EUROPE

History of Europe is as fake as Stonehenge. Why would Stone Age people erect rocks THIS big for no apparent reason? If their culture was so spiritual and sophisticated - why don't we find something useful they built?

WHEN?

Here I show that France, Spain and Britain lived in Stone Age in 1200, and Italy ... and Holy Roman Empire ... were there in 900.

WHO?

According to official History Europe has been colonized since 2500 years ago from the Middle East by Jews Phoenicians. Given what we concluded about Roman Empire and the demographics based estimate in the article quoted above, that timeline must shift as well. Phoenicians had a headstart of around 200 years compared to Greeks and Italians. IMHO it's them, who landed in Britain in 1066 or around that time. It's probably also them who taught Normans the shipbuilding, though this may have come from Greeks/Persians too. First it was slave trade, later colonies were established - the two dozen cities listed under this link is not a full list, of course, given how many Jewish were there from Britain to Eastern Europe in 1900. The narrative of Jewish refugees from wrath of Rome is as fake as it gets given that most of them ran in the very direction of imaginary Roman Empire.

TRACES OF PREVIOUS OWNERS

Jewish communities spread up to Baltic States. The Semithic looks of Italians, Spanish, majority of French and large share of Irish and British are quite noticable. Abnormally high percentage of red-haired people in Ashkenazi community, Scotland and Ireland is well known "coincidence" as well. I bet fire Phoenix worshipers considered red hair a good omen, etc. English word sheriff is noble in Arabic. In 1900 a theory of British Israelism was very popular, but later it felt victim to rising anti-semitism.

The ships of Columbus were called carrack, an Arabic word, probably the actual etymology of Venesuela capital Caracas (Venesuela means "little Venice", Venice was known for its navy). The word carrack was intentionally erased from History of Europe and replaced by caravel.

Rise of Islam also happened much later than advertised but for us the official History of muslim conquest of Europe is good enough in a sense that it acknowledges fights of native tribes with Arabic armies in Tours and Poitiers - far North from Spain and well inland. Name of the French city of Calais (pronounced as ka-le), right across the channel from Britain, is of unknown origin, yet in Arabic it means fortress. French city La Rochelle, also on Atlantic coast, closer to Spain, does sound like a Jewish female name Rachel and has a history of dislike of Rome Catholicism.

The point I'm making here is the one expressed in a Greek mythology about origins of the word Europe: it's a name of a Phoenician princess. If myth and all of the above is not convincing enough:

ANTISEMITISM

As you can see there is a huge disbalance between Western and Eastern Europe. We know the nature of this disbalance in Spain and Portugal: Reconquista (...-1492), forced conversions and expulsions of the stubborn ones. The scale and timelines are debatable and historical sources are obviously very politically biased. Yet from this map it's clear what we should be seeing vs what we see in 1750 in Spain and Portugal. Now why don't we see the purple dots in France, Britain, Ireland? Why we don't see more in Germany/Italy? Italy at some point had almost as many Phoenician colonies as Spain. The answer is called Albigensian Crusade (1209-1229), Hundred Years' War (1337-1453), Norman Conquest (1066), War of Roses (1455-1481) and Reformation (...-1648).

In "antique" mythology the anti-semitic wars and repressions are summarized as Punic Wars. If we accept that Carthagen was in Spain, just as modern Cartagena, story of Hannibal, marching into Italy with elephants, sounds real. Otherwise I can't explain medieval ships which could've carried grown up battle elephants over the Mediterranean.

All that bloodshed starts making much more sense once you realize that it was a mix of Phoenician/Arabic/Greek colonisation of tribal Europe followed by later Italian/German conquest of most of those territories (France, Spain, Britain, Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium, parts of Germany, Poland, Romania, Czechia, Slovakia, Balkans, Russia, etc.). This is, in fact, very similar to colonization of North America by Spain, France and Dutch/British. Each made alliances with natives, converted some, intermarried as well, and eventually ended up fighting each other. In North America it took less that 400 years, I doubt it took longer in Europe.

SHIFTED TIMELINE

Catholic-Protestant back-and-forth since 1529, Scottish dynasty since 1603, Revolution (1642) and Monmouth Rebellion (1685) mean Britain was a "failed state" until Glorious Revolution (1688). First French king who didn't have to fight for the throne and was not assasinated or accidentally killed or mysteriously died in the young age was Ludovic XIV (1643). Historiography of Spain is pure mythology: Joanna the Mad is followed by German Emperor and his dynasty that degenerates into Charles II the Ugly who gifts(!) country to French which leads to the War of Spanish Succession (1701-1714).

Official historiography did it's best to conceal the fact that neither Britain nor France or Spain had stable governments during period we call Reformation and even later. The most surprising fact is that even after establishment of the stable governments, the Reformation (repressions, destruction of churches and riot suppression) continues in both France (Dragonnades, up to 1686) and Britain (Jacobitism, 1689-1745). Spanish inquisition was active until Napoleon! Given that Reformation actually happens long after it was supposed to be over, the original Reformation was not a "religious civil war" but a conquest of these territories and establishment of a centralised power. So called Habsburg Spain is the actual "Reconquista", the serie of unfortunate Kings of France is the actual "Albigensian Crusade" and "Hundred Years' War", and British mess is the actual Norman Conquest followed by actual War of Roses.