For example, Steiner's eyewitness account of seeing some 3,000 black combat troops in Stonewall Jackson's army is corroborated by Colonel Allabach's battle report of his unit's action in the Battle of Chancellorsville. Jackson's army played a major role in that battle, and Allabach mentioned that the Confederate skirmishers his unit encountered were blacks. Humm, gee, what a coincidence, hey?

Just look at the silly way you have flailed around trying to explain Steiner's detailed firsthand account. First you said Steiner's account was given "in the fog of war," a gaffe based on your failure to read the account before attacking it, showing you were ignorant of the fact that Steiner observed the black Confederate soldiers while Jackson's troops were calmly marching through Frederick, Maryland, not during combat.

Then, you suggested Steiner could not be trusted because Maryland was a slave state, another silly gaffe showing you still had not bothered to read Steiner's report and showing you did not know that Steiner was ardently anti-slavery and pro-Union, which is not surprising since he was a Republican.

I know you are loathe to actually do any real research, but if you would take half an hour and read Steiner's report, you would see he was an ardent Unionist who condemned the Confederate cause at every opportunity.

So then you floated the argument that, gee, Steiner's account must be wrong because any Southern slaves in Jackson's army would have bolted for freedom once in Maryland. You apparently forgot that they were serving with Jackson's army because they had been offered freedom for their service.

Also, not surprisingly, you keep coming back to a flimy, disingenuous argument you've copied from people who know as little as you do on the subject of black Confederates, i.e., the fact that black CSA troops are not mentioned in the Confederate army records contained in the Official Records. Even a casual Google search on Confederate army records will disclose that a massive portion of those records were destroyed toward the end of the war, and that the Confederacy suffered fom an increasingly severe paper shortage because of the Union naval blockade.

Indeed, the fragmentary nature of the surviving Confederate army records is the main reason scholars are not even able to provide a solid figure for the number of Confederate soldiers, with estimates varying by hundreds of thousands.

And, of course, you keep ignoring the point that due to battlefield conditions and strained logistics, the Confederate army did not have the time to keep the kinds of detailed records that the Union army was able to keep.

Of course, Slavery was a series of all the horrors you listed, but Hollywood didn't really start portraying that until the Roots mini-series.

Actually, no, according to the slaves themselves, it was not. According to the slaves themselves, such cases were the exception, not the rule. Again, I know you have no interest in doing any actual research on this issue, but even the Official Records contain numerous accounts of Union forces forcefully rounding up Southern slaves because the slaves did not want to come voluntarily. You can also read a number of accounts of Union soldiers who were furious with Southern slaves because the slaves would not reveal where their slaveholding family's valuables were stashed.

But, hey, I have a simple solution. Every Confederate Apologist should be forced to live like a 1850s slave for one year, including being whipped for not producing enough and having their families sold off for a quick buck.

"Simple" in your mind, no doubt. Go read the accounts of the former slaves themselves. Most of them said they were never whipped, never, and modern research has proved that the vast majority of slave families were not separated. Facts are stubborn things, especially when you refuse to do any serious research.

It is curious that you sing the praises of Mao and Stalin, even though they murdered tens of millions of people and sent millions of others to concentration camps, dwarfing the number of Southern slaves who were killed even if we go with the Radical Republican claims about slave deaths and mistreatment.

Every Mao and Stalin apologist such as yourself should be forced to live under the atrocious conditions that Mao and Stalin imposed on their peoples, including spending time in a concentration camp for daring to utter a word of criticism against the regime or just for being too wealthy or too educated.

I'm just wondering if part of the reason for your rabid hatred of all things Confederate is that 10,000 Jews fought for the Confederacy and because Jews held high positions in the Confederate government. Is that it? Hey? Just wondering.

