ITT: unpopular facts

>Germany would've lost WW1 even without America entering the war
>the Renaissance ruined Western art
>the Normans were French, both genetically and culturally, but the Franks were Belgian

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Belgian
    Flemish/Dutch
    >the Renaissance ruined Western art
    Cringe contrarian take
    >Germany would've lost WW1 even without America entering the war
    Everyone know that.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      No, not Dutch. Just Flemish.
      Dutch live significantly north of the Frankish homeland and are basically assimilated Frisians.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >No, not Dutch. Just Flemish.
        Belgian then, franks were in Wallonia
        Clovis was from Wallonia, Charles Martel was from Wallonia, Pepin the Short was from Wallonia

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Being born in wallonia doesn't make one a Walloon. They were Germanic and thus more related to the flemish.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Being born in wallonia doesn't make one a Walloon. They were Germanic and thus more related to the flemish.

            Fricking. Bull. Shit
            There is nothing such as a "walloon" the way you think there is, some kind of anthropological creature devoid of something called "Germanic", whatever that means.
            Clovis and Charles Martel belong to the blood and soil and history of Wallonia, deal with it.

            You are using the typical flemish sophism of stripping away Wallonia from its own history.
            The people you believe to be "Walloons" are Germanic. Walloons is a cultural term not a "racial" term.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Walloon comes from the Germanic root walhaz meaning Celt or Roman. Same as Wales, Wallachia, or Gaul. You'll never be Germanic.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            you don't know what you are talking about

            at first I thought you were flemish trying to push an agenda, now I feel that you are a new worlder like Canadian or Australian, that's the level of moronicness of your post

            "Walloon" is a word that refers to the romanized inhabitants of the low countries

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Walloon
            >Borrowed from French wallon, from Frankish *walh, from Proto-Germanic *walhaz (“foreigner”).
            >Cognate to Welsh/Wales, the second part of Cornwall, and first part of walnut, as well as Gaul and Wallachia.
            https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-West_Germanic/walh
            >foreigner, non-Germanic person (a Celt, later also a Roman)

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The word "Walloon" which is used in the modern sense since 1866 has anything to do with some mythical tribe of Roman time. Those are romantic cultural creation from the 19th century.

            Romans had VERY little genetic impact in Belgium if any. The franks were RomanIZED.
            There is no tribe called "Walloon".

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Belgium was inhabited by a Celtic tribe, the Belgae, which was Romanized along with the rest of Gaul. They're the ones who Franks/Flemish called Walloons. And one of their descendants is now larping as Germanic on IQfy.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Those are modern cultural terms based on language groups. The real larp is thinking those groups relate uniformly to mythical tribes like "Franks" "Belgae" etc...

            There is very little genetic difference between "walloons" and "flemish"

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            There is very little generic difference between Gauls and Franks. But one group conquered and cucked the other.
            Culture is more important than you make it out to be. Walloons are lazy Latin commies while Flemish are industrious Germanics.

  2. 2 years ago
    Sharath

    Paul is false apostle and Christianity is a false religion. Its very unpopular, but very very true.

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Germany would've lost WW1 even without America entering the war
    Pretty sure that’s an established fact

    >the Renaissance ruined Western art
    How? Sounds like contrarian moronation to me

    >the Normans were French, both genetically and culturally
    That’s only unpopular among some really ignorant and delusional anglos whose sole reasoning is “france bad”

    >but the Franks were Belgian
    The original franks (merovingians) couldn’t be belgian for the same reason they couldn’t be french, these ethnicites did not exist before them as they created them. But yeah they came from a region that’s nowadays Belgium

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >the Renaissance ruined Western art
    the reformation ruined western art

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    would've lost WW1 even without America entering the war
    The only reason the US joined was because English and French were going to lose and wouldn't be able to repay the massive debts they had incurred to the US.

