PDA

View Full Version : If WWII had CNN coverage would people?



frag_bravo
12-14-2004, 12:34 PM
Yes If CNN had coverage on WWII would people stop and re-think the big picture. Like today€s current war events with CNN and all those other agencies giving non-stop war coverage, would people stop and rethink their methods back then? Or would the air war continue to rampage over Berlin and Germany factories.

frag_bravo
12-14-2004, 12:34 PM
Yes If CNN had coverage on WWII would people stop and re-think the big picture. Like today€s current war events with CNN and all those other agencies giving non-stop war coverage, would people stop and rethink their methods back then? Or would the air war continue to rampage over Berlin and Germany factories.

Stackhouse25th
12-14-2004, 12:38 PM
Probably not. If you read your history book you will see NAzi Germany trying to take over teh WORLD. You will notice Terrorists are not taking over the world, however they disagree with our policy overseas which can be seen as taking over the world, but not really. Same goes with Cubas exercises this week, it goes to show some people actually think the USA is trying to take over the world.

There is already coverage out there showing terrorists getting the beat down, you just have to find it. The media like CNN 'filters' what you get to see. However with 9/11 that footage was not able to be filtered, so you saw the whole shibang.

You are just a pawn, we are all just a pawn.

Fennec_P
12-14-2004, 12:50 PM
CNN in particular has a huge pro-USA bias.

They would either not report those atrocities, or would just spin them to make them seem ok.

Its also quite possible your average western viewer might enjoy watching Berlin or Japan burn, having been conditioned by propeganda to demonize these nations, and the people in them.

For example, CNN has reported on many things in Iraq, like prisoner abuse, executions, huge civilian bodycount, but it doesn't seem to have done anything to sway public opinion.

berg417448
12-14-2004, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by frag_bravo:
Yes If CNN had coverage on WWII would people stop and re-think the big picture. Like today€s current war events with CNN and all those other agencies giving non-stop war coverage, would people stop and rethink their methods back then? Or would the air war continue to rampage over Berlin and Germany factories. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Live coverage of German V-1 and V-2 strikes against England would have made great video that the media would be unable to resist broadcasting. It could have cancelled out the effect of bombing videos from Germany.

berg417448
12-14-2004, 01:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fennec_P:
CNN in particular has a huge pro-USA bias.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Russian news agencies have a pro-Russian bias...
The French news agencies have a pro French bias...

and so on. Nothing so special there.

knightflyte
12-14-2004, 01:27 PM
Geeee, from my experience CNN DOESN'T have an American Bias. If they did they WOULDN'T have broadcast the embarrassing way the prisoners of Abu Graab were handled.

I don't know how big the civilian body count is....but I also don't know how many bodies Saddam has buried in his mass grave sites.


And FENNEC SAID:
Its also quite possible your average western viewer might enjoy watching Berlin or Japan burn, having been conditioned by propeganda to demonize these nations, and the people in them.


That's the most insulting assinine thing I've EVER read on this forum.

Surely the expance of ocean between nations is a reason for cultural differences. But, honest, I swear we hate to see pain, suffering, and death just as much as you.

regards,
Robert

Korbelz
12-14-2004, 01:55 PM
Fox news is pro-US...CNN is not. CNN does air differnt programming here in the US then in Europe or the middle east(only other two places i've had time to watch it)

horseback
12-14-2004, 02:12 PM
I suspect that after seeing Warsaw and Amsterdam bombed, seeing coverage of the dazed civilian survivors of torpedoed passenger liners, or lines of refugees strafed while they were fleeing down French roads in order to create as large a traffic jam as possible for Allied reinforcements, America might well have entered the war a little sooner and been willing to pay a much higher price...

Note that I haven't even begun to describe the Japanese atrocities in the Pacific against PoWs and civilians in China, Burma, and the Phillippines. In a lot of cases, the propaganda was not able to keep up with the Axis' real-life day-to-day monstrosities.

Some people tend to forget that what is now condemned as Allied excess was seen then as simply following through in a life and death struggle. We had few reliable clues about the effectiveness of our strategic bombing campaigns or the true state of the German or Japanese war machines, and in a total war, you always prepare, plan and act for the worst case scenario as long as the other guy is still opposing you. The Allies had no intention of repeating the mistake of 1918, when they didn't beat the German army where the German people could see it, and failed to occupy the German homeland until the rot was cut out of their culture.

The terms were unconditional surrender. The Axis countries were going to get pounded until they gave up on those terms. No excuses and no apologies.

cheers

horseback

georgeo76
12-14-2004, 02:33 PM
you assume ppl are sensitive to violence and would be dismayed. They are not and they would not be. You assume that 24/7 video news would result in a more informed society, but all you have to do is look around you to determine that's not the case.

CNN shows more American suffering because that's what the viewers want. Aljazeera dose the same. If there is any one censoring the coverage, it's the viewers, not the government. The public influences the media, not the other way around. Now when I say media I mean the 'entertainment' media which includes anything on TV. There is still intelligent and in-depth reporting around... but it's all still in print.

I hate the 24/7 news channels. If you watch them for 30min, or 5hours you'll get the same news. I wish they would take the extra time to cover stories more in-depth, but viewers prefer redundancy to content.

I can learn more reading the BBC, New York Times, or the Washington Post in 15 min than I can watching CNN all week. The only decent news show on all of television is "The Daily Show".

Korolov
12-14-2004, 03:54 PM
This topic is more explosive than a empty fuel truck.

Airmail109
12-14-2004, 04:26 PM
anyone watch that program on bbc "the power of nightmares"...that would tell you everything you need to know about the media and the iraq war lol

WOLFMondo
12-14-2004, 04:26 PM
*edit*

Yeah, im not sure why I even replied knowing the final outcome of this thread is going to be negative.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fennec_P:
CNN in particular has a huge pro-USA bias.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Russian news agencies have a pro-Russian bias...
The French news agencies have a pro French bias...

and so on. Nothing so special there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats not so true. You wouldn't get a French news agency firing a pulitzer prize winning vietnam war journalist for 'unpatriotic' reporting like Fox news did a while back. In truth it was unbiased and objective reporting, the best kind but I guess Fox's sponsors didn't like that.

Reading the US press and the UK/EU press is quite different, the US press seems to skip over various things that make headlines over here that should also make headlines over there but don't. CNN is guilty of this as much as Fox is...but I'd take CNN over Fox any day. They still have a little integrity left.

knightflyte
12-14-2004, 04:42 PM
LOL.............integrity?.............LOL

No news source has integrity. Reporting is RARELY objective. If it was, CNN wouldn't be liberal...and FOX wouldn't be conservative.

berg417448
12-14-2004, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
*edit*

Yeah, im not sure why I even replied knowing the final outcome of this thread is going to be negative.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fennec_P:
CNN in particular has a huge pro-USA bias.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Russian news agencies have a pro-Russian bias...
The French news agencies have a pro French bias...

and so on. Nothing so special there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats not so true. You wouldn't get a French news agency firing a pulitzer prize winning vietnam war journalist for 'unpatriotic' reporting like Fox news did a while back. In truth it was unbiased and objective reporting, the best kind but I guess Fox's sponsors didn't like that.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


They would if they thought that it was in their own best interest. for example...the French media oppossed unilateral US miliatary action in Iraq yet supported unilateral French military action in the Ivory Coast. The media is out to sell a product...not necessarily to tell you the unbiased truth.

That Vietnam reporter wouldn't be the one who previously was "let go" by CNN over the Tailwind fiasco would it? Its all about ratings and selling their package.

25th_Orwell-84
12-14-2004, 05:04 PM
I live in Canada(Thats enough to get flamed).
But I would just like to say that here we get CNN and FOX and NBC and ABC ect ect. Of course out of convenience I mostly watch CNN.

Now speaking from a Canadian perspective I fell I can say with a reasonable amount of confidence that CNN is pretty balanced in terms of their coverage.

They ARE, however, quick to jump on the band wagon. That is to say, they choose a slant on "breaking news" very quickly. This can mislead veiwers.

But the positive thing about their "slanting" tendancy is that they are inconsistent. That is to say they aren't constantly slanting issues advantageously to the right or left.

Of course, each commentator has their own philosophy. I love Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson on "CrossFire". That show is hilarious.
Lou Dobbs seems to be a Fiscal conservative and a social liberal. And Wolf Blitzer has the COOLEST NAME EVER!

I consider myself to be a Liberal. I live in a liberal country and personally possess Liberal veiws on everything.

I'm also skeptical of the media. And ALL of you would do well to be skeptical aswell. I mean NBC CANNOT report negativly on any US conflict because their owner (GE) manufactures parts for numerous Bombers and Fighters. It wouldn't win them many contracts if they were bad mouthing their customers.

Did you know that China Cuba N. Korea and Canada are the ONLY countries to restrict satillite Television veiwing?

It's actually illegal to get American "direct TV" or other american Sat TV in canada. The only TV we can watch has to be government sanctioned. So imagine the filthy propaganda we get from our GOVT.


Anyway See ya guys

meh_cd
12-14-2004, 05:13 PM
I don't think that NBC has to be pro-US because their parent company makes parts for military equipment. That is stretching it. Your post was great though, many good points.

Also, why do the Europeans automatically badmouth the US media and then praise the European media like it is the greatest thing since IL2? I mean come on guys, do you really think that your media has no bias? *walks away giggling*

Howie A
12-14-2004, 06:12 PM
I remember when CNN was regarded as the 'voice of the Talaban.'

With the media profit is one thing, but as long as they can sustain... opinioned ideology can easily rule.

LEXX_Luthor
12-14-2004, 07:13 PM
Howie:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I remember when CNN was regarded as the 'voice of the Talaban.' <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Only as a cover. A few days before the launch of the US/Afghan WAR, CNN did a hit piece "documentary" on the Taliban and women. I knew I was being fed a TV show designed to stir support for the invasion, but at the same time, during the show, I could not resist the programmed feeling to want to start bombing the Taliban males RIGHT NOW. Very clever, CNN. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

SeaFireLIV
12-14-2004, 07:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Only as a cover. A few days before the launch of the US/Afghan WAR, CNN did a hit piece "documentary" on the Taliban and women. I knew I was being fed a TV show designed to stir support for the invasion, but _at the same time_, during the show, I could not resist the programmed feeling to want to start bombing the Taliban males RIGHT NOW. Very clever, CNN. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do get annoyed by tactics like that: picking on a subject that makes us in the `civilised` world think we`re so superior that we can crucify everyone else. And the truth is that we in the West are often worse!

Anyway, to answer the first point. I think televisual coverage of WWII to today`s extent could cause a LOT of problems for the Allies unless they HEAVILY controlled it. Hitler would probably have had his TV coverage so well propaganderised that he`d have the Axis fighting harder than ever to win where the Allies might be struggling with civilian discontentment due to so many dead at Omaha and the bombing at Dresden. You could imagine the Allied papers HEADLINES:

"Is it all really worth it?"

It wouldn`t help to have such questions when fighting the Nazis.

huggy87
12-14-2004, 08:35 PM
I recently watched a television program on the history channel called "Hell in the Pacific". In it, it describes the first time U.S. War casualties were shown to the US populace. Permission for this had to go all the way up to FDR himself. FDR allowed images of dead marines on the shores of Tarawa to "shake up" the US populace and remind them of soldiers' sacrifices. The program alluded that War Bond sales and production shot up as a result of this.

This is a positive example of how the media can help. However, I don't know if the populace of that time, not desensitized to violence quite the same way we are today, could have handled a constant stream of such images. Then again, we don't really see US casualties today either. They are still censored. Take for example, the returning dead, or images of beheadings.

JaymanRSC
12-14-2004, 08:42 PM
quote:
CNN shows more American suffering because that's what the viewers want. Aljazeera dose the same. If there is any one censoring the coverage, it's the viewers, not the government. The public influences the media, not the other way around. Now when I say media I mean the 'entertainment' media which includes anything on TV. There is still intelligent and in-depth reporting around... but it's all still in print.


id like to know how u come to this conclusion that the public controls the media...
tv ratings? viewrs on the side of the street sayin they wanna here bad news all day long ?

enlightin us on how the tv ratings work(good luck on that one) or where u see people sayin they want to see bad news

i think the media has more control over non thinkin people than what u might think... not everybody can draw conclusion on there own and require the media to forcefeed um sum bs story so they can rest at night

A limited choice of meaningful and useful content is better than an infinite choice of meaningless content. The substance of the content must come before the volume of content. The world does not need an infinite choice of bad things. It needs a real choice of good things, even if limited.

"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

-- General Herman Goering, President of German Reichstag and Nazi Party

hmmmmm? so the people control the media u say?
id love to here u story on this comment on how we the people have anything to do with mainstream united states media covrage

georgeo76
12-14-2004, 09:51 PM
People do want to see bad news. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox are all in competition for viewers. They are going to air the stuff they think will bring in more ppl, and that's violence and sex... always has been. That's capitalism and the American way.

Ppl say they don't like violence or sex... they lie. I do. I enjoy watching shows w/ lots of violence. Even when that violence is real. It's like a roller coaster, a way of experiencing exciting things w/o the danger inherent.

It reminds me of Art History class. During the Victorian era (known for stuffy values and total sexual repression) The popular art of the time often depicted 'pub scenes' and prostitutes as their subject matter. Being a drunk or a ***** has carnal appeal. It's exciting, and ppl like the excitement as long as they don't have to take the risks.

That's a really good Goering quote Jay, one I enjoy myself. But what's your point? Yea, there are some stark similaritys between current world events and what Goring said, but the differences are more than the similaritys. I'm sick to death of the Third Riche comparisons. You've turned the most tragic occurrence of the 20th century into a cliche and should be ashamed.

Same thing goes for comparing the Precedent to Hitler (I'm not saying that you did Jay, but just FYI) I don't keep my political views a secret. It was physically painful to see Dubya get re-elected. But he is still my president and the next time I see someone compare him w/ Hitler I'm going to smack them. You may not agree w/ him, but until he dissolves the Senate and insists everyone call him father... lay off! If you know anything about Nazi Germany then you'll have to admit that it doesn't resemble the US remotely.