 

[JoeB131]

Tell me: How many of your history professors embraced your obscene nutty views such as your claim that the Nazis had valid reasons for hating the Jews, that "Hitler wasn't the problem" (that's an exact quote) but that those vermin Jews were to blame, that the Nazi libel that the Jews wrecked Germany after WWI is actually true, that Israel purposely attacked the USS Liberty, that Jews controlled the Navy Court of Inquiry investigation into the Liberty incident, that there is a worldwide Zionist conspiracy, to name a few?

Hey, the Zionist took over academia before they got anywhere else, so I kept my views on the Weimar Republic to myself.

It was a shit-show the Jews imposed on Germany, which is why the Germans went after them with a vengence.

And you claim to have a degree in history. Uh-huh. Anecdotal evidence, i.e., firsthand eyewitness accounts from credible sources, is frequently and repeatedly considered compelling evidence in courts of law and is the basis of guilty verdicts by juries all across the country. Most of the evidence of the Holocaust is anecdotal evidence.

Uh, no, with the Holocaust, we have the bodies. And the records from the Wanbansee Conference to the records of the camps. To the testimony of the survivors.

Unlike your imaginary black soldiers, where you can't find ONE RECORD of their existence, other than Steiner claimed that a mob of black camp followers must have been soliders.

Also, not surprisingly, you keep coming back to a flimy, disingenuous argument you've copied from people who know as little as you do on the subject of black Confederates, i.e., the fact that black CSA troops are not mentioned in the Confederate army records contained in the Official Records. Even a casual Google search on Confederate army records will disclose that a massive portion of those records were destroyed toward the end of the war, and that the Confederacy suffered fom an increasingly severe paper shortage because of the Union naval blockade.

Oh, they ran out of paper. And there we no forests or paper mills in the South to make more paper. This is why no one wanted t write down about how they had to recruit, clothe, arm, and train 7000 or more black soldiers, and then didn't keep a single record of any of them.

Actually, no, according to the slaves themselves, it was not. According to the slaves themselves, such cases were the exception, not the rule. Again, I know you have no interest in doing any actual research on this issue, but even the Official Records contain numerous accounts of Union forces forcefully rounding up Southern slaves because the slaves did not want to come voluntarily. You can also read a number of accounts of Union soldiers who were furious with Southern slaves because the slaves would not reveal where their slaveholding family's valuables were stashed.

And gee, I'd even say that was prudent. How long did it take the Union to finally get bored with reconstruction and let the Racist Inbreds have their way with the former slaves? Oh, wait, it took about 11 years. Rutherfraud B. Hayes proved why letting the Electoral College overrule the Popular vote is a terrible idea.

But I'm sure you like your image of happy slaves singing spirituals and eating watermelon.

"Simple" in your mind, no doubt. Go read the accounts of the former slaves themselves. Most of them said they were never whipped, never, and modern research has proved that the vast majority of slave families were not separated. Facts are stubborn things, especially when you refuse to do any serious research.

Yeah, slavery was wonderful, right? Why do you need these kinds of fairy tales in your life> Slavery was an unadulterated evil, and the US held on to it long after most of the rest of the civilized world outlawed it. Then your boys fought a war to maintain it.

It is curious that you sing the praises of Mao and Stalin, even though they murdered tens of millions of people and sent millions of others to concentration camps, dwarfing the number of Southern slaves who were killed even if we go with the Radical Republican claims about slave deaths and mistreatment.

I realize that 1) Most of those numbers are bircher bullshit and 2) while there were some bad things that happened, Russians and Chinese respect Stalin and Mao for their accomplishments. Mao reunified China, drove out the foreign influence, and put it on the path to being a great power.

Every Mao and Stalin apologist such as yourself should be forced to live under the atrocious conditions that Mao and Stalin imposed on their peoples, including spending time in a concentration camp for daring to utter a word of criticism against the regime or just for being too wealthy or too educated.

Hey, funny thing. My wife DID live in China under Mao. Yet she has nothing but praise for him as the person who made China great. Not because she's a "Communist". I doubt she could define Communism on a bet.

She was born during the Great Famine, and her father was one of the people who lost his position during the Cultural Revolution. Yet she and most Chinese have nothing but admiration for Mao

 

[protectionist]

Unlike your imaginary black soldiers, where you can't find ONE RECORD of their existence, other than Steiner claimed that a mob of black camp followers must have been soliders.

Pictures are worth a thousand words

1st Louisiana Native Guard (Confederate) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[JoeB131]

Pictures are worth a thousand words
View attachment 1227388
View attachment 1227385

1st Louisiana Native Guard (Confederate) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ah, that one again.

Okay, let's look at the FULL Picture and the cropped one.

Please note, this is NOT the Louisiana Guard, this is a picture of a Union Colored unit with its white officer.

Black Confederates: Truth and Legend

"Black Confederates" is the Civil War Trust's historical article outlining the role of black people in the Southern war effort.

www.battlefields.org

 

[mikegriffith1]

Hey, the Zionists took over academia before they got anywhere else, so I kept my views on the Weimar Republic to myself.

It was a &*^%^-show the Jews imposed on Germany, which is why the Germans went after them with a vengence.

Oh my! Thank you for again showing you are an anti-Semitic wingnut. You once again repeat the Nazi and neo-Nazi lie that the Jews wrecked Germany after WWI and that this was why the Nazis "went after them with a vengeance."

And thanks for disclosing that while you were in college you were so convinced that Jews had taken over academia that you were afraid to repeat the Nazi lie that the Jews sabotaged the Weimar Republic and that therefore the Jews brought the Nazi persecutions on themselves.

I'm not even going to bother answering your specious arguments regarding black Confederate soldiers. I think most people can see you are still just flailing about and offering more lame arguments. Plus, 99% of the people who read this thread will see what a wingnut you are after reading your sick claims about Jews taking over academia and Jews wrecking Germany after WWI, and they will quickly decide that you are not to be taken seriously. You disqualify yourself with such obscene nuttiness.

In the past, you have lamely tried to equate your obscene fringe views with some of my minority positions on certain issues. For example, my position on Pearl Harbor, though a minority viewpoint, was held by a number of senior military officers and intelligence officers at the time and is held by a sizable number of reputable scholars in our day. In contrast, there are no reputable scholars, none, zero, who claim that the Jews wrecked Germany after WWI and that the Nazis had valid reasons for hating them.

Similarly, my position on the Nanking Massacre, that the death toll was far below Iris Chang's untenable figure of 300,000-plus but that it was still a terrible crime, is held by numerous recognized, reputable scholars all over the world. The prestigious Asia-Pacific Journal has published several peer-reviewed articles by respected historians that reject Chang's inflated death toll. In contrast, there are no reputable historians who agree with your fringe claim that the Israelis purposely attacked the USS Liberty in 1967 and that powerful Jews ensured that the Navy Court of Inquiry investigation into the incident would exonerate Israel. You won't find a single credible scholar who makes that argument, and the argument is universally considered baseless and fringe.

Similarly, my belief that OJ was innocent, though certainly a minority viewpoint, is held by many lawyers and crime investigators, not to mention that a jury found OJ not guilty in his criminal trial. Serious books written by prominent attorneys, investigative journalists, and crime investigators that argue for OJ's innocence continue to be published. See, for example, attorney F. Lee Bailey's 2021 book The Truth About the O.J. Simpson Trial, endorsed by famous forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee, considered to be one of the world's leading forensic scientists. In contrast, you won't find any credible scholars or researchers who remotely support your paranoid claim that there's an international Zionist conspiracy and that Jews took over American academia decades ago. Such garbage is considered crazy talk by rational, educated people.

