Historical figures that got blamed for something they didn't do.

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
5,504
#41
I suppose, the scale to which Stalin's repressions were exaggerated in the West and still are by some to this day is ridiculous and so i think fits the question in some way. I mean, I've heard quite a few time people claim that Stalin killed 100 million, 50 million or the most common one - he killed more people than Hitler. Wow, so Stalin killed around 35 million people or more ( close to 40 probably). Since, such people forget that not only Jews suffered because of Nazis. USSR alone lost 25 million people or more. There is not enough or vey little representation of all atrocities that Nazis committed in Soviet Union and how they systematically exterminated Slavic population and enslaved it, with more than 13 million civilians dead. However, you will always hear about mass rapes in Berlin on the other hand and Hollywood is filled with movies about Holocaust, but not any about what Slavic population suffered on occupied territory. ( if there are, all of them were made in Soviet Union )
He is by far the most famous person from your country. You are right Hitler killed many times more. During the Cold War, the Soviets claimed to have lost 20 million people in WWII. Most people in the west didn't believe it, and thought maybe they were counting those killed by Stalin. I don't think people outside the Soviet Union realized how far the Nazis tried to kill off the Soviet people in a less extreme way than other groups. There wasn't that much information available due to the closed nature of the Soviet system and the Cold War.

Hitler took to the extreme what had always been done, like killing Jews and Gypsys. Stalin may not have killed that many, but he wiped out 80+% of the political and military leadership, and a large portion of writers and artists and so on. Kings and dictators had always been killing people who were a threat to them at court and those openly opposed to their political and religious policies. Stalin took it further and killed anyone who might be a threat or might be disloyal or in opposition.
 
Aug 2015
2,201
uk
#42
Why would he be officially accused? He wouldn't be accused when he was king, and he died in battle, so couldn't be tried for anything.

If the princes were still alive, Henry VII could have had them killed and blamed Richard III.

He could have been accused by Henry Tudor before he invaded or by Buckingham when he raised his rebellion against King Richard - but he wasn't.

After Henry was crowned the seventh of his name, he could have blamed Richard for murdering the Princes. In fact seeing as Henry had re-legitimised Edward IV and his issue in order to marry Elizabeth and strengthen his own legitimacy for the throne, it was very much in his own interests to confirm the death of King Edward V and his brother - and who would contradict him for naming their wicked uncle as the murderer?
 

arkteia

Ad Honorem
Nov 2012
4,386
Seattle
#43
Jacques Coeur, the Master of the Mint of French king Charles VII. Of average origin, Jacques reached unbelievable heights and was ennobled by the king. A merchant, traveler and alchemists, he did a lot for the state but in the process got fabulously rich and influential. Also, he traded in a vast number of areas and the merchants complained that they could not enrich themselves because of him. (His influence and position remind that of Enguerrand de Marigny, the ill-fated minister of Philip IV).

In February 1450 Agnès Sorel, the King's mistress, suddenly died, having given birth to the 4th child. Today the opinion is that she was poisoned by mercury, how and by whom, remains unknown. But poison was suspected at that time as well. Her coffin was not even opened to show her to the king.

And eighteen months later two people (one of them Jacques Cœur's debtor), formally accused him of having poisoned the "Lady of Beauty". There was no proof for such a charge, but the King gave orders for his arrest and for the seizure of his goods.

The trial was very unfair, the judges being either the prisoner's debtors or the holders of his forfeited estates.

Jacques Coeur was brave, but after twenty-two months of confinement in five prisons, he was condemned and stayed in prison for three years; after that, he escaped.

Whether ambitious Agnes Sorel was poisoned by skin-whitening potions (accidentally) or by Charles VII'th son Louis XI (who was scared of her immense influence over the king) remains unknown. But Jacques Coeur has no role in poisoning her. However, his influence was broken and most of his vast property confiscated.

After a while, Charles VII developed paranoia about being poisoned himself and stopped eating. He died of malnutrition.
 
Jan 2018
39
Yopaw
#45
Many people attribute the murder of millions of people in DRC to Paul Kagame. While he indeed participated in this war, I don't think it would be fair to say that only he was responsible for those death tolls
 
#49
The CIA or the USSR being posited as the real culprits of JFK's assassination. It's pure drama. The recently revealed documents of the era show that the Russians, far from being nefarious masterminds of the whole incident, were actually confused and thought it may have been some kind of internal coup.
The blame should be laid squarely where it belongs - with a raving hysteric with a track record of political violence who simply got lucky thanks to a poorly planned travel schedule.
Maybe there was professional negligence at play, I am open to that suggestion, but these labyrinthine theories belong to the realm of fiction, not the more mundane facts of reality.
 
Likes: Scaeva