Sig.Hirsch
12-14-2004, 10:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
*edit*

Yeah, im not sure why I even replied knowing the final outcome of this thread is going to be negative.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fennec_P:
CNN in particular has a huge pro-USA bias.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


The Russian news agencies have a pro-Russian bias...
The French news agencies have a pro French bias...

and so on. Nothing so special there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats not so true. You wouldn't get a French news agency firing a pulitzer prize winning vietnam war journalist for 'unpatriotic' reporting like Fox news did a while back. In truth it was unbiased and objective reporting, the best kind but I guess Fox's sponsors didn't like that.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


They would if they thought that it was in their own best interest. for example...the French media oppossed unilateral US miliatary action in Iraq yet supported unilateral French military action in the Ivory Coast. The media is out to sell a product...not necessarily to tell you the unbiased truth.

That Vietnam reporter wouldn't be the one who previously was "let go" by CNN over the Tailwind fiasco would it? Its all about ratings and selling their package. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry , but it is wrong , Ivory Coast did attack and killed french soldiers there for their safety (civil war there) , so the French only destructed their airforce (less than 40 aircraft), not their army nor their men , and the action of Ivory Coast was condemned by the organization of African Countries , i don't remember Iraq attacking USA , sorry , 09-11 was a drama , but it wasn't Iraq .
All medias are biased in a way , of course , but your example was not correct.

WOLFMondo
12-15-2004, 01:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by berg417448:


That Vietnam reporter wouldn't be the one who previously was "let go" by CNN over the Tailwind fiasco would it? Its all about ratings and selling their package. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never realised that. Ok, I retract my statement, neither CNN or FOX have any intergrity.

Aztek_Eagle
12-15-2004, 01:24 AM
I Cant belive i just read all this **** instead of sleeping

25th_Orwell-84
12-15-2004, 01:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by huggy87:
I recently watched a television program on the history channel called "Hell in the Pacific". In it, it describes the first time U.S. War casualties were shown to the US populace. Permission for this had to go all the way up to FDR himself. FDR allowed images of dead marines on the shores of Tarawa to "shake up" the US populace and remind them of soldiers' sacrifices. The program alluded that War Bond sales and production shot up as a result of this.

This is a positive example of how the media can help. However, I don't know if the populace of that time, not desensitized to violence quite the same way we are today, could have handled a constant stream of such images. Then again, we don't really see US casualties today either. They are still censored. Take for example, the returning dead, or images of beheadings. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

your last point about desensitization to violence.

I don't buy for ONE INSTANT that people are desensitized to violence.

I beleive people are ignorant to violence and this is the cause "video game/ media" based violence.

In Hollywood Movies and games like Doom or ghost recon or counterstrike or even soldieroffortune they sanitize death.

When people get shot they don't just go 'ahhh' and fall to the ground.

they fall to the ground and ALL of their sphincters relax. That means they **** and piss themselves and sometimes their stomach contents will come out of their belly.

death is ****ing gross. If violence if "cuased by movies and Games," it is because it doesn't show people what violent death is really like.

Thats why I think columbine ****s killed themselves. they thought it was gonna be a little revenge plot, they'd go to jail as tough guys and get book deals chronicalling their ****ed up mental lives, and live "*** rich" in prison till the end of their days.

They definatly went in dehumanizing their targets. subjucating them to "video game" entities.

then they started killing, and the more they killed the more it stank, the more the publically created fantasy of of death designed to censor us from reality, to "Protect us" wore off. they sobered up and realized what they did. realized that they bit off more than they could chew. Death isn't like it is in the movies.
It isn't clean, it isn't cool. it's gross.
when a big bag of blood water pee and poop explodes it isn't nice at all

then they killed themselves/.


I don't know maybe i'm alone here but i think censorship encourages violence..

WTE_Ibis
12-15-2004, 01:40 AM
I no longer watch "The News" from any country.
Here in Australia we get live news casts from most countries of the world through our "Multi-cultural"TV station SBS.Now there is in my opinion nothing wrong with SBS,but here you can see each country,naturally,pushing its'own barrow and that's fair enough.
My gripe is with the "multi-cultural" social experiment.Here is the perfect example of the majority bending over backwards for every tiny minority [immigrant wise}and being politically correct to the point that now we are not an Austrlian nation welcoming newcomers but a nation of noisy individual groups.It has now got to the point of do-gooders wanting to stop Christmas celebrations as it "might offend certain new groups". Can't people who come here just enjoy the reason that they came.And can't the do-gooders go some where else.
I may be banned for this.I hope not.But winging
whining people really get to me.
Just enjoy life it's VERY VERY SHORT http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif .

HansKnappstick
12-15-2004, 02:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stackhouse25th:
Probably not. If you read your history book you will see NAzi Germany trying to take over teh WORLD. You will notice Terrorists are not taking over the world, (...) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The islamic terrorists do not want to take over the world? This is something new to me. Perhaps you could provide us with the list of territories they are going to spare.

Last I checked, the notions "Dar-al-Harb" (the land of battles) and "Non-islamic countries" were synonyms in the radical islamic teachings.

HansKnappstick
12-15-2004, 02:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I do get annoyed by tactics like that: picking on a subject that makes us in the `civilised` world think we`re so superior that we can crucify everyone else. And the truth is that we in the West are often worse!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Would you care to provide us with examples of people of western culture being worse than the taliban oppression of human rights?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
"Is it all really worth it?"

It wouldn`t help to have such questions when fighting the Nazis. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is true. It's a pity that this way of thinking is abused by some nowadays and completely disregarded by the others.

LeadSpitter_
12-15-2004, 03:43 AM
not locked yet?

berg417448
12-15-2004, 07:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sig.Hirsch:



Sorry , but it is wrong , Ivory Coast did attack and killed french soldiers there for their safety (civil war there) , so the French only destructed their airforce (less than 40 aircraft), not their army nor their men , and the action of Ivory Coast was condemned by the organization of African Countries , i don't remember Iraq attacking USA , sorry , 09-11 was a drama , but it wasn't Iraq .
All medias are biased in a way , of course , but your example was not correct. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


You hold that view...others do not:


"The Chirac government was seeking to reestablish colonial control of Ivory Coast while the attention of the world€s media was focused on the US attack on Fallujah."

"Swiss TV has video of French Army helicopters firing without warning on an Ivory Coast demonstration, on November 6, 2004."

There is also video available on the web which shows French troops shooting into a crowd and wounding people.

"Parliament speaker Mamadou Coulibaly says the French killed 30 people and wounded more than 100 in the main cities of Abidjan and Yamassoukro."

Perhaps not so simple as you make it out to be.


..and 9-11 a drama? I do not think you would refer to it as a drama if it had occurred in your town.

BSS_Goat
12-15-2004, 08:14 AM
If I had a ten foot pole I wouldnt touch this thread.

Jasko76
12-15-2004, 10:32 AM
Nah, the good old CNN is not so bad, boring like hell but not very much biased. They just try to survive in a very harsh competition with other news channels. They have a large internation team and studios all over the world.

Fox, on the other hand... nationalists if I've ever seen any.

Anyway, BBC beats them all, hands down.

As for the fundemental islamists - those guys need to be checked wherever and whenever possible. They truly are a threat to our world and a disgrace to all muslims.

tttiger
12-15-2004, 11:25 AM
As a mild-mannered reporter for a great metropolitan newspaper, I'm gonna offer a few thoughts to the media bashing I see here. We actually deserve a lot of bashing, but not for any of the reasons listed here.

Truth is, we are driven by what our readers (or audience in the case of radio and TV)want.

I don't think the media is biased but the trend over the past 15 years or so has been away from the in-depth coverage of the 70s and 80s to the "splash-and-dash" (as we call it) coverage of today. That trend, sadly, began in the early 1990s.

More pictures. Fewer words. Dumb it down. Keep it shallow. Keep it short.

That's what the public wants. Give them anything else and they won't buy it.

USA Today is the best selling newspaper in the United States because its stories are short and shallow.

The news media has to compete for the reader's (or viewer's or listener's) leisure time with television sitcoms. We have to lower ourselves to that moronic level because that's the competition.

It isn't bias, folks. And it isn't sucking up to our advertisers (in 40 years in this business, I've NEVER had a story dictated by an advertiser and I do some pretty hardball investigative stuff).

It's a matter of getting enough of the Great Unwashed to read or watch or listen to our product in the first place so the advertisers will buy ad space so we can stay in business.

As Pogo (for those of us old enough to remember Walt Kelly's great cartoons)used to say: "We have met the enemy, and he is us!"

Or as H.L. Mencken, widely considered the greatest of all American newspaper writers put it:

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."

If the daily newspaper isn't fully informing you, whose fault is it? I submit it is the fault of the great majority of the public who want nothing more than Pablum and don't want to strain their brains thinking about anything.

The media is, after all, a business. And our customers always are right. Aren't they?

ttt

GreyBeast
12-16-2004, 08:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by frag_bravo:
Yes If CNN had coverage on WWII would people stop and re-think the big picture. Like today€s current war events with CNN and all those other agencies giving non-stop war coverage, would people stop and rethink their methods back then? Or would the air war continue to rampage over Berlin and Germany factories. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a joke! I can´t believe it! You´re American, right?

If you really believe CNN tells you the truth, you´re even more na¯ve that Germany´s population in WWII.

Everyone in his/her right mind knows CNN is the White House´s propaganda department.

Next thing you´ll say is Fox News is un-biased.

VFA-195 Snacky
12-16-2004, 08:34 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Ruy Horta
12-16-2004, 08:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by frag_bravo:
Yes If CNN had coverage on WWII would people stop and re-think the big picture. Like today€s current war events with CNN and all those other agencies giving non-stop war coverage, would people stop and rethink their methods back then? Or would the air war continue to rampage over Berlin and Germany factories. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a lot of coverage, but little news.

Also the news in general is not really critical of policy, hence it generally tends to do the same as WW2 newspaper and radio coverage did - create support for the war effort.

Embedded journalists are too involved with the unit they see action with to be critical, fear of being kept out of future operations keeps the press in line.

But that of course isn't limited to wars.

Enviorment, politics etc are all under the influence of who owns the media and the need to get the most bang out of the buck, instead of critical journalism.

The days of the 1960-70s where the press is a loose cannon are now finally over, with media conglomorates being the rule and news being entertainment first and foremost, and secondly simply mild propaganda.

Ruy Horta
12-16-2004, 09:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tttiger:
Truth is, we are driven by what our readers (or audience in the case of radio and TV)want.

I don't think the media is biased but the trend over the past 15 years or so has been away from the in-depth coverage of the 70s and 80s to the "splash-and-dash" (as we call it) coverage of today. That trend, sadly, began in the early 1990s. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is that the force of the consumer, or what the consumer is offered? The problem I face is lack of quality news, not the want of quality news.

CNN is a good example.

Now our local News stations are doing their best to look and function more and more like CNN, but in doing so theyr have lost their quality.

Even the BBC has suffered under CNN-ism, or perhaps its just the American style of news broadcasting. I see this trend of Americanisation even in documentaries, and I have to see I am not happy with the shift towards "docu-drama" instead of documentary.

SeaFireLIV
12-16-2004, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tttiger:

The news media has to compete for the reader's (or viewer's or listener's) leisure time with television sitcoms. We have to lower ourselves to that moronic level because that's the competition.



The media is, after all, a business. And our customers always are right. Aren't they?

ttt <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So basically, the new`s as it purely should be COMPLETELY FAILS in its job? That`s just wrong.

In that case NEWS should be given a separate `exempt` status from capitalism and Government involvement so that it can tell the truth...

That`s what i would have said in my student days, and I still believe it, but I know Human Nature makes it impossible... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Medvedya
12-16-2004, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruy Horta:

Even the BBC has suffered under CNN-ism, or perhaps its just the American style of news broadcasting. I see this trend of Americanisation even in documentaries, and I have to see I am not happy with the shift towards "docu-drama" instead of documentary. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the BBC wants to have its own 'rolling news' service to rival CNN. Its true to say there are always general trends in style and presentation that the world's media follow, the embedding of reporters being an good example. That in itself is a kind of docu-drama. Granted the 'BBC documentary' is respected the world over, but nothing stands still forever, especially in the field of journalism!

What is important is that the content and objectivity of the BBC's reports remains the same, and there aren't many concerns in that area, mainly because of the corporation status it enjoys. The reason for BBC being a very different kind of animal compared with networks abroad is its detatchment from political and commercial pressures.

Luftwaffe_109
12-16-2004, 04:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
I no longer watch "The News" from any country.
Here in Australia we get live news casts from most countries of the world through our "Multi-cultural"TV station SBS.Now there is in my opinion nothing wrong with SBS,but here you can see each country,naturally,pushing its'own barrow and that's fair enough.
My gripe is with the "multi-cultural" social experiment.Here is the perfect example of the majority bending over backwards for every tiny minority [immigrant wise}and being politically correct to the point that now we are not an Austrlian nation welcoming newcomers but a nation of noisy individual groups.It has now got to the point of do-gooders wanting to stop Christmas celebrations as it "might offend certain new groups". Can't people who come here just enjoy the reason that they came.And can't the do-gooders go some where else.
I may be banned for this.I hope not.But winging
whining people really get to me.
Just enjoy life it's VERY VERY SHORT http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


SBS World News is, by far, the best news service in Australia, hands down.

ABC News would follow slightly afterwards, though it is far more focused on Australia then the world.

The commercial stations have pitifull excuses for news programs, and are quite horrible in my opinion.

Luftwaffe_109
12-16-2004, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stackhouse25th:
Probably not. If you read your history book you will see NAzi Germany trying to take over teh WORLD. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are mistaken, and have taken the "comic-book" approach to history. Germany's aims were never to "take over the world". Hitler in stead had quite specific military, geo-political and racial aims, as even a quick look at any half decent book would tell you.

civildog
12-16-2004, 04:59 PM
Luftwaffe_109... The Nazi's not trying to take over the world???!!!!

I seem to recall a famous (infamous, rather) line from one of Hitler's speeches: "Today Germany, Tomorrow the World."

And I rather think invading every country in Europe, and even their erstwhile "allies" - the Italians certainly seems to imply something.

How can you be so ignorant? I know they hide this sort of info in books but for God's sake, oh wait! I get it now, it must have something to do with your closet Nazi-worship fetish as borne out by your nickname! Right?

Didin't you just love the industrialised genocide by the Germans? The large scale redirection of the railroads so they could slaughter even more "enemies of the Reich" instead of supply their troops in the field? Hey there "Luftwaffe", know something of which you speak before defending it.

As for the rest of you who think the "atrocities" by the Allies were unreasonable, remember we were fighting a total war then. Against 2 enemies who made no bones about slaughtering men (Japanese Unit 731, etc.), women (Japanese Comfort Women, hmmmm), and children (Mengele, remember him anyone?). These enemies showed NO MERCY whatsoever to who they conquered. The conquered were enslaved and/or killed to make room for "Lebensraum" or "The Greater Pacific Co-Prosperity Sphere". Japanese officers showed off skills with a sword on captured prisoners. German (and their various "Foreign SS Legion" groups) wiped out entire towns because a few dared fight back.

Nowadays the US has removed the Taliban who, according to documentaries made by a group of women in Afghanistan during the Taliban regime, shot women in stadiums because they didn't want to wear a bhurka. Stoned women for similar trivial crimes. Destroyed Buddhist statues that were incredibly old and magnificent.

In Iraq we have removed a regime that raped women to keep the people in fear, filled massed graves with even the bodies of children the age of mine (as borne out by the photos of the corpses clutching toys), and gassed it's own people as well as that of a neighbor. And threatened to nuke Israel.

I would think the historical parallels are clear enough even when viewed through the filtered media. Even the good guys do some bad things in the war, but the US isn't filling mass graves, gas chambers, or stoning women in soccer stadiums. We are doing our humanly best to help these people stand on their own so they can run their own countries. It takes a while. Heck the "civilised" Germans didn't have a free election until 10 years after the war.

Sig.Hirsch
12-16-2004, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>.and 9-11 a drama? I do not think you would refer to it as a drama if it had occurred in your town. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


of course 9-11 it was a drama , more than 3000 innocent people killed , it was a shock and very sad indeed ,
i don't how did you understand it , maybe a bad use of english from me probably , i don't like to justify myself , but don't get me wrong , it was a crime , i thought the word drama would suggest that i was sad and shocked about it .

For the rest berg , i respect your opinion , i study political science here in germany , and i follow the problem closely actually we studied it , france has a mandate of UN (USA supports it) , to separate the Rebels from the governemental forces of the south of IvoryCoast , there are not there to reastablish a colony , it's purely impossible , the french don't want and have no interest in it(imagine all the money to spend in order to get the country on the track ) , and the Ivorycoast would never allow it nor UN http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Post the link to the website you've seen that please Berg if u can , i'm curious about it , especially if it's Bagbo's partisans site in english , as the African countries unanimously condemned Bagbo and his forces and UN has put an embargo on them , all the world is against him ,they were spreading on radios, Tv etc.. anti-white speech night and day ( "to each one , his white" which meant to each citizen , his white guy to kill ) ,and killed several white citizens , the mob killed several white people not only french in Abidjan and all others had to evacuate the country and Human rights organizations condemned this regime which keep his population in poverty and controls the media to brainwash them(while the family of Bagbo and himslef is billionair) .

Anyway , i think the french are going to leave , and let another country take that in charge , the South Governemental forces leaded by Bagbo , wanted to make war again against the Rebels of the north , as they did broke the ceasefire without warning this summer , they feel strong since the ceasefire of 2002 (they rearmed themselves ) and it was in their interest that the UN mandated forces (the french) would get out of Ivorycoast to let them fulfill their ambitions and kill thousands of people there .
Also you have to know that Bagbo's media use the
koncept of " Ivorianity " (Ivoirite in french) and we had a sad memory of that here in Germany in the 30's .... and this Koncept simply exclude the northern inhabitants of IvoryCoast represented by the Rebel forces , imagine the deportation of those guys out of Ivorycoast if UN did nothing to stop this conflict , it's a fascist like regime , keep it mind , anyway http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

civildog
12-16-2004, 05:42 PM
And for all of those of you who think we are fighting this war just because of 9/11 and "weapons of mass destruction" (Current or in development, it doesn't matter...if I have flour, an oven,eggs, and water I can make a cake - I don't have to have one already made, merely the means, opportunity, and desire. In law enforcement that's all the threat needs to show me in order for me to use deadly force, and Saddam showed it in spades.))hear this:

We in the US have had this terrorist **** going on for too long. When I was in the Air Force in the early 80's I was told in training to make sure I didn't carry my military ID on my person while flying in a foreign country because otherwise I'd be singled out by terrorists. The club in Berlin was bombed by them while I was still in training and I remember the cheers all over when we heard our President was bombing the Libyan instigator (who now has finally admitted it!).

Remember the Achilles Lauro? The Black Septemberists? The Munich massacre? The hijackings, the 747 dropped out of the sky over Scotland? Kidnappings all over the world? The beheadings of peopel trying rebuild Iraq (even a CARE worker?!)?

We are tired of it all and it's time to end it. If the rest of the world not currently helping us would get off thier collective fences and help out, too, then it would end a lot sooner to the benefit of all.

You people who don't want to help end this pestilence (The Islamic type sure seems to be spreading in Europe now, not mention Russia. May we never forget Beslan.)then you deserve whatever you get in the end. For now just shut up and count yourselves lucky that once again, the Americans and their Allies (Poland, Britain, Australia, the list goes on)are bleeding and bearing the cost for you without any greater reckoning than maybe a few less tourist dollars.

I have friends and coworkers over in Iraq and Afghanistan right now and belive me, the truth isn't getting out over the airwaves at all. People in those places are, for the largest part, falling down grateful to the Allied effort. They may not all be running out to give flowers to the troops but there were collaborationist towns (next to the concentration camps in Poland, say? The French Vichy and the ones who gladly handed jews over to get their property in numerous countries for example.) who weren't out holding celebrations in WW2 either. Same thing is going on here.

Luftwaffe_109
12-16-2004, 05:46 PM
Hello CivilDog,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:
I seem to recall a famous (infamous, rather) line from one of Hitler's speeches: "Today Germany, Tomorrow the World." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In fact that quote comes from the line of a Nazi (possibly SA? not quite sure) song, if I am not mistaken. I think it goes something like "We will go on marching / even if the world falls apart / for today Germany is ours / and tomorrow the whole world will be". To suggest however that you can infer policy decision from such blatant nazi propoganda is absurd.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> And I rather think invading every country in Europe <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not every nation is Europe was invaded, I think this rather shows your ignorance of WWII.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> and even their erstwhile "allies" - the Italians certainly seems to imply something. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Look here for a timeline of Italy's contribution to war in 1943 http://www.comandosupremo.com/1943.html. You will see that Germany took steps to occupy Italy in responce to her military calapse and reluctance to continue to fight the war in the face of allied superiority, not due to some absurd "masterplan to conquer the world".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> How can you be so ignorant? I know they hide this sort of info in books but for God's sake <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They do not "hide" any info in books. Open one and read and you will see that the Nazi's, never in their most fanciful dreams, had plans as grandious as the conquering of the world. Just one example. The Nazis never invisioned to completly occupy the Soviet Unionl. Instead, they aimed to establish a line from Archangel on the White Sea to Astrakhan on the Caspian.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I get it now, it must have something to do with your closet Nazi-worship fetish as borne out by your nickname! Right? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'll ask you only once to stop that, as I find it quite insulting. Only a child such as yourself would believe that it is impossible to discuss the aims of someone without sympathising with their views, which is of course ludicrous.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Didin't you just love the industrialised genocide by the Germans? The large scale redirection of the railroads so they could slaughter even more "enemies of the Reich" instead of supply their troops in the field? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Judging by your childish demeanor I'd say I know FAR more about the widespread and deliberate Nazi extermination programs than you do. Why would I "just love" it? I, like most humans, find it abhorent. You should be ashamed of yourself for insulting someone else is such a manner.



In any case, apart from some foolish and baseless insults, you have done nothing to prove Germany wanted "to take over the world".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> As for the rest of you who think the "atrocities" by the Allies were unreasonable, remember we were fighting a total war then. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'd be very cautious of the line of reasoning which states that atrocities are permited based on what the other side has done. A crime is a crime.

civildog
12-16-2004, 06:34 PM
Oh my, my, my...Lutfwaffe_109, how foolish you are.

Obviously you are merely one of the many apologists and revisionists who seem to feel the Nazis were just misunderstood and badly used by history. That history is only written by the victors and that when taken in the proper context it can be seen that the Nazis only wanted a security zone around what they used to call "Greater Germany".

You are right, however, in calling atrocities atrocities but war crimes and genocide are different from bombing industrial targets. Yes, yes, civilians were bombed too, but to paraphrase Jimmy Stewart (who was there and ought to know better than either you or I) , The guy who was killed at work making bombs to drop on the people in London won't cost me any sleep.

And as for the Germans only wanting a line from Archangel to the Caspian? I guess if they had just asked the Russians "pretty please" it would've been ok, but since the Russians had the temerity to object to reasonable Nazi domination then it was ok to devestate Russia, Ukraine, the Balkans, etc? Right? Kill millions was ok for what seemed like such simple demands?

And what did the French, Dutch, Norwegians, Belgians, Greeks, etc, etc,...have that the Nazis "only wanted"? You sound just like that idiot Chamberlain giving away the Czech's country because the Germans only wanted a little more room.

Talk about offensive! Yup, you are definitely one of those apologists who are so busy hair-splitting and trying to see everyone's point of view, no matter how evil, that you have lost sight of right and wrong. It was people with your attitude (along with the Versaille Treaty, etc, don't get me started since I've forgotten more than you will probably ever know about history of any era) that helped WW2 start.

And are helping prolong this war on terror now.

I know all about the Italian issue as well. The people as a whole basically had their hearts in the right place and didn't want to be involved in the whole Nazi **** in the first place but they were dragged into it by Mussolini's fascist movement. But unlike the Germans they didn't go around building death camps and singing "Deutschland uber alles". North Africa and the gas were wrong, but they paid for that.

knightflyte
12-16-2004, 08:25 PM
Civil....

You forgot to mention another important part of the equation concerning why the U.S. is over there.

The UN money for oil fiasco.

Maybe if the UN wasn't worried about being caught with their hand in Saddam's cookie jar they would have pressured him into inspection.
Thus war would have been averted. (Where was that confiscated truckload of $750.000,000 going to?)

Even Al jezera says Saddam was a bad guy.

Independant SENATE AND 9/11 commisions state GW acted correctly according to the information he had from (I believe) SEVEN seperate sources. Some even NON U.S. Whadda ya know.


(And now that elections are drawing closer in Iraq, Terrorists are going into towns and massacreing people. I heard last week in the news 70 civilians were shot down in the streets in a wholesale massacre.)

Sigh.....Certainly, us folks brought together by our affection for this sim AREN'T going to solve the world's problems. And if we are able to sit in front of a computer to fritter a few hours away while discussing current events.... then we don't have it too bad.


regards all,
Robert


Once you go Track... you never go back.

civildog
12-16-2004, 09:36 PM
Excellent point, knightflyte!

The UN was all too glad to have us enforce their sanctions for years while skimming the books.

Maybe we ought to put this baby to bed before it gets any uglier. Even I, the very paragon of mannerly conduct and saintly patience, am starting to lose it reading some of the foolishness people are posting.

Luftwaffe_109
12-16-2004, 09:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Oh my, my, my...Lutfwaffe_109, how foolish you are.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please desist with the petty taunts. They do nothing to me but say volumes about your maturity.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Obviously you are merely one of the many apologists and revisionists who seem to feel the Nazis were just misunderstood and badly used by history. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course I don't and there is noting in my posts to suggest that - so stop saying it. It is the mark of a true fool who, instead of trying to retort to the argument posed by the oppoisng side, resorts to the cheap tactic of making up an absurd opinion for him to attack. This is called a straw-man argument, and is fallacious.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> That history is only written by the victors and that when taken in the proper context it can be seen that the Nazis only wanted a security zone around what they used to call "Greater Germany". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have it pretty clear, the Nazi leadership wanted to take areas it considered "Greater Germany", conquer lands in the East for "lebensraum" or living space, become the primary power in Europe and create a racially homogenous society for Germans (the "aryan" race).

Now, before you scream, "LOOK! HE'S A NAZI!" which is the only retort your measly inteligence is capable of, let me say these were the aims of the Nazi Leadership, not my aims and I certainly don't endorce them(if I were talking to a person with an IQ above 10 this wouldn't be necesary to point out).

What they didn't want, is the absurd comic book notion of conquering the world, which is pure fantasy, that fools like you try to portray. In any case, your stupid taunts have done nothing to show otherwise.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The guy who was killed at work making bombs to drop on the people in London won't cost me any sleep.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I suppose this applies to the women and children in population centres of Europe too, huh? Whatever, if you want to condemn certain things but not others I care not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I guess if they had just asked the Russians "pretty please" it would've been ok, but since the Russians had the temerity to object to reasonable Nazi domination then it was ok to devestate Russia, Ukraine, the Balkans, etc? Right? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again, you've done the childish thing of confusing NAZI war aims in the Soviet Union with my opinions of them, which of course is stupid. What makes you think I would approve of "devestate Russia, Ukraine, the Balkans, etc". Might it intrest you to know that I come from Greece, so why would I want have my own area subjected to war?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> And what did the French, Dutch, Norwegians, Belgians, Greeks, etc, etc,...have that the Nazis "only wanted"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you do not understand why Germany went to war against these Nations and instead just blanketly describe it as "part of their master plan to conquer the world" then I certainly am not going to sit here and explain it to you.

Just to pick one, however, I will say that Germany was not looking to go to war with France in 1939 since its armed forces were not ready at the time. Hitler had banked on the Western Allies doing nothing (as he believed would be the case just like during the Munich Crisis), which of course did not happen.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You sound just like that idiot Chamberlain giving away the Czech's country because the Germans only wanted a little more room.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I challenge you to find a single reference at all in my posts to the practice of appeasement, let alone to my support for it. You, sir, are a fool.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Talk about offensive! Yup, you are definitely one of those apologists who are so busy hair-splitting and trying to see everyone's point of view, no matter how evil, that you have lost sight of right and wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are a fool, the study of history has nothing to do with right or wrong but with how and why things happened. It is idiots like you who deliberately and insidiously try to simplify history for their own political agendas. If you can't stop your opinions from interfering with your analysis of WWII then I suggest you stop talking about it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I've forgotten more than you will probably ever know about history of any era <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Right, you have shown you don't know anything at all about history of any era, much less that you know more than me. Or don't you remember your stupid "Germany went to war with every country in Europe" remark?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> And are helping prolong this war on terror now.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The study of the causes of WWII has absolutely nothing to do with the "war on terror".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> But unlike the Germans they didn't go around building death camps and singing "Deutschland uber alles". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course, only the Germans could ever be capable of such horrors! It must be in their blood, no their genes! They must be a horrid race! Wait, I've heared of this kind of reasoning before (think: Hitler).

Probably you are one of those fools who thinks that all Germans are Nazis, but I bet you werent aware that, before Hitler came to power, the NSDAP never got more that a little over 37% of the vote.

Regards Witheld

civildog
12-16-2004, 10:31 PM
Gee, I didn't realise North Africa, Greece, Malta, France, Italy or anyplace east of Poland used to be part of Greater Germany. I must be misinformed.

Your support of appeasement in shown by what you just posted about France. Hitler didn't really believe the British would really fight for France because the British, whom he always felt (until he planned Seelowe) were "cousins" to the Germans, had been appeasing him from the start.

Remember? "Peace in our time." Chamberlin giving away the Czechs? Nobody doing anything really to stop the Germans in advancing and threatening Poland and Low Countries?

Looking the other way while a dictator invades another country - after the dictator has already told you he would - is appeasement.

And as for none of this relating to today's events. If you REALLY, and I do mean really, understood anything at all about history you could understand how it all is relevant to today. If you study history as dispassionately as you say you do then you can understand the big picture and how it repeats again and again.

In Iraq there was a madman who had committed genocidal acts on his own people in the north (the Kurds), made total war on his neighbor with weapons of mass destruction, and continuously made threats to do the same to Israel and the US as soon as he had a chance to. He was actively, in spite of the UN sanctions, trying to get the material for more weapons of mass destruction.

The world...except for the US...did nothing, they gave in to his demands for for time, allowed inspectors to be fooled, and actively interfered with US attempts to rein this guy in.
They even foolishly gave him billions of dollars for oil thinking that would keep him happy and he'd feed his people with it.

That's appeasing a dictator and the last time the world did that we had WW2. This time we stopped him at the "Polish" border (Kuwait). Then when the world continued to appease him while we tried to contain him (Saddam often referred to "living space" being needed too.) so we had to go do it all over again before he tried to invade "France." Which could have been a nuke, a biological missile in Jerusalem, etc.

That's what GW means by taking preventive action on guys like that instead of appeasing them so we can have "Peace in our time."

And as for my political or personal adgenda obscuring my interpretation of history: history just IS, it doesn't really need interpeting - merely observation and understanding. Being able to link historical cause and effect to today's events is the final result of UNDERSTANDING history. But understanding history doesn't preclude calling evil evil. Understanding and recognizing what is good or bad in human nature is part of the key to understanding why things happen and being able to put them, not only in thier proper historical context (like why the US Civil War wasn't really over slavery, but primarily economic - freeing the slaves was a tactic), but also in context with why these same things keep repeating and how to maybe prevent them (Hence my connection of the Franco-Prussian war-WW1-Treaty of Versaille& appeasement from guilty feelings over said treaty - WW2 - to why we don't want to appease dictators in an age of nuclear weapons when history already has shown they will always take a mile if you give them an inch).

The Nazis were evil. Pure and simple. Greece was never part of even the Holy Roman Empire, let alone Greater Germany. Neither was North Africa. And what the heck were they doing in Antarctica claiming NeuSchwabenland? I don't recall that ever being part of Germany. Same with India, though the Aryans supposedly originated there.

Calling them evil doesn't mean I don't understand their grand strategies or tactics, the internecine warfare with the Party, and all the other intricacies that made them so fascinating in a purely intellectual way.

It merely makes me intellectually honest. Trying to rationalise what they did with sophistry and "intellectual dispassion" just makes you sound like an ivory tower fool.

Calling the history of the war in which the Germans (The Nazis were Germans weren't they? Let's be honest here, the Germans always have been to their infinte credit.) tried to take over a lot more than you seem to think they wanted to and killed millions to do it a "comic book" version of history is what's offensive.

Have any relatives who fought in it? I do. They saw what happened and knew what would happen if Germans and Japanese weren't stopped. They fought in both theaters and looked evil in the face. My partner at work has a father who, as a teenager in Greece fought the Germans there, too. I doubt very much if he thought the Germans only wanted to restore the glory of the Greater Germany. He looked evil in the face and called it's name. Why can't you?

Luftwaffe_109
12-16-2004, 11:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gee, I didn't realise North Africa, Greece, Malta, France, Italy or anyplace east of Poland used to be part of Greater Germany. I must be misinformed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only the Sudetenland, Polish corridor, Rhineland, etc, were described by the Germans as being part of their "Greater Germany".

The Germans sent to troops to North Africa and Greece in order to bail out Mussolini after his own disasterous offensives their.

Malta as you know (or do you? I shouldn't assume obviously) is a very strategic place in the Mediterranean.

Italy I have already talked about and don't wish to discuss again, as I dont particularly much like talking to walls.

Finally, the areas east of Poland were designated areas of interest by the Nazi leadership due to their policy of "lebensraum" of which I talked about before but you obviously were to stupid to remember.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Your support of appeasement in shown by what you just posted about France. Hitler didn't really believe the British would really fight for France because the British, whom he always felt (until he planned Seelowe) were "cousins" to the Germans, had been appeasing him from the start. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
None of this shows that I approve of CHAMBERLAIN's (not "Chamberlin" as you wrote) policy of appeasment with Hitler. And despite you rather crude ad hominem I've seen nothing by you which disproves what I wrote about France.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Nobody doing anything really to stop the Germans in advancing and threatening Poland and Low Countries?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Except declaring war on them?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> made total war on his neighbor with weapons of mass destruction, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where was the US during the Iran/Iraq war, oh I remember, suppling Iraq with the weapons it needed to wage agressive war. How things conveniently change.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> In Iraq there was a madman who had committed genocidal acts on his own people in the north (the Kurds), <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And what did the US do about this, asside from suppling him with the biological and chemical capabilities to create such weapons, of course.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If you study history as dispassionately as you say you do then you can understand the big picture and how it repeats again and again. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It is my "dispassionate" studying of history which allows me to get my accurate overview of the past, not your grossly missrepresented comic caricature that you have.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Calling them evil doesn't mean I don't understand their grand strategies or tactics <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It obviously does, what with absurd statments like "The Nazis wanted to conquer the world!" and "The Nazis invaded every nation is Europe!"

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> He was actively, in spite of the UN sanctions, trying to get the material for more weapons of mass destruction.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is little to suggest his programs were anything more that vastly corrupt, underfunded, and frozen (due to the inspections and embargoes).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Being able to link historical cause and effect to today's events is the final result of UNDERSTANDING history. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haha.. there is no cause and effect between WWII and the Gulf Wars, except for the actions of the British, Americans and Soviets in this area over the past 80 years which has resulted in what this region is today.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> nd as for my political or personal adgenda obscuring my interpretation of history: history just IS, it doesn't really need interpeting - merely observation and understanding. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If that were ture you wouldn't be trying to put a political spin on my undeniable facts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> like why the US Civil War wasn't really over slavery, but primarily economic - freeing the slaves was a tactic <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If I were you, I would now say, "See! A red-neck, Southern, racist confederate!" But I am not like you, and I know that, of course, the Civil War was not fought only on slavery but instead on a myriad of other reasons.

Of course, If I were you, I'd have to say, "Forget it, the slave holders were evil the war was fought on this issue and this alone".

Thats what you simply refuse to understand. What you are saying about WWII is precisly what I have shown above.

Why can you accept that other conflicts were complicated, but refuse to acknowledge that WWII was anything but a clear-cut, "conquer the world and everything in it" nonesense fantasy story.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Have any relatives who fought in it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't play the "my relatives fought in the war" card, it's irrelevant. My nation felt first hand the destruction of war, but what does this have to do with the discussion? Nothing. If you haven't noticed I made a comment on the WAR AIMS of Nazi Germany, nothing more. Your desperate attempt to try an expand the discussion out into all sorts of irrelevencies (morality, god/evil, my own opinions of which you obviously know nothing about yet still comment) is pathetic.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I doubt very much if he thought the Germans only wanted to restore the glory of the Greater Germany. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I never stated this was the sole reason behind WWII, you sure that we are reading the same thread?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If you REALLY, and I do mean really, understood anything at all about history you could understand how it all is relevant to today <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As far as I am concerned, this is just neocon b/s. The differences between WWII and the Gulf Wars are so great that their similarities aren't worthy of mention. Fact is the invasion of Iraq conflicted with International Law (of which Britain and France's declration of war on Germany did not) and the US war in Iraq has done more harm then good.

As to your, "they had fought wars with other countries in the past, had ultimatums declared against them and refused to give in, resulting in war" this can be said of many other wars also, and proves no similarity between WWII and Gulf Wars.

People who generalise needless do so only to advance an agenda, and yours is none to subtle.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> And as for my political or personal adgenda obscuring my interpretation of history: history just IS, it doesn't really need interpeting - merely observation and understanding. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thats why you could never be a historian. Imagine having to write an essay on "The causes and origines of WWII" and stupidly stating only that "THE NAZI'S WERE EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL!" You would fail in an instant, and deservedly so. History is not a comic book, and the Nazis did NOT have top/secret plans to conquer the world. Such talk is pure fantasy.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Why can't you?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very, very lame. I never said that the Nazi's were not "evil" nor did I make excusses for them. I simply expanded their reasons for going to war away from the "mega-villain aim to conquer the world!". Whether I think they are evil is, of course, irrelevant.

You have yet to say anything which detracts from these reasons I discribed, so I will bid you good-day. Go back to reading your comic books, were everything is black and white.

Regards Witheld

civildog
12-17-2004, 12:17 AM
I never once said the only reason the Germans made war on the rest of the world because the Nazis were evil. I quite clearly linked the primary causes starting with the Franco-Prussian War. Read more carefully. Or better yet read some scholarly books on the subject rather than the touchy-feely revisionist nonsense that is being taught in schools today. As for papers, the ones I wrote in college had more to do with the application of chaos theory in genetic drift and ritualised warfare in primitive cultures and why it evolves into deadly combat as the society develops. Both are probably beyond your understanding.

But are some facts I know that illustrate all the points I have made about why it started and where it was reall going:

Rearmament - Germany was restricted by the Treaty of Versailles to have an army of no more than 100.000 men and to have no air force. Between 1933 and 1935 Hitler started to secretly increase the size of the army from 100,000 men to 300,000 men. He built 1000 new aircraft and secretly trained his pilots at civilian flying clubs. By March 1935 Hitler had the new air force, the Luftwaffe, with 2500 planes and an army of 300,000 men. The Condor Legion of the Luftwaffe was to receive valuable training in the Spanish Civil War. He was strong enough to rearm in public and started to increase the size of the army to 550,000 men.

Navy - In 1935 the British government signed an agreement with Germany to allow her to have one third the tonnage of the British navy. Another breech of the Treaty of Versailles, since Germany was restricted to 36 ships.

Rhineland - The Treaty of Versailles had made the Rhineland a demilitarized zone. In March 1936, Hitler moved his army into the Rhineland and France and Britain did nothing.

Anschluss with Austria - Germany had been forbidden to make and alliance with Austria according to the Treaty of Versailles. In 1938. Through political maneuverings and threats Hitler was able to unite the German peoples of Germany and Austria again. Again the world powers did nothing.

Czechoslovakia - The Sudenland section of Czechoslovakia contained a majority of German people. Hitler threatened war and accused the government of Czechoslovakia of mistreating the Germans within the country. Rather than face war a meeting was held in Munich. Appeasement was the word of the day. Hitler was given the German speaking section of Czechoslovakia.

Poland - Hitler wanted Poland. The only country in place to stop him was the USSR. Hitler signed a non-aggression pact with Stalin so that when he invaded Poland he would face no opposition. On September 1, 1939 Hitler's troops invaded Poland. World War Two had begun.

France - Hilter moved on France in 1940 and pushed the British defenders into the sea at Dunkirk. Even Hitler said the only reason he really wanted France was because of the Treaty of Versaille and he made the capitulation signing in the same railcar used in WW1 to sign the Versaille Treaty. He also hoped to co-opt the French Navy (thankfully destroyed by the British right away) and it gave him greater leverage against Spain should that country prove recalcitrant. He now started plans for Operation SeaLion against England.

SEE A PATTERN YET?


Nor did I say WW2 caused the current Gulf War, merely illustrated how people can learn from the past when they get past the fear of calling something evil if it is and recognising the need to detour from repeating previous mistakes in similar historical situations.

As for any "neocon bs" it sounds like you are certainly letting a lot of your political preconceptions get in the way of your reasoning. And I do say, for someone who doesn't like to talk to walls you sure are doing a lot of it tonight.

Some things in life really are black and white, I've seen it and had to deal with it on a very one-on-one level. The gray stuff is out there too, but it's mostly just on TV and bandied about in Starbucks by people like you. The real life gray situations are the kind you wouldn't be able to handle at all unless you also had the moral courage and intelligence to know the difference between good and bad.

And yes, you did say the reasons the Germans went to war was because they wanted lebensraum and the regain the Greater Germany of the past. The reason the REST of the world went to war against them was because for some strange reason the rest of the world thought that was wrong. Evil, Bad, and all those other words you don't use.
Uh, not all of the Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe, etc were Nazi Party members you know, so it was the majority of Germans that went to war. Even the Germans reconise this and teach it so it never happens again and why this country wrote a "question and disobey immoral and illegal orders" clause in the Bundeswehr's policy and the German constitution. If the majority of Germans hadn't voted for Hitler and condoned (even if it was tacitly) what the Nazis grew into and did then the Germans could have stopped them.

BTW: the reason the Germans went to North Africa and the Med wasn't to bail out the Italians, it was to expand into the oil fields of the Middle East and lock the British out. Hitler had no faith in the Italian's abilities from the beginning, he just found them useful to bloody the British in those areas until he could mass his forces there. Even the Italians knew that and it is referred to many times in histories of the North African campaigns. It also would prevent the Black Sea Fleet (such as it was) to get out and aid in far eastern expansion. The Nazis sent troops as far east as India to see what could be had in those regions as well.

As for going to war with every country in Europe, the only ones they didn't actually conquer by outright force were the ones who either gave up because they were ineffective against the Germans or were already vassal states to begin with by threat , like Spain. Spain was even forced to send the SS Blue Division to Russia in an attempt to keep some kind of autonomy from Berlin but it didn't help much. War is politics by another means, even if it's just the threat of war.

England was warred on by the Germans, just not conquered. Only the Russians stopped the Germans cold, but that's a bit outside Europe, so who's left? The two neutral countries? The Germans found them useful or they would've been taken too.

The Tripartite Act between the Axis Powers contains descriptions of the spheres of influence between the three Axis Powers. The only countries not in those are the US and Russia. That sure sounds like Germany had plans on world conquest. It was signed in Sept 1940. Long before Barbarossa, the Crete Invasion, Malta, and expansion into Africa. Hmmmmmmm.

Sig.Hirsch
12-17-2004, 12:50 AM
ich denke daß wir sprechen mit einer wand , aber...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We in the US have had this terrorist **** going on for too long. When I was in the Air Force in the early 80's I was told in training to make sure I didn't carry my military ID on my person while flying in a foreign country because otherwise I'd be singled out by terrorists. The club in Berlin was bombed by them while I was still in training and I remember the cheers all over when we heard our President was bombing the Libyan instigator (who now has finally admitted it!).

Remember the Achilles Lauro? The Black Septemberists? The Munich massacre? The hijackings, the 747 dropped out of the sky over Scotland? Kidnappings all over the world? The beheadings of peopel trying rebuild Iraq (even a CARE worker?!)? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Honestly ,about your justification of war : could you look in the eyes the family of the 125.000 (!) (how many 09/11 is that ?) innocent dead people in Iraq since 2002 , and tell them that their mother , children etc.. were killed because of that ?

I wouldn't have the nerves to for myself , but anyway , it's not the place to talk about this , cause these things are not as simple as one might think , think about strategic aims, think about oil , think about Israeli/Palestinian conflict , think about China in 20 years which will need 4 times its actual needs in oil , think about Iran etc...

What is done is done, you're there , so be it , i hope the fact you got rid of their dictator , will help them to rebuild a brighter future , because this country is a complete mess currently and US soldiers are still dying there for Nothing evry day and it's sad , i wouldn't want to be the father of those lads http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

civildog
12-17-2004, 01:18 AM
Yes I would. Because I believe that the Iraqi people understand what is at stake in their country more than most give them credit for. And after seeing the news reports of the gassing of the Kurds I was ashamed that we didn't do anything about that.

I would you this: if we had known the level of the death and havoc Saddam was wreaking on his people, and did nothing but tell them "oh well, it's your problem not ours." could you ever look in the eyes of the mothers, children, fathers whose relatives were tortured, killed, forced to watch it, have children imprisoned, on and on? That was all part of the problem, too, since that regime helped support the terrorism worldwide. It paid mony to the families who supplied suicide bobmbers to blow up kids in Israel.

The enemy hid among innocents knowing that civilian casualties would help turn world opinion against us and in their favor.

You're right, it's complicated. But we do the best we can to do the right thing. The problem is that while we do everything humanly possible in war to prevent innocent deaths the enemy tries to increase those deaths to use against us. Like when they blew up those kids getting candy from the soldiers last summer.

See, as a cop I have unique perspective on that sort of thing, too. When a bad guy gets shot we are pounded by the media for not trying to take him alive. Never mind that the guy may have killed others, or was trying to kill the cop, the bottom line is always that we should've have done better. Bad guys exploit that, I've seen it.

I see this as very similar. The bad guys behead innocent people and we don't hear any real outrage. Some US soldiers (or Iraqi) die or are wounded because they clear a building rather than simply level it and risk killing innocent people and guess what? Some civilians still get killed and the Marines are villified for it.

Same no win situation. I think some of it has to do with the fact that too many people watch too much TV and believe the world works like the movies. Cops should hit the bad guy in the leg and take him alive every time (works in the movies) and the military has Rambo types that shoot magic guns that only hit the enemy. Even when that enemy hides behind women and children.

My reasons as stated could be clearer. It's not just that we are sick and tired and angry and hurt enough about the terrorists who have only attack Americans. It's that America has always tried to spread the freedom we have to those who want it or are oppressed. We never ask for much in return, and except for commercial interest we don't stay long. The examples I cited were not just American victims, but someone has to make a stand and do something about it and it's been the US most often.

I guess after being attacked on our soil for the first time since 1814 made us remember that.

civildog
12-17-2004, 02:02 AM
I don't think the world is so bad. I like chinese food and sometimes the French make good cheese and good movies. Oh, and I love British TV: Black Adder is the best!

But seriously...I guess Nationalism and Patriotism (not to mention speaking the truth even if it offends the political correct) is only allowed outside the US.

civildog
12-17-2004, 02:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:
I don't think the world is so bad. I like chinese food and sometimes the French make good cheese and good movies. Oh, and I love British TV: Black Adder is the best!

But seriously...I guess Nationalism and Patriotism (not to mention speaking the truth even if it offends the political correct) is only allowed outside the US. One man's propaganda is another man's opinion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Luftwaffe_109
12-17-2004, 02:14 AM
At least you have turned to discussing some facts rather than the airey-fairey stuff you were talking about before.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I quite clearly linked the primary causes starting with the Franco-Prussian War. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Franco-Prussian War as one of the primary causes of WWII? You must be kidding. It was ONE of the factors that led to WWI (it created much enmity between the French and German peoples and a wish by the French to recover the provice of Alsace-Lorraine and so could be said to be ONE factor that lead to WWI). To say that it resulted in WWII is as pointless as saying that the rise of nationalism and tension in the Balkans or Britains naval arms race with Germany or the complicated serieses of alliances before WWI were primary causes behind WWII.

What you can rather argue is that the aftermath of WWI (and especially Versailles) very much contributed to WWII. Honestly, I cant see what point discussing the causes of WWI really has to do with the causes of WWII, except of course what I stated as in: WWI set the scene for WWII.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Rearmament - Germany was restricted by the Treaty of Versailles to have an army of no more than 100.000 men and to have no air force. Between 1933 and 1935 Hitler started to secretly increase the size of the army from 100,000 men to 300,000 men. He built 1000 new aircraft and secretly trained his pilots at civilian flying clubs. By March 1935 Hitler had the new air force, the Luftwaffe, with 2500 planes and an army of 300,000 men. The Condor Legion of the Luftwaffe was to receive valuable training in the Spanish Civil War. He was strong enough to rearm in public and started to increase the size of the army to 550,000 men.

Navy - In 1935 the British government signed an agreement with Germany to allow her to have one third the tonnage of the British navy. Another breech of the Treaty of Versailles, since Germany was restricted to 36 ships.

Rhineland - The Treaty of Versailles had made the Rhineland a demilitarized zone. In March 1936, Hitler moved his army into the Rhineland and France and Britain did nothing.

Anschluss with Austria - Germany had been forbidden to make and alliance with Austria according to the Treaty of Versailles. In 1938. Through political maneuverings and threats Hitler was able to unite the German peoples of Germany and Austria again. Again the world powers did nothing.

Czechoslovakia - The Sudenland section of Czechoslovakia contained a majority of German people. Hitler threatened war and accused the government of Czechoslovakia of mistreating the Germans within the country. Rather than face war a meeting was held in Munich. Appeasement was the word of the day. Hitler was given the German speaking section of Czechoslovakia.

Poland - Hitler wanted Poland. The only country in place to stop him was the USSR. Hitler signed a non-aggression pact with Stalin so that when he invaded Poland he would face no opposition. On September 1, 1939 Hitler's troops invaded Poland. World War Two had begun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All of this is true but none of it indicates aims at global domination.

What it indicates instead are quite clear aims, the claiming of territories where German minorities resided, the renounciation of the Versailles treaty which mould restore Germany's prestige and place of emminance as a major (or perhaps the major power) in Europe both militarily and economically.

Nothing you have said suggest anything more that Hitler wanted a Germany that could rival the Soviet Union, the US and Britain on the world stage.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> France - Hilter moved on France in 1940 and pushed the British defenders into the sea at Dunkirk. Even Hitler said the only reason he really wanted France was because of the Treaty of Versaille and he made the capitulation signing in the same railcar used in WW1 to sign the Versaille Treaty. He also hoped to co-opt the French Navy (thankfully destroyed by the British right away) and it gave him greater leverage against Spain should that country prove recalcitrant. He now started plans for Operation SeaLion against England. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry, once the war starts desicions come to be decided primarily on issues of Grand Strategy and you can't argue any "master plan".

Simply, Germany was now at war and the Nazi's would do anything in their means to try to win it. To suggest that events which occured during the war (eg. invasion of France, invasion of the Low Countries and Norway and Denmark, war in the Mediterranean, etc) were conceived much earlier and not in responce to war is fanciful and furthermore you have no proof. Fact is all these conflicts have causes as well but these are to be found primarily in the strategic meetings held at the General Staff.

This is not to say that Germany did not conceive a war with France and Britain wouldn't eventually come (he knew it would, as a vieing for suppremacy in Europe was inevitable. Of course, this was hopped to occur much later). Basically, Hitler inteded to wage agressive war, but certainly not on the extent that certain fools believe (ie. to conquer the world)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Even Hitler said the only reason he really wanted France was because of the Treaty of Versaille and he made the capitulation signing in the same railcar used in WW1 to sign the Versaille Treaty. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Only reason? Sure. I suppose that the fact that he had a nation on his borders who was at war with him and could act as a springboard for combined invasion by British/French forces never entered into his mind in the least, eh?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> He also hoped to co-opt the French Navy (thankfully destroyed by the British right away) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong, it was not destroyed right away. The French Navy continued to maintain a perilous independence after the fall of France.

It was bound by Treaty to protect France's overseas colonies, committed to obeying the Vichy government, and secretly ordered not to let its ships fall into either German or Allied hands. It was also under fairly frequent Allied attack.
The French Navy ultimately fought the British at Mers El Kebir and at Dakar and also opposed "Operation Torch".

I suggest you read up a bit on history.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> As for any "neocon bs" it sounds like you are certainly letting a lot of your political preconceptions get in the way of your reasoning. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, then, let me make a "comparison" for you and you can see how useful (or otherwise) it is to the study of history:

"There is one difference," Gustave Gilbert pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars. [emphasis mine, most people know why]"

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country," said Hermann Goering.

Now what Goering says rings true, and is the exact tactic being used now by the Neocons in Washington. Do you still like comparing to completely different things?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The reason the REST of the world went to war against them was because for some strange reason the rest of the world thought that was wrong. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Romantic rubbish... believe this if you want but there are far more tangible reasons for why the Allies went to war then this. A nation NEVER does what is "right", ONLY what is in its interests.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If the majority of Germans hadn't voted <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This shows your utter ignorance of WWII. The Germans NEVER voted in a majority for Hitler. Even after he came to power, despite widespread intimidation, coercion and propaganda the NSDAP NEVER got a majority of the vote.

You know just as much about the Nazi's rise to power in Germany as you do about anything else regarding WWII.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> the reason the Germans went to North Africa and the Med wasn't to bail out the Italians, it was to expand into the oil fields of the Middle East and lock the British out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this was the only reason then why was it only ever treated as a sideshow and so little German troops were sent there? I agree it was A reason but certainly not the only reason.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Hitler had no faith in the Italian's abilities from the beginning, he just found them useful to bloody the British in those areas until he could mass his forces there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hitler did not dictate what Commando Supremo did, at least not early in the war. Or are you unaware that he knew nothing of the Italian campaign into Greece until after it started?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The Nazis sent troops as far east as India to see what could be had in those regions as well.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is rubbish, the German army never got anywhere near India. The closest they ever got was the Caucusus, but that is a long, long way from India.

Been reading Indiana Jones comic books again, lol? (perhaps you refer to an apparent, for I have never been able to identify the veracity of the claim, pre-war propaganda archaological expedition the Nazis funded to find evidence of an "Aryan" race in Tibet. You can rest assured their were no German panzer divisions with that, even if it did ever happen, lol!)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> As for going to war with every country in Europe, the only ones they didn't actually conquer by outright force were the ones who either gave up because they were ineffective against the Germans or were already vassal states to begin with by threat , like Spain. Spain was even forced to send the SS Blue Division to Russia in an attempt to keep some kind of autonomy from Berlin but it didn't help much. War is politics by another means, even if it's just the threat of war.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firstly, you have foolishly forgotten the neutral states.

Secondly, you have forgotten Germany's axis allies.

Thirdly, Spain was never a vasal state. Franco refused to join the war with the axis.

Spain's contribution however was the Azul Division, on Francos own initiative . One of his reasons was to repay Hitler for his assistance in the Spanish Civil War.

More than 45.000 spanish volunteers (Falangists mainly) fought on the Eastern Front between October 1941 and October 1943, when the expeditionary division was withdrawn by Franco (the war was going badly). If he had been "forced" as you claim why was it he was allowed to withdraw.

After this a much smaller the smaller 1,000-1,200-man Legion Azul continued to serve until spring 1944, when it too was withdrawn.

And I must point out that, once more, you have shown your ignorance of WWII. There was no SS Blue Division. The Azul division was NOT SS.

However, after the above mention groups were withdrawn, some Spaniards did volunteer to enlist in the Waffen-SS. These people should not be confuded, however, with the Blue Division, as you have.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The Germans found them useful or they would've been taken too.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would hardly call Switzeland usefull to the Axis, quite the contrary when you consider how it was used by the resistance.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> The Tripartite Act between the Axis Powers contains descriptions of the spheres of influence between the three Axis Powers. The only countries not in those are the US and Russia. That sure sounds like Germany had plans on world conquest. It was signed in Sept 1940. Long before Barbarossa, the Crete Invasion, Malta, and expansion into Africa. Hmmmmmmm. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This contains the tripartite pact. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/triparti.htm

Nowhere does it divide the world up into spheres of influence, though it does mention them. Nowehere in there could I be led to believe that Germany's spheres of influence spread far out of Europe and the East, much less the whole world.

Furthermore, spheres of influence are common to major powers. The US and Soviet Union both had spheres of influence, are you telling me both were bent on conquering the world? I think not.

Finally, you have yet to provide a shred of evidence to suggest that it had designs on Crete, Africa or Malta BEFORE WWII, which changed everything as Germany was now at war.



Since it is obvious you don't posses much knowleged of WWII, I think I'll leave the discussion here, and refuse to respond to any more posts. The fact that I've demolished your entire post, in my opinion, clearly indicates you haven't the faintest idea about WWII at all, much less Nazi leadership aims before or during the war.

Regards Witheld

Luftwaffe_109
12-17-2004, 02:19 AM
Hello Viking,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Lufwaffe and the rest,

Drop this issue! This guy is so full of propaganda that he will never see the reality.
Just say;
USA = good!
The world = bad!
And let him continue his ranting elsewhere.

Viking <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know what, you are right. I guess some people can't believe that there would be anymore depth behind Nazi war aims then "Conquer the World!! muhahahahha!!!"

Or that there is anything else behind Europe's reluctance to go to war with Iraq then "sniveling appeasment by cowards of a clear threat to the whole wide world!!!!"

Oh, and I guess I must be a Nazi for insisting on a little more depth than that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif.

But really I admire the guys nationalistic ignorance, it must be really nice to think that your nation is the sole and righteous protector of the flame of democracy and liberty against the socialist liberal heathens in Europe and the rest of the world, lol!

Best Regards

joeap
12-17-2004, 02:39 AM
QUOTE
This contains the tripartite pact. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/triparti.htm

Nowhere does it divide the world up into speres of influence.

Furthermore, spheres of influence are common to major powers. The US and Soviet Union both had spheres of influence, are you telling me both were bent on conquering the world? I think not.

Finally, you have yet to provide a shred of evidence to suggest that it had designs on Crete, Africa or Malta BEFORE WWII, which changed everything as Germany was now at war.
UNQUOTE



Uhh interesting thread, good arguments (from your part Luftwaffe109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif ), however, it seems to me the Tripartite Pact does talk about something a little more than a "sphere of influence" ..
quote
ARTICLE ONE

Japan recognizes and respects the leadership of Germany and Italy in establishment of a new order in Europe.
ARTICLE TWO

Germany and Italy recognize and respect the leadership of Japan in the establishment of a new order in greater East Asia.

Of course "new order" is not very clear. If you or anyone else can read German would be curious as to the wording in it.

civildog
12-17-2004, 02:42 AM
But my country IS the sole guardian of peace, justice, and democracy in the world. How could you possibly doubt that?

HansKnappstick
12-17-2004, 02:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
In that case NEWS should be given a separate `exempt` status from capitalism and Government involvement so that it can tell the truth...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If it is exempt both from the free market and from the government control, you have to give it to the church.

Another option would be to put it into a void.

But then, there should be someone who controls that it stays in the void.

Jasko76
12-17-2004, 04:13 AM
Perhaps writing another post in this thread is a mistake, but some things need a bit of clarification.

Some of the "terrorist" groups I understand (Palestinians, Chechnyans), but I dislike all of them.

Why did hostage-situation in Beslan happen (and that of Moscow theatre in 2001)? Because of Russia's indiscriminate warfare in Chechnya. I'm NOT supporting terrorists, but believe you me, if someone killed my mother, father, brother, sister, wife, child, reduced my town to rubble, etc, I'd be in a condtition to do anything for some payback.

Why do Arabs dislike (hate) USA? Decades of exploatation of their natural resources (oil), foul play during Cold War, and last and by far the biggest reason is the indiscriminate and unconditional support to Israel, while compromising Palestinians and their land.

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are (pretty) close friends to USA, and therefore generally disliked. In fact, in his latest recording, bin Laden has threatened Saudi Arabia.

So, while I think that terrorists should be put down whenever possible, the big nations (US and Russia) should rethink their foreign policies as well.

There, don't hang me now! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HansKnappstick
12-17-2004, 05:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:
And as for none of this relating to today's events. If you REALLY, and I do mean really, understood anything at all about history you could understand how it all is relevant to today. If you study history as dispassionately as you say you do then you can understand the big picture and how it repeats again and again.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think you can convince him. He is studying "political sciences" in Germany. The very usage of the word "science" to describe politics means that those people do not think in the way of traditional logics. The one and only scientifal phrase one can say about politics is that politicians never learn from history. While this is true for the people in general, it is particularly true for German politicians nowadays.

LeadSpitter_
12-17-2004, 05:12 AM
jeez still not locked yet but every whats going on with olegs post thread is locked immediately?

Sig.Hirsch
12-17-2004, 06:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HansKnappstick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:
And as for none of this relating to today's events. If you REALLY, and I do mean really, understood anything at all about history you could understand how it all is relevant to today. If you study history as dispassionately as you say you do then you can understand the big picture and how it repeats again and again.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think you can convince him. He is studying "political sciences" in Germany. The very usage of the word "science" to describe politics means that those people do not think in the way of traditional logics. The one and only scientifal phrase one can say about politics is that politicians never learn from history. While this is true for the people in general, it is particularly true for German politicians nowadays. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was answering to the member Luftwaffe-109 who's a student in History , but anybody believes what he wants luckily there is freedom of speech .
Political sciences is not taught for becoming politician , the word science applies to the method (Kant ? Descartes ?) , to the general rules to investigate an object of knowledge and actually rationalize it (sorry for english , in case ....).
hmmm , let's take something simpler , you don't study the Economy to become Bill Gates (oops , i don't have the license to quote his name , hope i won't be sued ) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ruy Horta
12-17-2004, 06:17 AM
Luftwaffe_109
Although you might need to focus the issue a little more and not be tempted to broaden the scope of argument (I do it all the time, so pot meet kettle), there is much of what you write which is essentially not far off the mark.

Yet this will lead to attacks of at best revisionism and at worst nazi sympathizing.

Many people want to see the world in simple black&white terms, because that makes it more easy to understand, unfortunately reality is never that simple and some are able to graps with that concept and others are not.

In the end, much on this forum is a question of Pearls before the Swine, why bother to put so much energy into a pointless debate - pointless because it won't contribute to anything.

civildog
12-17-2004, 08:36 AM
A "Political Science" student in Germany, well that's a frightening creature if ever I heard of one. It would explain the thin skin, too.

Ruy Horta
12-17-2004, 10:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CivilDog:
A "Political Science" student in Germany, well that's a frightening creature if ever I heard of one. It would explain the thin skin, too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why are you attacking this man on a personal basis?

What is wrong with studying political science?

What is wrong with being german?

Perhaps you feel that he might actually be your intelectual superior and that you need to denigrade him in order to get back on a level playing field?

Stick to the issues, not the person.

civildog
12-17-2004, 12:56 PM
I have been sticking to the subject but the only refutations this guy could come up with was to repeatedly call me a fool and neocon idiot. That sounds pretty personal to me.

He refuses to see any other point of view even when factual and dismisses historical facts because they don't fit in his weltenschaun.

I don't recall that he ever said he was a German, and i never attacked him as such. I merely pointed out repeatedly (and he refuses to accept said fact) that the German people started WW2 and it's attendant atrocities, not just a few madmen. They started it by tacitly approving the policies of those madmen and have since paid the price. The German people have been stand up enough to make atonement and change what was needed to try to ensure it never happens again. It's not "comic book" history (which this "intellectual" maintains we Americans believe in) to point out the Germans have a lousey track record for starting world wars.

Nothing wrong with political science but it was German political science, and the lack of ethical/moral restraint in it, that killed millions in WW2. I was making an ironic observation.

Finally, while it may seem ok for a lot of people to routinely bash Americans, the USA, and individuals who point out the truth about the way some things really work in the world, you Europeans sure get upset when anyone dares question your opinions. You can't have it both ways and say you are so intellectual and superior while at the same time calling people stupid and downmouthing their country.

horseback
12-17-2004, 01:34 PM
Since we're going to talk about Political Science, let's talk about what it is. Stripped down, Poli Sci is about Who Gets What and How, from a governmental perspective.

An embarrassingly long time ago in college, I took Economics 101, Sociology 101, and Political Science 101, all in the same semester. To my shock and consternation, I realized that each class was the same subject, but the answers were changed due to the perspective of the course (and the professor).

Economics said that everything could be measured by Profit and Loss (I'm really simplifying it here, so you nitpickers should hold your horses until you get my point-assuming I have one), and Sociology said that things are determined by Cultural Imperatives (what's best for our society), and both, like Poli Sci, are only partially right.

Historians don't always take all the factors into account, whether for the sake of brevity, ignorance (not necessarily a condemnation-you can't know everything) or prejudice (example-some of my professors were devoutly atheist, and insisted that every major religious movement had some economic or nationalistic motivation. They couldn't fathom the concept of genuine belief in God or Scriptural Truth, particularly in the Christian tradition, causing a great change in behavior or attitude in a populace).

The following is grossly simplified for brevity, and there are many specific instances that are exceptions, but in general, I think this:

For the West, the years between the World Wars saw a philosophical/political competition which expressed itself in the creation of the Fascist/National-Socialist movements and International Communism to compete with the traditional Western Liberalism, which had taken a horrific beating in the First World War, based as it was largely on Christianity (let's start with the "...all men are created equal in the sight of God" premise and go from there). The vast amounts of lives and material destroyed for no apparent good reason by supposedly civilized countries made many question the concept of a loving (or any) Supreme Being, and "God and Country" had taken on a hollow sound.

Simply put, the Fascist/Nazi types maintained that Might makes Right. If I'm strong enough to take it from you, it should be mine, it really is mine, and you better give it to me if you know what's good for you. Events and perceptions can and should be manipulated to intimidate the weak and deceive the possibly strong and prevent others from uniting against me until I'm powerful enough to dominate everybody else. In short, the strong rule and the weak serve and take direction from the strong.

Communism is a little more refined in the sense that the ultimate stated goal is getting the 'people' all the fruits of their labor and ending 'exploitation.' Everyone is equal, and therefore equally deserving. In pursuit of this ideal, any and all tactics are condoned, because it is for the greater good. In practice, particularly when directed from the Soviet Union, there wasn't that much difference from the Fascists/Nazis in tactics or foreign policy. Essentially, there wasn't that much to choose between either group and your average gang of neighborhood bullies.

These philosophies were very appealing to peoples in economic or ethical distress, and there was plenty of both in the 1920s.

At the same time, the Western Liberal concepts were undergoing a major transition. All those European colonization efforts were supposedly justified by the idea of bringing (Christian) civilization to the Great Unwashed of the world. After the Great War, the natives were restless, many of them wondering when the hell the white men were going to give them the blessings of Western Civilization, let them rule themselves again and go back to the places where wool suits were necessary.

At the same time, a lot of nations on the 'winning' side were struggling with the concept of having to follow through with their stated noble objectives and giving up the wealth and convenience of Empire. Realization that even though their skins were different, and not all of them had become Christians, those other folks were still men no less capable, and no less deserving of self determination was beginning to dawn in the West. Some were doggedly determined to ignore this rude idea, while others pointed out the hypocrisy and selfishness of the whole 'Empire' thing in a democratic society.

The ones embracing the continuation of Empire building tended to embrace the Fascist ideal, and those of the extreme liberal persuasion went towards Socialism or in extreme cases, communism.

In Britain and America, the realization that their foreign holdings had an expiration date had been accepted, particularly since opposing it would lead to more war and bloodshed.

In fact, a lot of the general sentiment seems to have been that the West was in decline, and that all the bloodshed and horror of the War to End All Wars had been for nothing, since the concept and powers the war had been fought over were going to dissipate eventually anyway. The best thing to do was to avoid any further conflict and try to sink slowly as possible until the more vigorous peoples and philosophies took over.

It is into this apparent vacuum that the communists and fascists tried to insert themselves.

The Fascists/ Nazis may not have had overt plans to take over the world, but it is clear that they had the expectation that the rest of the world would follow their philosophical/political lead and establish National Socialist governmets and 'spheres of influence', of which their own, being first and strongest, would be at the least, First among equals. They saw communism as their greatest opposition, and made its destruction one of their primary goals.

Obviously, the communists took much the same attitude towards Fascists, and both discounted the 'discredited' democratic liberal movement.

In WWII, the democratic movement and communism choked off the Fascist philosophy, and in the Cold War, the evolution of democracy and capitalism simply ran communism into the ground.

It was not just a matter of dollars and cents, or cultural conceptions of Good vs Evil, or politics, but a combination of these things that led to the current state of affairs. Today, there seems to me to be competition between a socialistic 'Mommy-State' philosophy and a 'government is only good for building roads and defending the populace' mindset.

Chew on that for a while kids.

cheers

horseback

Sig.Hirsch
12-17-2004, 05:03 PM
LOL , you guys are smoking pot or what ??

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I have been sticking to the subject but the only refutations this guy could come up with was to repeatedly call me a fool and neocon idiot. That sounds pretty personal to me.

He refuses to see any other point of view even when factual and dismisses historical facts because they don't fit in his weltenschaun.

I don't recall that he ever said he was a German, and i never attacked him as such. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again , it was Luftwaffe_109 you were talking with , not me lol (i'm not crazy to discuss that in details here lol)

lol Horseback , thanks for your modesty and sharing your thoughts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
indeed welfare state / non-interventionist state is an interesting subject, but why do you speak of it , all of a sudden , i thought it wasn't the subject http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Luftwaffe_109
12-17-2004, 10:27 PM
Hello Ruy Horta,

Yes, I agree with you about not broadening the scope of the argument. My initial problem was only with what I saw as the dumbing down what was an extremly complex conflict into a nonesense comical bid to take over the world (which I have yet to see any proof of). Everything else I mentioned was in responce to delibretly tangental arguments raised by CivilDog, which, to my detriment, I was fooled into answering.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Yet this will lead to attacks of at best revisionism and at worst nazi sympathizing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe amongst the uniformed, however amongst my collegues I would be laughed at for trying to make such baseless conclusions as what others here have done. Complexity is always more benifitial then deliberate simplification, and much more nearer the mark in describing a situaltion acurately. Also, amongst my colleagues I never have my analysis of the aims or objectives of certain military or political entities confused with MY opinions. To tell you the truth, I cant for the life of me understand why this happens amongst others.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Many people want to see the world in simple black&white terms, because that makes it more easy to understand, unfortunately reality is never that simple and some are able to graps with that concept and others are not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree.


Hello CivilDog,
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> A "Political Science" student in Germany, well that's a frightening creature if ever I heard of one. It would explain the thin skin, too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am not German nor am I studying in Germany, not that I see what relevence my nationality has. Please stop with these jingoistic taunts.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I have been sticking to the subject but the only refutations this guy could come up with was to repeatedly call me a fool and neocon idiot. That sounds pretty personal to me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is certainly the pot calling the kettle back after you undeservedly labled me a nazi sympathiser and hitler apologist. I asked you to keep the conversation civil and yet you refused.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> He refuses to see any other point of view even when factual and dismisses historical facts because they don't fit in his weltenschaun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have found the flaws in all your reasoning and provided proof to back it up, you have failed to cast doubt on any of my reasoning, nor have you managed to defend your views. I have also pointed out your many factual flaws (eg. Azul Division being SS, NSDAP ever getting a majority vote, etc). So don't try to say you have a leg to stand on.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I merely pointed out repeatedly (and he refuses to accept said fact) that the German people started WW2 and it's attendant atrocities, not just a few madmen. They started it by tacitly approving the policies of those madmen and have since paid the price. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's your opinion and you are welcome to it. I, on the other hand, do not believe in collective guilt. If an individual was guilty of a crime then the individual should be blamed, not the nation or every member of an organisation.

Or do you blame the entire US Armed Forces, no the entire nation, for waging war in Vietnam and the atrocities that some commited there (eg. My Lai)??

Yes, many did fall for the propaganda, many refused to resist a criminal organisation (Although many did not, heared of the white rose? Fact is, opposition to the Nazis did exist, simply it was crushed ruthlessly, remember that the first victims of the concentration camps were political prisoners). To suggest this makes them culpable for the crimes (nothwistanding the fact that many may have been ignorent of most of them) the reigime commited is as foolish as saying every Iraqi, even those who were persecuted by the Baathist regime, is responcible for its crimes.

Also, if I were you I'd be very careful of gross generalisations and blaming an entire people for something. Remember that this type of tactic is exactly that used so insidiously by Hitler.

Anyway, lets agree to disagree.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It's not "comic book" history (which this "intellectual" maintains we Americans believe in) to point out the Germans have a lousey track record for starting world wars. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
All parties were at least partially to blame for WWI, not only Germany. Examine the factors that led to war and you will see, the flashpoint did not even have anything to do with Germany, but between Austria-Hungary and Serbia. All of them were itching for war prior to 1914 due to their nationalist rivalries, so you can't pin it all on the Germans. WWII on the other hand can be said to have come about primarily through Hitler. Of course to say that everyone was itching for war in Germany is absurd.

Take the General Staff for example. There was significant opposition to Hitler's moves during the Munich Crisis that almost led to a coup attempt, though several generals lost their nerves for it before it materialised. Another example was right before Hitler's invasion of France, where many were unwilling to open hostilities in the west (and end the "phoney war") and instead hoped that the war could petter out and peace be restored. Once again, an armed coup was considered by the large anti-Hitler element within the Wehrmact. It never materialised.

Also I will mention the single example of Fritsch, C-in-C of the Wehrmact and very much opposed to Hitler's policies of aggerssive rearmament and aims to fighting a war of agression in the east, for fear of provoking the West. He was deposed in 38 after fraudulent homosexuality charges were created.

There are numerous other anti-Nazi generals that you can research (many of which took part in the July plot) and I recommend Barnett's excellent Hitler's Generals as a good introduction to some of them (though it doesn't deal exculisvly with them).

Read some history, it is no where near as black and white as you believe.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Nothing wrong with political science but it was German political science, and the lack of ethical/moral restraint in it, that killed millions in WW2. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No nation considers ethics or morality in politics, only its own interests.


Hello joeap,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Of course "new order" is not very clear. If you or anyone else can read German would be curious as to the wording in it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Unfourtunately I can't read German, however from the translation I think you can deduce that Germany was planing to dominate Europe, with perhaps Italy extending it spehere of influence into the Mediterranean (as indeed they attempted to do with Mussolinis abortive offensives into Greece and towards Egypt). Basically, they wished to radically transform the political makeup fo Europe.

I doubt Germany had design on conquering any territory in the West, although I don't doubt that he wished to dominate it both military and through show of strength of force. My reasons are two-fold:

1. Hitler offered peace to the Anglo-French coalition after the successful campaign Fall Weis (in Poland). Of course his demands were completly unacceptable, he refused to vacate any of the territory that Germany had occupied in Poland or Czechoslovakia, which was what the western allies demanded returned to their rightful owners. It is hard to say whether his peace offer was real (for certainly he knew the western allies would never accept the conditions) though I think it does show he was not interested in fighting the west if he didn't need to.

2. Hitler had always made clear that Germany's territorial expansion would be to the East, against Russia. Here he would find his "lebensraum", which he stated in the early 30's would be "ruthlessly Germanised" during a speech to army leaders. I think that shows that his eyes where turned east, not west, and that it was here that he would find the reasorces and markets to found his "thousand year reich".

Also evidence is his talk with Goering in 36 that Germany must defeate Soviet Russia.

Finally, I will mention a meeting 5/11/37, at Berchtesgaden, where he told Blomberg, Fritsch, Raeder, Goering and von Neurath that, "Germany would have to aquire Ledensraum in eastern Europe by military force, commencing 43 at the latest, exploiting as far as possible the tensions between Britain, France and Italy." For the record, Blomberg and Fritsch voiced vocal oposition.

Basically I think he had a grandiose scheme of a massive central European and eastern empire, but certainly I see no reason to think he had designs on expanding anywhere else, as even this dream that he had was unfeasable in itself (can you imagine the huge drain on the military in order to garrison such large areas of Russia in the face of the huge partisan activity that occured there, let alone the fact that the west would neve let Hitler's bid for conquest in the East go unopposed)?

Japan is another matter, simply she wanted a large empire with which to gain the raw materials and markets to become a world military power, resources she lacked. This was especially true in light of the costly campaign in China that she had been fighting at the time, for the same reasons.

Best Regards to all

25th_Orwell-84
12-22-2004, 11:05 PM
Reading this objectivly, I have come to the conclusion that LUFT WINS. so you can now stop arguing.

Bottom line is, Hitler wasn't trying to take over the world, he was trying to create a european superstate.

It would have eventually evolved into a world of 3 powers
1) Sino-Russia
2) Europe as a super state
3) the America's

worst case, hitler would have been stopped here

HansKnappstick
12-23-2004, 01:28 AM
where did you get this Sino-Russia from?

The strategic goal of both Germany and Japan was to cripple Russia and grab as much land of it as possible. Japan also wanted to subjugate China.

MO_JOJO
12-23-2004, 01:31 AM
Huh, what? Where am I????

Oh, frag_bravo asked something about CNN.

If CNN had been in theater covering the war, I don't think anyone would have know, since the TV was not in many homes at the time. And if they covered that war the way they have more recent conflicts, the American people would have beat the shiite out of those lefty bass-turds.

Okay...you may continue. I'm going to bed.

HansKnappstick
12-23-2004, 01:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by horseback:
(...) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Horseback, I agree totally with your post, with the only exceptions:

the subjects mentioned by you (economy, sociology, political "science", history) are not sciences, because their theories do not use the strict mathematical reasoning. Also, there are no experiments possible to conduct and repeat in controled conditions in order to falsify the theories. In fact, the very result of the biggest sociological and economical experiment, which was the communism, is being constantly ignored by economists, politicians (esp. European ones), sociologists, and many forum members.

25th_Orwell-84
12-23-2004, 03:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HansKnappstick:
where did you get this Sino-Russia from?

The strategic goal of both Germany and Japan was to cripple Russia and grab as much land of it as possible. Japan also wanted to subjugate China. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah but what Germany and Japan WANTED to do and what they WOULD do are different things.
(Example: Germany WANTED to win the war, but they LOST.)

Japan wouldn't have taken a serious amount of China. Germany would not have taken serious amounts of Russia.

Then (presuming Germany held off the western attack and ended their eastern attack) Russia and China would have started helping eachother out after 5 or so years. Europe would have slowly become a consolodated entity (at least in terms of GDP) and the Americas and Briton would have built up their forces.

Then you would have what George Orwell invisaged in "1984":

3 Super States.
1) Eurasia (Asia and East Russia Northern Africa)
2) EastAsia (West Russia and Europe Southern Africa)
3) The America's and Briton

I've been up for like 23 hours, don't flame me, I'm just puttin my 2 cents in.

PF RULES w00t!

SkyPiggies
12-23-2004, 05:58 AM
Why Can't We All Just Get Along http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Luftwaffe_109
12-23-2004, 08:58 AM
I see that this topic has been resurrected. It's late, so I'll be brief.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> he was trying to create a european superstate <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where does this notion come from? It would be more accurate simply to say that he wanted to be both militarily and economically the dominant power in Europe. He also had grandious and far-fetched schemes of taking back all the "Germanic" lands (ie. occupy the Rhineland, Anschluss with Austria, take the Sudetenland, take parts of Poland) and colonising areas to the east for "lebensraum". There is no evidence I see of him wanting a "european superstate", even if it was feasible, which I doubt.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Russia and China would have started helping eachother out after 5 or so years. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is no reason to believe that this would happen. There is even less reason to believe that they would have formed a "superstate".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Then you would have what George Orwell invisaged in "1984":

3 Super States.
1) Eurasia (Asia and East Russia Northern Africa)
2) EastAsia (West Russia and Europe Southern Africa)
3) The America's and Briton
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is pure fantasy. Also, it seems you misunderstood the purpose of 1984. It was not to write an alternative history of the aftermath of WWII but instead to detail how the perfect totalitarian state could work.

Using it as the basis of your alternative timeline is problematic at best.

Regards

Chuck_Older
12-23-2004, 02:04 PM
If CNN had existed in the '30s and '40s, we would also have the requisite technology appearing in the '30s and '40s.

Human nature hasn't changed, but the way it's manipulated has

ploughman
12-23-2004, 03:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> [h]e wanted to be both militarily and economically the dominant power in Europe...There is no evidence I see of him wanting a "european superstate", even if it was feasible, which I doubt. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No evidence? Not feasible? Just look at a map of Nazi dominated Europe for 1942. It extends from the Pyrenese to the banks of the Volga. I'm not saying it was super, but...definately feasible and very definately real. Not to mention first or second hand ownership of North Africa from Algeria to Eygpt plus Vichy Syria and Lebanon which had to be won back with blood.

Now if you want to suggest that the Axis powers accidentally or unintentionally invaded or otherwise subjugated virutally the whole of the European continenant as well as North Afica and the bulk of the Levant, be my guest.

civildog
12-23-2004, 03:34 PM
Ploughman...

yes, that's exactly what he thinks happened. Read his previous posts on this thread. And strangely enough, there are others that believe him.

I've already tried to get him to see the light, but I fear he's too much a product of today's revisionist, politically-correct education system to understand reality anymore.

25th_Orwell-84
12-23-2004, 04:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
I see that this topic has been resurrected. It's late, so I'll be brief.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> he was trying to create a european superstate <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Where does this notion come from? It would be more accurate simply to say that he wanted to be both militarily and economically the dominant power in Europe. He also had grandious and far-fetched schemes of taking back all the "Germanic" lands (ie. occupy the Rhineland, Anschluss with Austria, take the Sudetenland, take parts of Poland) and colonising areas to the east for "lebensraum". There is no evidence I see of him wanting a "european superstate", even if it was feasible, which I doubt.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Russia and China would have started helping eachother out after 5 or so years. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is no reason to believe that this would happen. There is even less reason to believe that they would have formed a "superstate".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Then you would have what George Orwell invisaged in "1984":

3 Super States.
1) Eurasia (Asia and East Russia Northern Africa)
2) EastAsia (West Russia and Europe Southern Africa)
3) The America's and Briton
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is pure fantasy. Also, it seems you misunderstood the purpose of _1984_. It was not to write an alternative history of the aftermath of WWII but instead to detail how the perfect totalitarian state could work.

Using it as the basis of your alternative timeline is problematic at best.

Regards <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Luft i know, 1984 is my favorite book. I was just trying to say that the geography of the world 1984 occurs is similar to what would have eventually happend.

The book was published in 1945. So while he was writing 1984, the idea of three superstates was probably feasble to him. And it seems like it could have been a possibility.

Luft, I'm not arguing with you, I've read your posts and I think your very articulate and obviously well read.

I know Mao had severe ideological differences with moscow on their implementation of communisim. However, I belive that in a war of attrition, they would eventually discover that they possessed shared enemies and shared interests. Thus they would form a loose alliance which could grow into a more serious dimplomatic relationship.

I didn't exrpress myself properly when i said Hitler sought a "super state."

I feel that a superstate would have evolved from his consumption of territory. It was probably not a "goal" of his, but the though HAD to have occured to him.

I don't think he wanted to take over the world like our "history" books like to postulate. He wanted to acheive certain geopolitical goals, yes. Geopolitical goals inherently include the control of territoy, labor and resource. When Hitler obtained these and consolidated them into a large infrastruture, there would be a European superstate.

I'm not 100% on the russian front, but it is my understanding that Russia relocated it's industrial centers away from german bomber range, allowing Russia to ramp up industrial production unthreatened. If this was the case, Russia was just begining to for it's force as the war was winding down. Would they not have stopped the Germans at a certain geographical chokepoint where a boundry would eventually form?

I really find the idea of 3 superstates (perhaps less all-encompassing as Orwells geography)feasable. Because there would be an equilibrium reached where all sides would "be happy" territorially.

We are seeing Europe form a superstate now(however shakey), and Europe destiny will most certainly include a degree of economic and cultural homogenization. So why is it so impossible to imagine it happening 60 years ago?

Okay so thats that...
Now Luft, I have a question. Don't get mad @ me! This is Flame bait..
I would just like to know about this:

WWII was being fought for 2 years before America joined. Britain was getting their *** beat. Britain pleaded with America to join the effort. Charles Lindburg toured the U.S. promoting American Isolationalism, insisting that America not join the battle in Europe. The American jewish community was lobbying America to join the war effort and Lindy even uttered anti-semetic remarks to that community, telling them basically "shut up or you'll get it." (paraphrasing of course)
I remember watching one of these lindburg speeches and was amazed at the applause he got. There is evidence Churchill knew pearl harbor was going to happen but witheld the information because he knew it would force America into the war. Why didn't America just fight in the pacific theater? Why did they join the European war effort?