Showing your lack of critical thinking and education, you've even cited my position on the JFK assassination as being comparable to your fringe positions, apparently unaware that the most comprehensive U.S. Government investigation into the JFK case ever conducted, done by the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979, officially concluded that two gunmen fired at JFK, that more shots were fired than a single gunman could have fired, that one of the shots came from the grassy knoll, that Silvia Odio's account of anti-Castro Cubans trying to frame Oswald before the assassination is credible, that someone was impersonating Oswald in Mexico City before the assassination, and that Jack Ruby lied about how he entered the police department's basement and why he killed Oswald, among many other findings. In addition, the majority of scholars who have studied and written about the JFK case have concluded there was a conspiracy.

In contrast, there is no such support for your aberrant views on Red China and Stalin. Only a few fringe far-left professors deny that Mao and Stalin were mass murderers, claim that Red China was better than Free China, claim that Mao brought peace and prosperity and modernity to China, and claim that life under Stalin was an improvement over previous years.

 

[Unkotare]

And don't believe JoeBlow's nonsense about all citizens of the PRC worshipping Mao today. That's bullshit.

 

[mikegriffith1]

And don't believe JoeBlow's nonsense about all citizens of the PRC worshipping Mao today. That's &^&%$%.

Agreed. He keeps citing his Chinese wife's alleged admiration for Mao. Well, my oldest son's wife is Chinese and her parents lived under Mao too, and they view him as a murderous tyrant.

It is just jaw dropping that he keeps doubling down on his whitewashing of Mao and Stalin, in spite of everything we now know about them, such as the fact that they killed tens of millions of people to maintain their power. You can literally find dozens of scholarly articles and studies that document that Mao and Stalin were mass murderers.

I recall that for a time JoeB131 made the hilarious argument that Stalin could not have killed tens of millions of Russians because Soviet census records did not show such a large number of deaths! Well, come to find out, as historian Robert Conquest proved, that Soviet census records actually do indicate that many millions of Russians were killed (see LINK).

JoeB131 just can't seem to grasp how he discredits himself when he repeats Nazi lies about the Jews. I mean, nobody but neo-Nazis and Jihadists still claim that the Jews wrecked German after WWI and that therefore the Nazis had valid reasons to hate them. That's just crazy talk.

Really, I was very surprised to see him repeat this nuttiness in his previous reply, but I'm glad he did because it will prove to readers just what an ugly wingnut he is. It's one thing for me to quote his nutty statements--it's even more effective when he himself repeats them.

 

[DennisPTate]

For those who might be interested, I've web-published an article on the touchy subject of black Confederate combat soldiers on my Civil War website. The article is titled "Black Confederates, Political Correctness, and a Virginia Textbook: Black Soldiers in the Confederate Army."

Both sides in the Civil War debate have mistakenly argued or assumed that admitting that some blacks fought for the Confederacy invalidates emancipation. Many (not all, but many) pro-Confederate authors have cited the evidence of black Confederate soldiers to discredit emancipation, and most orthodox scholars seem to have unfortunately accepted this false premise and have gone to the extreme of dismissing the substantial evidence that several thousand blacks voluntarily fought for the Confederacy.

The article is available on my Civil War website:

The American Civil War: An Alternative View

Here is the direct link to the article:

Black Confederates, Political Correctness, and a Virginia Textbook: Black Soldiers in the Confederate Army

EXCERPT:

The chief inspector of the U.S. Sanitary Commission in the Army of the Potomac, Dr. Lewis Steiner, reported that he saw about 3,000 well-armed black Confederate soldiers in Stonewall Jackson’s army in Frederick, Maryland, and that those soldiers were "manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederate Army." Jackson’s army was part of Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia. Said Steiner,

Wednesday, September 10 -- At four o'clock this morning the rebel army began to move from our town, Jackson's force taking the advance. The movement continued until eight o'clock P.M., occupying sixteen hours. The most liberal calculations could not give them more than 64,000 men. Over 3,000 negroes must be included in this number. These were clad in all kinds of uniforms, not only in cast-off or captured United States uniforms, but in coats with Southern buttons, State buttons, etc. These were shabby, but not shabbier or seedier than those worn by white men in rebel ranks. Most of the negroes had arms, rifles, muskets, sabres, bowie-knives, dirks, etc. They were supplied, in many instances, with knapsacks, haversacks, canteens, etc., and were manifestly an integral portion of the Southern Confederacy Army. They were seen riding on horses and mules, driving wagons, riding on caissons, in ambulances, with the staff of Generals, and promiscuously mixed up with all the rebel horde. (Report of Lewis H. Steiner, New York: Anson D. F. Randolph, 1862, pp. 10-11)

None other than African-American abolitionist Frederick Douglass complained that there were “many” blacks in the Confederate army who were armed and “ready to shoot down” Union soldiers. He added that this was "pretty well established":

It is now pretty well established, that there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may. . . . (Douglass' Monthly, September 1861, online copy available at Frederick Douglass :: Fighting Rebels With Only One Hand | radical journal | Edited by Saswat Pattanayak)

In a Union army battle report, General David Stuart complained about the deadly effectiveness of the black Confederate soldiers whom his troops had encountered. The “armed negroes,” he said, did “serious execution upon our men."

Have you ever heard of a website entitled The Red Man's View?"

 

[mikegriffith1]

Have you ever heard of a website entitled The Red Man's View?"

No, I have not. And I could not find the website with a Google search. I know there was a movie with the same title produced by D. W. Griffith in the early 1900s, but I've never heard of a website with that title.

 

[DennisPTate]

No, I have not. And I could not find the website with a Google search. I know there was a movie with the same title produced by D. W. Griffith in the early 1900s, but I've never heard of a website with that title.

Basically it is about the story of how President Abraham Lincoln was really scared of the First Nations Tribes of the USA and how if they were given good weapons to work with they could have mopped the floor with the USA military even if they were outnumbered ten to one.

So although President Lincoln did great to end slavery.....
and he did great to go up against BigBanking.....
his fear of the military capability of the Forty Eight Tribes of the USA and Canada led him into a dark path toward the First Nations tribes of the USA.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Basically it is about the story of how President Abraham Lincoln was really scared of the First Nations Tribes of the USA and how if they were given good weapons to work with they could have mopped the floor with the USA military even if they were outnumbered ten to one.

So although President Lincoln did great to end slavery.....
and he did great to go up against BigBanking.....
his fear of the military capability of the Forty Eight Tribes of the USA and Canada led him into a dark path toward the First Nations tribes of the USA.

This doesn't sound right. Lincoln never showed any animus toward the Indians. If he had harbored such feelings, he would have allowed the hanging of the 303 Indians who were tried by local authorities in Minnesota and sentenced to hang following the six-week Indian uprising there in 1862. Instead, he pardoned nearly all of the offenders and allowed only the worst of the lot to be hung, only 38 of them, who had committed rapes and massacres.

Furthermore, I can't imagine where the Indians could have obtained enough artillery and arty shells to have any hope of defeating the U.S. Army.

In addition, the Indians themselves were sharply divided during the Civil War (as they were before and after the war), with many adopting a neutral stance of wait-and-see and with others actively siding with the Union or the Confederacy.

 

[DennisPTate]

This doesn't sound right. Lincoln never showed any animus toward the Indians. If he had harbored such feelings, he would have allowed the hanging of the nearly 400 Indians who were tried by local authorities in Minnesota following the six-week Indian uprising there in 1862. Instead, he pardoned nearly all of the offenders and allowed only the worst of the lot to be hung, only 38 of them, who had committed rapes and massacres.

Furthermore, I can't imagine where the Indians could have obtained enough artillery and arty shells to have any hope of defeating the U.S. Army.

Here is what A. I. dug up for me

Abraham Lincoln did not initiate a war against First Nations, but his administration oversaw significant conflicts, most notably the Dakota War of 1862. While focusing on the Civil War, his government continued policies of western expansion, leading to battles with the Sioux and, in 1862, he approved the hanging of 38 Dakota men, the largest mass execution in U.S. history.
Citizen Potawatomi Nation +1


Key details regarding Lincoln and First Nations:

• Dakota War of 1862: Following conflicts over broken treaties and starvation, Lincoln was involved in the aftermath of the Dakota Uprising, commuting many death sentences but authorizing the execution of 38 men.
• Military Actions: Under his administration, U.S. forces continued to battle Native Americans in the West, including major conflicts against the Sioux in 1863 and 1864.
• Pre-Presidential Experience: As a young man, Lincoln served in the volunteer militia during the 1832 Black Hawk War, though he saw no direct combat.

Policy Focus: While his focus was on the Civil War, his administration's policies, including westward expansion, directly impacted Native American territories and led to increased conflict

On the other hand when it came to fighting against BigBanking control over the United States, President Lincoln was awesome.

Abraham Lincoln is assassinated​

[td]

Abraham Lincoln​

[/td]​

​

Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States in 1860, under the promise of abolishing the slavery of the blacks. Eleven southern States, favourable to the human slavery of the black race, then decided to secede from the Union, to withdraw from the United States of America: that was the beginning of the Civil War (1861-1865). Lincoln, being short of money to finance the North’s war effort, went to the bankers of New York, who agreed to lend him money at interest rates varying from 24 to 36 percent. Lincoln refused, knowing perfectly well that this was usury and that it would lead the United States to ruin. But his money problem was still not settled!
His friend in Chicago, Colonel Dick Taylor, came to his rescue and put the solution to him: "Just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender treasury notes, and pay your soldiers with them, and go ahead and win your war with them also."
This is what Lincoln did, and he won the war: between 1862 and 1863, in full conformity with the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, Lincoln caused $450 million of debt-free Greenbacks to be issued, to conduct the Civil War. (These Treasury notes were called "Greenbacks" by the people because they were printed with green ink on the back.)​

Lincoln said: "Government, possessing the power to create and issue currency and credit as money, and enjoying the right to withdraw both currency and credit from circulation by taxation and otherwise, need not and should not borrow capital at interest as the means of financing governmental work and public enterprise… The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of Government, but it is the Government’s greatest creative opportunity."

Lincoln called the Greenbacks "the greatest blessing the American people have ever had." A blessing for all, except for the bankers, since it was putting an end to their racket, to the theft of the nation’s credit and issuing interest-bearing money. So they did everything possible to destroy these Greenbacks and sabotage Lincoln’s work. Lord Goschen, spokesman of the Financiers, wrote in the London Times (Quote taken from Who Rules America by C. K. Howe, and reproduced in Lincoln Money Martyred by Dr. R. E. Search):

The History of Banking Control in the United States - Michael Journal

The dictatorship of the bankers are not limited to one country, but exist in every country. Here are the historyof the banking control in the U.S.

www.michaeljournal.org

 

[JoeB131]

I'm not even going to bother answering your specious arguments regarding black Confederate soldiers. I think most people can see you are still just flailing about and offering more lame arguments. Plus, 99% of the people who read this thread will see what a wingnut you are after reading your sick claims about Jews taking over academia and Jews wrecking Germany after WWI, and they will quickly decide that you are not to be taken seriously. You disqualify yourself with such obscene nuttiness.

Look, if you want to go through life kissing Zionist Ass, have at it. You should probably go down to the Recruiting station right now, the Jews just manipulated us into another war, and they stopped even trying to be subtle about it.

But I don't blame you for running away from your absurd notion that Confederates gave black people guns, and they happily fought to keep being slaves. That's absurd.

In the past, you have lamely tried to equate your obscene fringe views with some of my minority positions on certain issues. For example, my position on Pearl Harbor, though a minority viewpoint, was held by a number of senior military officers and intelligence officers at the time and is held by a sizable number of reputable scholars in our day. In contrast, there are no reputable scholars, none, zero, who claim that the Jews wrecked Germany after WWI and that the Nazis had valid reasons for hating them.

Actually, no. The Japanese were not justified in launching a sneak attack while pretending to negotiate peace. The Sneak Attack is always the resort of the coward.

As for Germany, how is it that of the top 11 revolutionary leaders in 1918, 8 of them were .... wait for it... Jews?

And after some German family got done eating the family pet, they were looking for someone to blame for this shit-show.

Similarly, my position on the Nanking Massacre, that the death toll was far below Iris Chang's untenable figure of 300,000-plus but that it was still a terrible crime, is held by numerous recognized, reputable scholars all over the world. The prestigious Asia-Pacific Journal has published several peer-reviewed articles by respected historians that reject Chang's inflated death toll.

You spelled "Japanese Apologists" wrong.

The 300K number is also the one cited by both the PRC and ROC as the correct one.

In contrast, there are no reputable historians who agree with your fringe claim that the Israelis purposely attacked the USS Liberty in 1967 and that powerful Jews ensured that the Navy Court of Inquiry investigation into the incident would exonerate Israel. You won't find a single credible scholar who makes that argument, and the argument is universally considered baseless and fringe.

Um, we've been over this.

Among those who dispute the finding that it was anaccident.
The Captain of the Liberty.
Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, the chief of Naval Operations at the time.
Dean Rusk, the Secretary of State at the time.

None of them believed the Zionists when they said, "Whoopsie"

Similarly, my belief that OJ was innocent, though certainly a minority viewpoint, is held by many lawyers and crime investigators, not to mention that a jury found OJ not guilty in his criminal trial. Serious books written by prominent attorneys, investigative journalists, and crime investigators that argue for OJ's innocence continue to be published. See, for example, attorney F. Lee Bailey's 2021 book The Truth About the O.J. Simpson Trial, endorsed by famous forensic expert Dr. Henry Lee, considered to be one of the world's leading forensic scientists.

blah, blah... Come on, man. the guy left his blood at the crime scene and tracked it all the way back to his house. He had a long history of domestic abuse against her.

In contrast, there is no such support for your aberrant views on Red China and Stalin. Only a few fringe far-left professors deny that Mao and Stalin were mass murderers, claim that Red China was better than Free China, claim that Mao brought peace and prosperity and modernity to China, and claim that life under Stalin was an improvement over previous years.

Oh, I don't deny they were mass murderers.

But you know who has a good opinion of Mao? Most Chinese.

Russians today have a pretty good opinion about Stalin, who was voted the third greatest figure in Russian History (after Alexander Nevsky and Pyotr Stolypin)

 

[Unkotare]

...

But you know who has a good opinion of Mao? Most Chinese.
...

Bullshit.

 

[JoeB131]

And don't believe JoeBlow's nonsense about all citizens of the PRC worshipping Mao today. That's bullshit.

Um, again, I would recommend you talk to some people from China. (Not third generation immigrants, but recent ones.)

Agreed. He keeps citing his Chinese wife's alleged admiration for Mao. Well, my oldest son's wife is Chinese and her parents lived under Mao too, and they view him as a murderous tyrant.

It is just jaw dropping that he keeps doubling down on his whitewashing of Mao and Stalin, in spite of everything we now know about them, such as the fact that they killed tens of millions of people to maintain their power. You can literally find dozens of scholarly articles and studies that document that Mao and Stalin were mass murderers.

And so what?

Genocide is one of those things, that we always point it out in other countries, but never fess up to it ourselves. We live in a country built on literal genocide.

I recall that for a time JoeB131 made the hilarious argument that Stalin could not have killed tens of millions of Russians because Soviet census records did not show such a large number of deaths! Well, come to find out, as historian Robert Conquest proved, that Soviet census records actually do indicate that many millions of Russians were killed

Well, no, they really don't.