    Germany didn't have access to this as the UK blockaded them.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      the US joined because it thought they would lose
      with the power of hindsight we know that the central powers were on the brink of collapse and that Germany didn't have what it takes to push on to Paris, the British blocakde would have certainly starved them

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >with the power of hindsight we know that the central powers were on the brink of collapse and that Germany didn't have what it takes to push on to Paris

        The french were going to break a lot earlier than the Germans, it was only U.S involvement and even the idea of US assistance that stopped a complete french collapse.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          disproven meme, the mutinies of 1917 were about preventing further pointless offensives, the French were all too ready to hold the line as shown by the utter failure that was the Kaiserschlacht

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Kaiserschlacht
            An offensive prompted by US involvement.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            a failed offensive regardless that showed the limits of German operative capabilities
            it was a repeat of 1914 where outstretched German lines of communications prevented them from mounting a major offensive
            except this time the French and British were prepared and the only thing Germany got out of it were a few useless acres of land and a Pyrrhic victory
            plus Austria-Hungary was far closer to collapse than any other power involved, you're delusional if you think Germany had any way to hold on with its southern flank open to offensives while it was being starved by the British
            if the Americans hadn't joined their defeat wouldn't be as complete and they'd probably be forced into a lenient peace, but it would be a defeat regardless

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Except they wouldn't have done the moronic offensive and had the advantage on the western front. Fact is without US involvement the allies would collapse first. The mutinies themselves by the French included complaints of US troops not arriving quickly enough.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            No they wouldn't. Time was against Germany, France wasn't being starved by a blockade.
            Keep in mind that the offensive was done after troops returned from the East. More troops didn't fix Germany's operational problems, ferrying and supplying troops even a few kilometres into France was a far more difficult endeavour due to the state of railways in northeastern France.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The blockade is overplayed. Without US involvement the blockade didn't mean anything. With the collapse of Russia the Germans were taking their food. However with US involvement they couldn't outlast the French and British.

            The Germans had more men, more guns, and a major victory on the eastern front. Without America there is zero chance Germany suffers the loss it does. At worst it suffers a middling status quo agreement.

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    European Enlightenment thought derived heavily from American* intellectuals

    *yes, native American

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Renaissance ruined Western art
    How can you even say that?

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >MMT is correct

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Absent US finance and supply, the war would have petered out after a year or so, and Germany would keep the conquered clay. Millions of deaths averted.

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    capitalism is the most peaceful economic system

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    The middle east was much better off under the ottoman empire

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      is that an unpopular opinion? i think most people agree with that

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >Germany would've lost WW1 even without America entering the war
    We live in the timeline where we were denied JFC Fuller’s Plan 1919.

    >"... every available bombing machine should concentrate on the various supply and road centres. The signal communication should not be destroyed, for it is important that the confusion resulting from the dual attack carried out by the Medium D tanks and aeroplanes should be circulated by the enemy. Bad news confuses, confusion stimulates panic … (then) a carefully mounted artillery, tank and infantry attack should be launched, the objective of which is the zone of the enemy's guns: namely the secondary tactical zone some 10,000 yards deep."[1]
    >"so does an army depend for its power on the will of its Commander and his Staff: cut that will off and the army will be paralyzed." He proposed using Medium D tanks "to disorganise the enemy’s Command in rear of the entrenched zone."
    Imagine it: Dunkirk in 1919, with the Germans cut off off and surrounded on the shores of Belgium. They had nothing to counter this.

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    would've lost WW1 even without America entering the war
    If the Allies decided to fight to the death, but they probably would have agreed to a negotiated peace. Breaking through the German lines would have been almost unthinkable meaning the only option was to starve Germany out and they had domestic issues of their own to contend with. If Germany did nothing but keep their gains in the east then it would have been a major victory for them.
    >>the Renaissance ruined Western art
    moronic contrarian take. No idea what your reasoning is but it's something completely indefensible.
    >>the Normans were French, both genetically and culturally, but the Franks were Belgian
    Normans being French is fine, but Belgian is a national identity that barely exists even today and applying it to medieval Europe is an obscene anachronism, even more so than people who claim Charlemagne to be French or German.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      what is this? someone who knows something about history on IQfy? what a rare event

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *