History Omitted from the Books

[Beatnik Bob]

I'm not sure this is limited to the "modern history" period, but seeing as this is history related, it belongs somewhere here.

Anyway, I thought I'd make a thread about all the history that has been omitted from the books. It's a thread I'd like people to add to. If anyone has any history segment that has been taken out of public knowledge, or misrepresented, posting it here would be very informative and interesting!


I thought I'd start us off by listing something omitted in many common history books, as well as a perpetuated misnomer:

-The 1921 race riot in Tulsa Oklahoma. During the riot, which was almost a battle in some respects, black WWI veterans dug trenches and formed battle lines: Tulsa became a war-zone. Also, at one point, dynamite was reported to have been dropped from airplanes onto black ghettos, killing 75 blacks and over 1000 homes. This is rarely mentioned in U.S. histories, despite the fact that the Tulsa riots were the deadliest and costliest in American history.

-That John Brown was insane. He was not. Also, he did not brutally dice proslavery people (though he did kill them, with a group of other sound-minded people, and numerous freed blacks. Harriet Tubman was going to accompany him, but she was sick). He also didn't claim to be a messiah or prophet, as some "history" books suggest (in order to make him appear insane). He simply thought slavery completely contradicted Christianity. As a Christian, he believed the bible told him to fight for freedom. He famously said at his trial that he would treat others as he wished to be treated, and free those in bondage, because that is what the Bible said.
This disturbed southerners, and white-centric history (in the late 19th century, early 20th) edited him as insane. Around the same time the KKK's membership quadrupled.

[calliope]

Oooh....nice Beatnik Bob -- very good piece of supressed history.

Here's one, that we're not often taught about in school:

Ibn Sina

It has often been suggested that Christianity brought about the end of science. Whether or not this is true, the Greeks’ inquisitiveness, for one, might have been a threat for the forming faith. Coincidence or not, as Christianity grew in Europe, science declined and remained suppressed for about one thousand years. During this inactive period in Europe, the vast Arab empire embraced science and its learned men did much for the advancement of world progress.

One field in which Arabic scholars excelled was biology, which from the 3rd until the 11th century was essentially an Arab science. Chemistry was another science in which the Arab world took the lead...

One of the greatest Arab contributors to science is Abu Ali Al-Husayn ibn Abd Allah Ibn Sina, who became one of the most influential philosophers and physicians not only in the Muslim world, but also on a global level.

On his works:

Al-Qanun fi al-Tibb , also known as the Canon of Medicine, is the most famous single book in the history of medicine in both East and West. It is a study encompassing and systemathising the achievements of Greek physicians as well as the entire medical knowledge available from Muslim sources.

It is divided into five books. The first contains a general expose on the human body, sickness, health and general treatment and therapeutics. The second book contains the Pharmacology of herbs and a section on experimentation in medicine. The third book is all about the subject of special pathology. The fourth book follows with its famous treatise on fevers and with a treatise on signs, symptoms, diagnostics and prognostics, minor surgery, tumors, wounds, fractures and bites, as well as a chapter on poisons. The fifth book contains the pharmacopoeia, with a description of some 760 drugs.

In addition to bringing together the then available knowledge, the book is rich with the author's original findings. Ibn Sina’s important contribution includes such advances as recognition of the contagious nature of phthisis and tuberculosis, distribution of diseases by water and soil, and interaction between psychology and health. The first study to describe meningitis and to make rich contributions to anatomy, gynaecology and child health, Al-Qanun fi al-Tibb became a popular classic and was used at many medical schools until as late as 1650...

Kitab al-Shifa' is also Ibn Sina’s most important work as far as mathematics is concerned, as one of the book’s four parts is solely dedicated to the subject. Ibn Sina divided mathematics into another four branches. These he classified as geometry, astronomy, arithmetic, and music, and he then subdivided each of these topics even further. Geometry he subdivided into geodesy, static, kinematics, hydrostatics, and optics. Astronomy he subdivided into astronomical and geographical tables, and the calendar. Arithmetic was made of the components of algebra, and Indian addition and subtraction. And, finally, music Ibn Sina saw as a whole made up of the subdivisions of the different musical instruments.

Ibn Sina’s influence

Throughout his life, Ibn Sina's wrote about 450 works of which only around 240 have survived. From his works in existence today, 150 are on philosophy while 40 are devoted to medicine, the two fields in which he contributed most. He also wrote on psychology, geology, mathematics, astronomy, and logic.

All of his books and treatises were written in Arabic, with the exception of two works, which were written in Farsi – Ibn Sina’s native language. The first one is the `Daneshnameh-e-Alai' (Encylopedia of Philosophical Sciences), the second - a small treatise on the pulse, which later became quite famous.

In the 12th century Ibn Sina's Kitab al-Shifa' was translated partially into Latin. The complete al-Qanun also appeared in Europe around this time. These translations and others spread his thought far and wide. In medicine al-Qanun became the undisputed medical authority for several centuries, granting the scholar a place of honor equaled only by the early Greek physicians Hippocrates and Galen. The fame of the book was such that its author became known as the "Prince of Physicians" in the West.

Also known as al-Sheikh al-Rais (Leader among the wise men), a title given to him by his students, Ibn Sina contributed significantly to the field of astronomy.

He made astronomical observations while at Isfahan and later - at Hamadan. These studies produced a number of deductions, which proved to be true centuries later. For example, he observed Venus as a spot against the surface of the Sun and correctly deduced that Venus must be closer to the Earth than the Sun. He also invented an instrument for observing the coordinates of a star.

In physics, his contribution comprised the study of different forms of energy - heat, light and mechanical energy, as well as such concepts as force, vacuum and infinity. He made the important observation that if the perception of light is due to the emission of some sort of particles by the luminous source, the speed of light must be finite. He propounded an interconnection between time and motion, and also made investigations on specific gravity and used an air thermometer.


He also contributed to the field of music and is the reported author of Persian quatrains and short poems:

"Up from Earth's Centre through the Seventh Gate I rose, and on the Throne of Saturn sate, And many a knot unravelled by the Road, But not the Master-knot of Human Fate."

His treatise on minerals was one of the main sources of geology of the Christian encyclopaedists of the thirteenth century.

Ibn Sina's major contributions are in philosophy. Although he found Aristotle’s teachings too hard to incorporate into practical knowledge, he wrote numerous treaties discussing his teachings. Ibn Sina’s philosophy synthesises Aristotelian tradition, Neoplatonic influences and Muslim theology. In Latin translations, his works influenced many Western philosophers and scholars, most notably Thomas Aquinas.

from http://www.alshindagah.com/julaug2003/ibnsina.html

[GamerGal]

Thomas Edison invented shit. He either stole it or bought it from others. Bought the patents for the lightbulb, was beaten for audio record by more then a decade, and was beaten for video by 2 years. The son of the man who invented it(Who "mysteriously" disappeared from a train) was shot and killed after testifying against Edison in a patent trial. Tesla was the real man who invented the 20th century.

[Traveler]

The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland is being written out the books as well.

[Freddy]

Interesting story on civil rights gone wrong again. Rosewood was not well known before the film. Perhaps a film on Tulsa would help get out the story. Too bad the link could not get the date correct for the NYC Civil War Draft Riots of 1863.

"The history of the United States has produced much in the way of race riots, from the New York City riots of 1862 to the Los Angeles riots of 1991, this country has experienced much civil unrest between blacks and whites. The year 1919 was particularly noted for the large number of riots in the urban areas of the North where returning white veterans of WWI competed with Southern Blacks for jobs during the post-war depression. Again, in 1923, a racial confrontation erupted in Rosewood, Fl. There eight blacks and two whites died during the destruction of the Black community of Rosewood. However, the Tulsa Race Riot of 1921 was perhaps the costliest incident of racial violence in American history. At the same time, it is perhaps the most marginalized, being almost forgotten until this decade."

http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/Dep...deLaOliva.html

[RhymnRzn]

-The 1921 race riot in Tulsa Oklahoma.

Definitely a case study of case studies, there. The readiness and willingness of the sacking of 'Black Wall-Street' is all too reflective of the widespread net cast at the time (when Babylon was yet in her youth), of corruption and racism that feigned itself as the authority, and likewise had thorough collusion through the Freemason's, the KKK, and all-white churches. To this day, this evil has it's banded-stump left in the earth to be wet with the dew of heaven, so that people still refer to North Tulsa as the "black side of town".

[Tired Old Man]

I must have been lost.....

[Anarch]

History is written by the surviving leaders. In the end it doesn't matter who wins or loses but who lives the longest ...because that will be the last fucker to tell the story the way they think it should be told.

As for the omission of history itself, the surviving leaders do that so that the sheep they control will obey the leaders commands.

For EXAMPLE: At the Oklahoma city bombing the FBI found extra undetonated bombs. They told the media this the cleared everyone back farther, they called in the bomb squad to remove the bombs and they were disarmed and moved to gather evidence....