First, some definitions. The only way you get into 8 figures on deaths (I don't dispute that there were seven figures) is by throwing in people who died in the Civil War, World War II, and from various famines.

But my point remains. The population of the USSR in 1926 was 147 Million.
By the begining of WWII, in 1939 it was 170 Million. (Despite all the supposed purges)
The population of the USSR in 1959 (five years after Stalin's Death was 208 million.

That means they somehow gained 61 million more people.

How did this happen if Stalin killed 50 million people and another 20 million died in WWII?

JoeB131 just can't seem to grasp how he discredits himself when he repeats Nazi lies about the Jews. I mean, nobody but neo-Nazis and Jihadists still claim that the Jews wrecked German after WWI and that therefore the Nazis had valid reasons to hate them. That's just crazy talk.

Except it wasn't just the Nazis who said it. Hindenburg said it. Most German leaders of the 1920s said it.

Check this out... German Postcard from 1919.

Nazism didn't even exist yet, but people had opinions. Imagine that.

So do you have anything to counter it other than fake outrage?

Really, I was very surprised to see him repeat this nuttiness in his previous reply, but I'm glad he did because it will prove to readers just what an ugly wingnut he is. It's one thing for me to quote his nutty statements--it's even more effective when he himself repeats them.

Um, yeah, guy, have you seen some of the other anti-Jewish posters on this board? Kruska? EMH, SaxonJaxson?

I'm relatively tame compared to them.

 

[JoeB131]

gee, and Mikey is excusing the Genocide of Native Americans? Why am I not surprised.

Anyway, back to Mike's fantasies about Black Men.

buzzfeed.com/adamserwer/the-secret-history-of-the-photo-at-the-center-of-the-black-c

Cyril then guided me to the small stone obelisk marking the grave of his great-grandfather, Silas Chandler, a former slave who went to war alongside his Confederate master and a man who in death has become a source of controversy he could never have imagined. The Confederate flag that once flew at his resting place is gone, as is the metal cross placed there by the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy in a 1994 ceremony to honor his “service,” complete with a 21-gun salute. According to the SCV, the cross was not an award for valor or bravery, but simply denoted that Silas was a Confederate soldier.

Myra Chandler Sampson, 76, Silas's great-granddaughter, began researching Silas’s life and concluded he was no soldier, but a slave. Sampson, along with other family members, in 2008 signed a petition letter, which was later published on the website of Kevin M. Levin, a historian who has spent countless hours rebutting tales of black Confederates — and the story of Silas Chandler in particular. The letter calls the honors laid at Silas’s grave “a great insult to Silas and all of his descendants.”

“We didn't like that Confederate flag bein' on his gravesite and we didn't like that iron cross,” said Sara Wims, 80, another of one of Silas’s granddaughters.

This story might have remained, like many others, just another Civil War tale passed down from one generation to the next, if it weren’t for an astonishing tintype of the two men, armed to the teeth in Confederate uniforms, taken in 1861. The image has helped bolster the claims of the community of amateur historians, hucksters, and Confederate sympathizers committed to defending the Confederacy from the charge of racism, who insist that thousands of black men fought and died for the rebel cause. “Ever since the SCV posthumously honored Silas,” Levin wrote in 2012, “accounts of black Confederate troops have surged in popularity.”

It is a community that has grown more vocal and irate as black and white activists have successfully sought to strip Confederate emblems from places of honor around the country. After the massacre of nine black parishioners in South Carolina by a white supremacist, the South Carolina SCV defended the Confederate flag then flying on the state capitol grounds by invoking “Black Confederate soldiers” who “fought in the trenches beside their White brothers.”

 

[Unkotare]

Um, again, I would recommend you talk to some people from China. (Not third generation immigrants, but recent ones.)

...

I have spoken to hundreds and hundreds of people from and in China. FOB. Certainly more than YOU, douche bag.