The next day it was some sad sack of bones with truck and some fertilizer and a bad attitude.

And the recovered bombs? SHUT THE FUCK AND DON"T ASK STUPID QUESTIONS!

That is why it is called omission.

Their is no conspiracy here although half baked internet argument whores would try to debate that shit all day but it was recorded by folks in OKC.. they uploaded their vids anyone can see this shit on youtube.

Another Example: IT is not often spoken on but George Washington owned a canal company. Soldiers dig great ditches regardless of what side they are on, and after the war many of those ditches got finished into new canals. Also Ben Franklin never did that kite flying experiment with the key. Thats BS. He did write on the idea though and a russian scholar tried it out. Yes the russian died.

But doesn't the story sound alot better if we take out the russian and tell folks Ben Did it?!? I know George Washington would never tell lie...although it was never explained why the cherry tree had to go...curious that.


ummmm.... Howard Zinn... his book a peoples history is a good primer to understand US history a bit better.... IF your ready for the hard stuff I'd go hang out at enterprise corruption .com and read all the free stuff you can.
Especially regarding the Ennrons

[GamerGal]

Reparations
It will not happen and can Never happen any time or any place .
If you don't understand this your just stupid.

You're


That America Won the European Theater in WWII. Nope, Russia did that. Not one American saw Berlin. WWII Europe was two wars, Before Hitler pissed Stalin Off and after he pissed Stalin off. We may have distracted the forces a little but it was Russia who won it. But Cold War politics white washed this.

[G66]

You're


That America Won the European Theater in WWII. Nope, Russia did that. Not one American saw Berlin. WWII Europe was two wars, Before Hitler pissed Stalin Off and after he pissed Stalin off. We may have distracted the forces a little but it was Russia who won it. But Cold War politics white washed this.

LOL - silly girl tricks are for...well I won’t say but you know who they are for...right?

When you study more than HS History come back and try again. Historical facts are fine but conclusions are always always subjective, America's contribution was instrumental, and the decision not to go into Berlin was a political not military one.

Who do you think bombed the shit out of Berlin for 6 weeks before the Russians went in? Who do you think kept Russia in the war after they got trounced initially.

Go back to gaming, this isn’t Axis and Allies online.

[GamerGal]

Uh, Winter kept Russia in the war. Same with Napolean. Fun history game, take Napolean's invasion of Russia, and replace him with Hitler and French Forces with German Forces, and you have the exact same thing.

But as G66 points out, America white washed history. Hell he even says "Historical facts are fine" before dismissing the facts. So sad that he thinks America won WWII alone and took Berlin even though they did shit in Europe.(Another one of those historic facts he ignores)

[G66]

But as G66 points out, America white washed history.

All history is subjective GG. Get used to it.

Hell he even says "Historical facts are fine" before dismissing the facts.

You didn't show any facts you told me your uniformed and uneducated conclusion. Please don't demonstrate your lack of intelect further it burns my eyes to read it.

Have you even taken a history class at the 500 level? Plese, oh enlightened one show me where it is irefutable fact that the Russians were the Ally most responsible for winning the war in Europe.

That calls for a conclusion made from many facts, like dates, troop movements, orderof battle overlays, political posturing and other facts. Facts are facts not a conclusion drawn from them.



However, to decide which country in the Alliance is the most important, best guns, neatest uniforms, top dog, head banana, or whatever superlative you want to chose is subjective entirely.

So sad that he thinks America won WWII alone and took Berlin even though they did shit in Europe.(Another one of those historic facts he ignores

Again, you display an eye burning lack of facts, please support your claim by reposting anywhere I declared, implied, or hinted that the US won WWII alone. Also, where did I say the US took Berlin?

Or I guess you can...

You young one have much to learn and I am affraid an unwillingness to do so.

[TC]

..... even though they did shit in Europe.

That's not true GG, it was a combined effort. No one nation is responsible for liberating Europe from Hitlers Germany. The American effort was vital, regardless who set foot in Berlin first. I've seen the head stones all over France from the southern coast at San Raphael to the Belgian border, plenty of graveyards to back up that effort. Hell the daylight bombing did more to shorten the war than anything else, Hitlers war machine was slowed to a stop by 18 year old American kids who flew with an 80% chance of not coming back!! not to mention the beach landings or the push into the low countries.

[GamerGal]

How many of those 18 year olds marched in Berlin? 0 And for G66 saying/thinking America let Stalin get the credit for stopping/capturing Hitler is bullshit. Every one wanted him no chance in Hell America or England said "Go ahead we'll sit here and let the Communists get the credit for ending WWII" No, if they could have they would have taken Berlin. But they didn't, Russia did.

[TC]

How many of those 18 year olds marched in Berlin? 0 And for G66 saying/thinking America let Stalin get the credit for stopping/capturing Hitler is bullshit. Every one wanted him no chance in Hell America or England said "Go ahead we'll sit here and let the Communists get the credit for ending WWII" No, if they could have they would have taken Berlin. But they didn't, Russia did.

uhh I responded to your statement "even though they did shit in Europe"....or did you miss that part.

[MaximumPain]

LOL - silly girl tricks are for...well I won’t say but you know who they are for...right?

When you study more than HS History come back and try again. Historical facts are fine but conclusions are always always subjective, America's contribution was instrumental, and the decision not to go into Berlin was a political not military one.

Who do you think bombed the shit out of Berlin for 6 weeks before the Russians went in? Who do you think kept Russia in the war after they got trounced initially.

Go back to gaming, this isn’t Axis and Allies online.

Who do you think defeated 80% of the German land army over the course of the war? The fact is that the Soviets did most of the fighting and defeated one of the largest most powerful army's ever fielded in history.

Not trying to take anything away from the Americans but it was the Soviet Union that did the real heavy lifting in defeating the Germans.

[GamerGal]

Russia MAY have had a chance of losing the counter attack but never of outright losing. Russia has been conquered once, by the Mongolians, centuries ago. Since then Winter, Location, and Numbers have saved them. So if say, America and England and every one else said fuck it and focused on Africa/Japan and let Russia deal with the European forces and they some how pushed Russia back... they would have failed in taking Russia again and again Russia would have countered attack. And again this would have worked because for every German killed there was one waiting while for every Russian killed there were another 10 waiting in uniform.

But as G66 has already declared, those pesky facts mean shit when he believes we declared war on Monday and marched on Berlin Friday.

[MaximumPain]

Russia MAY have had a chance of losing the counter attack but never of outright losing. Russia has been conquered once, by the Mongolians, centuries ago. Since then Winter, Location, and Numbers have saved them. So if say, America and England and every one else said fuck it and focused on Africa/Japan and let Russia deal with the European forces and they some how pushed Russia back... they would have failed in taking Russia again and again Russia would have countered attack. And again this would have worked because for every German killed there was one waiting while for every Russian killed there were another 10 waiting in uniform.

But as G66 has already declared, those pesky facts mean shit when he believes we declared war on Monday and marched on Berlin Friday.

The fact is that the eastern front was lost by mid 43 when the Germans lost at Kursk which until gulf war one was the largest armor battle ever (and was a lot more evenly matched). If the Germans had done everything perfectly and allowed Guderian to try and take Moscow (and we cant say for sure they would have even won that battle) they still had allowed most of the Soviet industrial equipment to escape to the Urals. Both sides made mistakes but the Soviet numbers and superior armor would have forced the Germans out eventually.

[Beatnik Bob]

When you study more than HS History come back and try again.

High School History emphasizes American contribution and never/rarely mentions the Russian contribution.

The opinion that the American contribution was the most salient in the European theater is the predominant thought in High School History or lower academia.

So I will say two things so that this stays on topic:
1. The contribution of the Red Army is indeed omitted from history (particularly lower academia. Though most high-level education acknowledges the major role the Red Army played). So do not begrudge GG.
2. Your opinion is more indicative of High School History than GG's is.

Historical facts are fine but conclusions are always always subjective, America's contribution was instrumental, and the decision not to go into Berlin was a political not military one.

It was not a military decision.
America couldn't. Americans were also bogged down by winter during the battle of the Bulge.
Also, Americans would have never gained any foothold in France if not for the Russians.

Who do you think bombed the shit out of Berlin for 6 weeks before the Russians went in?

The British Royal Air Force. Because the Luftwaffe had been busy in the east.

Who do you think kept Russia in the war after they got trounced initially.

Russian resilience kept Russians in the war. Their millions of deaths attest to their ability to not be "trounced."

[UVsaturated]

Terrorists attacked our country because they hate our freedoms. That will be a hard one to explain in the history books.

[lazserus]

This is a badass thread, Bob! Very good idea! I have a few items to contribute to this topic.


(1) The Scandinavians were the first "Europeans" to settle in North America. They established a small settlement at the very least in Newfoundland c. A.D. 1000. (Some may argue that others reached North America prior to the Scandinavian settlement but there is no irrefutable proof, thus the Scandis are classified as the first.)

(2) There was no Viking invasion of England in the 9th century; the invasion was perpetrated by the Danes, a mixture of Norwegian and Danish people but not Vikings. Vikings did not amass in armies. The word "Viking" comes from Old Norse víkingr, which specifically refers to a freebooter or pirate, not a soldier or migrant.

(3) American English is actually much more phonologically conservative than British English. American dialects around parts of Virginia, Massachusetts and the Chesapeake islands are closer to medieval and early Modern British dialects than today's British dialects.

(4) Marxism is the base form of Communism but has never actually been practiced politically. All forms of Communism established in Modern History more or less spawn from Leninism, a skewed form of Marxism. During Lenin's reign in Russia, many practicing Marxists called him a heathen, a blasphemer.

(5) Aryans were Central-Asian nomads that infiltrated the Indian subcontinent c. 1700 B.C. and have no known relation to Scandinavians. Thus, Hitler's Aryan concept is completely fictitious based on the fact he was somewhat of an idiot.

(6) Although classified as such in many Western countries, Buddhism is in fact not a religion. It remains today as a personal and social philosophy. Buddha is not and never will be classified as a deity by Buddhists.

I'm sure I could come up with more, but I think this is a decent start. This start may even spark some debate.

[G66]

Who do you think defeated 80% of the German land army over the course of the war? The fact is that the Soviets did most of the fighting and defeated one of the largest most powerful army's ever fielded in history.

MP, I agree with your facts....that is a fact. I'm not even going to talk to GG about it she's totally clueless.

Anyway, you have to know that there is a huge difference between fact and a conclusion or assertion made from the same.

Using a superlative like most, best or most key etc calls is subjective to the person's access to and processing of the facts.

Two people could (and often do) have the same facts and come to a different conclusion or assertion because that is subjective like all of history.

Not trying to take anything away from the Americans but it was the Soviet Union that did the real heavy lifting in defeating the Germans.

Again, they took the casualties this is fact, they defeated more German troops on the ground that too is fact.

Whether those things (along with other Russian actions) or the actions of the Americans that predated 1943 and the road to Berlin being paved with German skulls is a conclusion one must draw and is entirely subjective based on individual analysis of the facts.

So for GG just in case she might want to learn something - facts, not subjective, conclusion drawn from facts - subjective.....

Most of history is not fact but conclusions others have drawn from facts and made assertions about what they opine to be (insert superlative here) nation, Army, campaign, or anything.....

I think you know this and are goading me...a little. GG is just hopeless.

And I dont want to Hijack either out of my love and profound respect for Bob's topic so split it off or whatever but lets not hijack this any longer.

[G66]

High School History emphasizes American contribution and never/rarely mentions the Russian contribution.

The opinion that the American contribution was the most salient in the European theater is the predominant thought in High School History or lower academia.

So I will say two things so that this stays on topic:
1. The contribution of the Red Army is indeed omitted from history
(particularly lower academia. Though most high-level education acknowledges the major role the Red Army played). So do not begrudge GG.

Huge difference between omitted and understated or dowmplayed at least in my opinion.

2. Your opinion is more indicative of High School History than GG's is.

I guess the difference is I’m not trying to pass my opinion off as a fact.

It was not a military decision.

Yeah, I know I said that, or did you put "not" in the sentence in error (genuine question there not goading you) not sure if you are agreeing or meant to disagree?

America couldn't. Americans were also bogged down by winter during the battle of the Bulge.

BotB was over before any decisions were made about how or when to advance to Berlin.

the end of March 1945, the European phase of the Second World War was close to an end. The Soviet armies were thirty miles east of Berlin and encountering fierce resistance on their way to Germany’s capital. General Eisenhower’s armies were about 200 miles west of Berlin, but encountering light resistance as they rapidly advanced eastward.

In Early March 1945 Churchill tried to talk Ike into capturing Berlin. (Dwight D. Eisenhower Library) Eisenhower was advised to strike toward Berlin. Winston Churchill sent the Supreme Commander cables urging him to order his 21st Army Group under Field Marshal Montgomery to attack and capture the capital city.

General George Patton believed Monty’s forces could get to Berlin in less than three days and implored his friend Ike to order the attack.

Instead, in mid-April, Ike ordered his allied armies to halt all eastward movement at the Elbe river line leaving the 21st Army Group about 70 miles from Berlin, and then to move both south into Czechoslovakia and north to the Baltic Sea to eliminate remaining elements of the Wehrmacht.

http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/stories/Berlin.htm

Also, Americans would have never gained any foothold in France if not for the Russians.

Objection your Honor, opinion or conclusion not a fact. Witness is not (perhaps a PHD in history or something that makes you one that I am unaware) an expert and unqualified to make such a conclusion as he was not present at the time.

(Just a funny to present it that way but you get the point Bob; its subjective assessment based on review of facts. You know what I am saying don't you...)

I do agree with you on this point BTW but that is irrelevant to the discussion as it’s just an opinion we share not an irrefutable fact.

The British Royal Air Force. Because the Luftwaffe had been busy in the east.

Not fair, Bob, question was for GG to see if she could actually look some shit up or spout nonsense some more. I know you know who, as do I. I think it’s called a red herring....

Russian resilience kept Russians in the war. Their millions of deaths attest to their ability to not be "trounced."

Don't know where you got your grasp of the Military Decision Making process or staff estimates of battle damage assessment but by any logical conclusion the following casualty and loss numbers = a trouncing. This is just equipment thus we had to send them shit to "hold the fort" and move their production east over the mountains.

Soviet Weapons Losses in 1941 (The First Six Months Of The War)
One of the most compelling reasons for Western Allied assistance to Russia was the incredibly heavy losses of weapons and equipment suffered during the first months of the German invasion. The following examples illustrate the severity of those losses.

72% of all Tanks.
34% of all Combat Aircraft.
56% of all Small-arms and Machine guns.
69% of all Anti-Tank guns.
59% of all Field guns and Mortars.

I say at the War College they call that an ass whoopin but all suave and shit like Colonels and Generals do...using fancy words and no cussing.

http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/lendlease.htm

I do not take anything from the resilience of the Russian people. They are some tough mothers to be sure...I admire Putin at least he's a leader who has done something unlike the communityagitator-n-chief. One mean fucker I wouldn't trust him with anything either.

The subject of Soviet losses in WWII is a very sensitive one in Russia. The military establishment appears bent on sticking to the numbers given in Krivosheyev's 1993 book, "Security Classification Removed" which was updated in 2001 as "Losses in the Armed Forces". This book gives total military personnel permanent loss figure of 8,668,400. Others researchers give higher figures, sometimes fantastically higher. The issue of losses is intimately connected with the issue of the Red Army's performance during WWII, particularly the performance of Zhukov.

The book is in Russian and mine is shitty and limited to how to conduct a patrol and train partisans to organize and resist; been a long time. Here it is though.

http://soldat.ru/index.html

Anyway; again, your assertion is not an undisputed fact it is a conclusion you drew based on your thoughtful and informed analysis of the events. (not being a condescending there either) However, not a fact in any way and debated as to if early lend lease kept them hanging on or pure grit. It’s subjective.

I think you know that though and are egging me on a bit...which is fair enough as I have done the same to you.

I have no doubt you have clear grasp of the facts of WWII; however, GG's bullshit is another matter all together.

Anyway, enough about this thing - I think you get my point, opinion is one thing facts are another and GG does not deal well with fact nor does she demonstrate an understanding of the difference between the two.

[Freddy]

Uh, Winter kept Russia in the war. Same with Napolean. Fun history game, take Napolean's invasion of Russia, and replace him with Hitler and French Forces with German Forces, and you have the exact same thing.

The winter of 1812 had nothing to do with Napoleon's defeat in Russia.

Napoleon's Grand Army of 500,000 lost due to the following:

Napoleon left his best troops in Spain fighting Wellington.
Napoleon outdistanced his line of supply.
Napoleon's troops spoke a dozen languages causing communication problems.
More than 100,000 troops deserted before reaching Moscow.
More than 100,000 troops died of disease before reaching Moscow.
Russians used a scorched earth policy denying the French food sources.
Except for Borodino, where Napoleon lost a third of his troops, Russian generals refused to engage the French in a major battle.
When Napoleon reached Moscow there was nothing there and it burned.
Napoleon began his retreat before winter set in. In fact, Napoleon deserted his troops.
The winter of 1812 was mild.

The claim that Napoleon lost the Russian Campaign due to the Russian winter is French propaganda.

[G66]

The winter of 1812 had nothing to do with Napoleon's defeat in Russia.

Freddy -

Its hopeles - GG does not deal well with fact nor does she demonstrate an understanding of the difference between facts and the subjective conclusions one might draw from them.

It is a sad thing and I weep for her.....