Luftwaffe_109
12-23-2004, 06:57 PM
Looks that I am being dragged back into this quagmire of a thread, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> No evidence? Not feasible? Just look at a map of Nazi dominated Europe for 1942. It extends from the Pyrenese to the banks of the Volga. I'm not saying it was super, but...definately feasible and very definately real. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This was definitely the case, though I hope I don€t need to stress that not all areas in between were Nazi occupied. For example there were the neutral states, the co-belligerents and the axis allies. But yes, Nazi Germany occupied large areas of Europe at this stage, that is plain to see.

What I have, however, demonstrated earlier in this thread is that the Nazi leadership had certainly never invisaged this as its war-aims pre-war. Its eyes were tunrned east, as I have shown with numerous evidence (just look back). Perhaps you can show even one piece of evidence that Germany had designs on taking France, or going to Greece or to North Africa?

No, because the fact is that, when war began, issues of strategy and the question of how to beat the enemy became more important. There are reasons why all these regions were invaded, but they are mainly in the realm of how to defeat the nations that Germany was at war with at the time. To illustrate my point, the western allies needed to invade Europe in order to defeat Germany. They did this by landing in Italy and in France. Do you think that either of these were war aims pre-war of the US or Britian?

No, to show the aims of a certain group it is not sufficient to show what happened later after the situation changed. Instead you need to provide speeches, documents, war-plans, etc, that show what the leadership wished to do. Simply there is nothing that show Hitler had the grandious plans that you an others seem to atribute to him. If you like to see my reasoning behind this, you can check my posts earlier in the thread. Nobody has faulted them yet.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> yes, that's exactly what he thinks happened. Read his previous posts on this thread. And strangely enough, there are others that believe him.

I've already tried to get him to see the light, but I fear he's too much a product of today's revisionist, politically-correct education system to understand reality anymore. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Instead of just insulting me, how about you try to fault the arguments I give?



Hello 25th_Orwell-84,

Firstly, let me say I am glad that you agree with me that Germany never had aims (even in her wildest dreams) which approach the levels that certain "comic-book" historians in this thread have suggested. She certainly had grandious aims yes (basically to occupy all areas where "volksdeutch" minorities resided and then to seize large pieces of territory in the east of her natural enemy, the Soviet Union, in the proccess becoming the dominant power in Europe economically and militarily), but I think we have disucssed what these were at length and can move on to a different discussion.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I was just trying to say that the geography of the world 1984 occurs is similar to what would have eventually happend. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well I must say I disagree here, because for what you say to happen the war would have had to have gone in exactly the right way, and even then you are "leading" the course of history by making certain arbitrary decisions for the nations (eg. a strong alliance between China and the Soviet Union) which may not have happened. All this is needed to set up the situation you show. Its an interesting thought (politically) but I must say unlikely, in my opinion.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I know Mao had severe ideological differences with moscow on their implementation of communisim. However, I belive that in a war of attrition, they would eventually discover that they possessed shared enemies and shared interests. Thus they would form a loose alliance which could grow into a more serious dimplomatic relationship. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about the fact that Mao was also fighting at the time with Chiang Kei-shek and the Kuomintang as well as Japanese forces? What happens in your alternative timeline to rectify the fact that the leaders of China were fighting against gurrilas with similar ideologies and receiving support from the very people who you say they would have allied with?

So who exactly do you say the Soviet Union would have allied with. The communists? or the KMT?

Remember that Soviet aid to the KMT had ended by October 1941 after the Russo-German war broke out and also remember that the Soviets signed a non-aggession treaty with Japan (so as to be able to free up troops from Siberia in order to use in the war with Germany).

I think it unlikely that Russia would wish to open up a front with Japan while she was ready fighting a war with Germany. Especially after Stalin had gone to such lengths to ensure that Japan wouldn't be a threat to Russia during Russia's war with Germany.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> them into a large infrastruture, there would be a European superstate.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I see, so your idea of a super-state is territories, either controled or allied with, which are used to collectivly put their industrial potential towards fighting the same war? It is not the annexation of territories outright to ones own country? I can agree with that, certainly these territories were needed in order to fight the war.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Russia relocated it's industrial centers away from german bomber range, allowing Russia to ramp up industrial production unthreatened. If this was the case, Russia was just begining to for it's force as the war was winding down. Would they not have stopped the Germans at a certain geographical chokepoint where a boundry would eventually form? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You haven't explained just when or how this deadlock is formed. Are you assuming German success early war (during Operation Typhoon [the assault on Moscow] or during the battle for Stalingrad) or are you assuming Germany somehow managed to hold the Soviet Union off after 1943?


I'll assume that you assume German success in capturing Moscow (because, after all, you said the deadlock would occur when Germany had large territories in Russia). Now... its not certain the the Soviet Union would have still have had the capability or will to continue on after such a calamity.

Firstly, a vast communications and transport hub is destroyed. This would paralyse much of the nation, and proably spell the death of Leningrad to the North as supplies would have even further to travel to get there. Secondly, it would be a vast blow to the moral of the Soviet troops. Thirdly, it would have resulted in the destruction of huge numbers of Soviet troops, as no doubt the USSR would have put everything into the defence of their capital.

In light of such a catastrophe, it seems likely that what remained of the USSR would have sued for peace, or else completly calapsed under further German advances.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Why didn't America just fight in the pacific theater? Why did they join the European war effort? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I guess you could say that the simple answer to this question is that Germans declared war on them after their ally and tripartite pact member Japan also declared war on them. In retrospect one could say this was a mistake for Germany.

I am not sure if the US would have declared war on Germany otherwise, though certainly they were providing much support for Britain even before they were formally at war with Germany.


Best Regards

cpirrmann
12-23-2004, 07:34 PM
When discussing world domination as not being desired by Hitler, let's not forget his dream of racial purity which meant the extermination of all the unter mensch so how could he do this without world domination? People always seem to forget who the evil ones are targeting and killing and why they must be stopped. Why didn't the U.S just fight in the Pacific? Fortunately, Hitler that loveable little painter, declared war on us. Also, let us remind our European friends, that in WWII, a very large percentage of the population were 2nd generation U.S. They had close relatives in ETO and PTO some of who were being slaughtered, imprisoned, raped, or anything else you could imagine and some you probably couldn't. Something seems to set America apart from the 'old' countries and I'm not sure what, but why do immigrants volunteer to fight for our country? They've done so in all of our wars since 1776. What do people who left or fled other countries to come to America know or feel that the rest of us don't?

I would like to say this to the board members. Those of us who fly in RL or are veterans have learned something that you all should consider. Propaganda, media, governments aside, as pilots (real or sim or both) and as warriors (veterans or sim) we all share a common bond that transcends politics, religion, world views and even national pride. We do things others cannot and cannot imagine what they are missing. I won't quote 'High Flight' but I thin it says it all. German and British pilots become fast friends after the war, Japanese pilots are invited to U.S. Air Force reunions, and so on. As soldiers, we do as we are ordered, but as pilots we are all brothers in a wonderful world above the surly bonds of Earth.

Ok, so I quoted Magee.

25th_Orwell-84
12-23-2004, 08:06 PM
Luft....

Holy wow. I must say you have an intimate knowledge of the history of WWII.

Thanks for induldging in my "superstate" theory. Yes you are correct when you point out that my idea of the superstates is predicated on a selfconstructed favorable timeline; basically based on a series of "what if's".

I was unaware of the "gurilla" fighting in China. Interesting. You must be far along in your polisci degree. Sounds like you've taken a helping of history aswell.

Anyway, I think it is time for this thread to die! lol. It was an awesome read though! thanks luft & civil.

see you guys later.

MZ6
12-23-2004, 08:57 PM
Back to the original topic, CNN glosses over civilian casualities now and it would back in WWII, CNN is an agent of American propoganda ( in the broad sense ).

During the second gulf war I remeber an US officer praising CNN's coverage of the conflict. Considering that a soldier is probably one the most politically indoctrinated individuals by nessessity, I found the statement very telling. The later, I was stunned when I heard annouced on CNN, that they would tell the viewers what is and what isn't propoganda! To illustrate they used the example of what was then thought to be the successful assassination of Saddam Hussein by bombing. First they showed the correct perspective that he was indeed dead as reported by CNN. To illustrate what propoganda was, various news broadcast from around the world that didn't not dimiss his death but questioned it based on a lack of evidence ( his dead body ) and previous US failures to kill him from the air. As we all know Saddam Hussein was indeed still alive, but at that specific moment, CNN considered that perpective to be false propoganda.

Consider the Vietnam war, reporting in the US was to a much greater degree unbiased and the war became very unpopular. However news reports in the US during both Gulf Wars increased support for the war.

25th_Orwell-84
12-23-2004, 09:36 PM
Tru MZ6.
I think it's wild though how i agree and people disagree with that.

We can talk about this all day: American media as propaganda.

It would just be a flame war.

People don't change their minds.

I'm taking political science in university.
One thing i'm realizing:

Political Analysis is BS.
Academics can banter about politics all day.
It will accomplish nothing.
This is a reality of politics.
The people who control politics and political action are the ones you see on TV, the politicians that get up on camera and tell lies.
NOT the hard working honest politcian.
Lies on the left and right. they both lie, they lie about different things.
University students can protest and cry and hug trees all day but this is the way it is.

If you want to affect change in the world you gotta get in the system, make alliances, and make it politically advantageous for other powerful people to support your position VS. another postition.

How do you do that? MONEY.

Luftwaffe_109
12-24-2004, 04:42 AM
Last post on this thread,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by cpirrmann:
When discussing world domination as not being desired by Hitler, let's not forget his dream of racial purity which meant the extermination of all the unter mensch so how could he do this without world domination? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Firstly, Hitler's ideas regarding racial hatred of Jews, gypsies, etc, and his decision to have them exterminated, had nothing to do with his reasons for the invasion of different areas. These were done for geo-political or military reasons. You have no proof (eg. military reports, staff meatings, etc) of such claims that they were and the suggestion that, for example, Hitler invaded Poland, or France, or the Soviet Union, simply in order to exterminate Jewish populations (this, of course, is what callously did happened, but it was not part of Hitler's reason for the invasion) is quite absurd.

Secondly, you confuse means and ends. Hitler's desire for a "racially pure" and "aryan" race was his desired, crack-pot, "end". The "means" to this "end" was decided at the Wansee Conference to be the brutal extermination of the Jews in Nazi occupied areas (note, I am aware that Jews were murdered throughout the areas occupied by German troops where they resided, eg. by the Einsatzgruppen and Sicherheitsdienst in the East). However, the cruel murder of millions of Jews was not the "end", but the means. Note, in my mind this makes it no less disgusting and detestable.

Basically, what I am getting at is, why do you think that Hitler's "end" of a "pure germanic race" would require the extermination of Jewish populations not under Nazi control (basically, those living in the rest of the world)? This doesn't make sense, and thus renders your argument supporting the theory that Hitler planed to conquer the world, void.

Hello 25th_Orwell-84,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I was unaware of the "gurilla" fighting in China. Interesting. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My apologies, I mean guerilla of course. Bear with me, for English is not my first language.

Best Regards

cpirrmann
12-24-2004, 05:11 AM
LW...."This doesn't make sense, and thus renders your argument supporting the theory that Hitler planed to conquer the world, void."

Actaully, I disagree. The extermination was as you pointed out practiced also in Nazi occupied areas thereby indicating any conquered area was a 'Greater Germany'? I was not saying that he wanted to conquer the world to exterminate all lesser races, but to do so, he would have to conquer the world. If he was so intent on geo-political and economic reasoning, why did he expend so many resources and destroy so many resources he needed to achieve that end? Was he so short-sighted that he honestly believed he could go as far as he wanted and just stop without retribution? Due to the world's inactivity earlier, you could argue, yes, but once begun, it had to snowball to the point of complete victory (world domination) or complete defeat. I can't believe neither he nor anyone on the staff didn't see that. Not a flame..serious questions to see if we can have a discussion. Also, don't worry about your English, it's clear enough, probably more so than my typing.

Luftwaffe_109
12-24-2004, 07:22 AM
Hello cpirrmann,

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I was not saying that he wanted to conquer the world to exterminate all lesser races, but to do so, he would have to conquer the world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mistake then. If you disagree that Hitler's hatred of Jews, etc, had anything to do with his war aims, as I do, then we have nothing to argue about.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If he was so intent on geo-political and economic reasoning, why did he expend so many resources and destroy so many resources he needed to achieve that end? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course, I never said that Hitler or the Nazi leadership always (or even often) made rational or logical decisions, as clearly the extermination of a population is not logical, at least not to me. Furthermore, his racial ideology is highly illogical and absurd.

Basically, to your question, my guess is that due to a combination of Nazi ideology and propoganda, and Hitler's, the NSDAP's and SS leadership€s views which so loathed and hated the Jews, they could not resist but to attempt the murder of all such populations in the lands that they had access to. However, there is much difference between saying that they were prepared to attempt to exterminate those populations that they had access to and your earlier suggestion that they wanted to conquer territories for this exact reason.

Regards

huggy87
12-24-2004, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MZ6:

During the second gulf war I remeber an US officer praising CNN's coverage of the conflict. Considering that a soldier is probably one the most politically indoctrinated individuals by nessessity, I found the statement very telling.

Consider the Vietnam war, reporting in the US was to a much greater degree unbiased and the war became very unpopular. However news reports in the US during both Gulf Wars increased support for the war. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I have been an officer in the US Navy for 8 years, served in Iraq and Afghanistan, and have never been "politically indoctrinated." Our officer corps is highly educated and comes from a broad range of backgrounds and universities. In fact, I went to a school that is widely regarded as the most liberal school in the world.

I get the impression that you are not actually from the U.S. If you were, you would realize that our government is not smart enough to be so nefarious. Compared to the BBC, CNN would definitely seem right wing. Have you seen FOX news? Have you listened to NPR? We have 'news' broadcasts that swing both ways. I think you are basing your opinion on America's media with a very limited field of view.

civildog
12-24-2004, 05:46 PM
Hear, hear, huggy!

I was in the Air Force in the early 80's and I never received any kind of poitical indoctrination, either. Most of the people posting to this seem to be too young and too European to understand the crazy way it works in the USA.

We swear our oath of the service to protect and uphold the constitution from all enemies -foreign and domestic. We don't swear to to the President, he's just the Commander in Chief. If he gives an illegal (unethical to my oath or would constitute a war crime) order then I guess the ONLY political indoctrination pounded into me by training was that I would be obligated to refuse it.

This is why we don't have a military coup every 4 years or any time the President is a weak one. The people of this country really do run it, unlike the societies who have a long tradition of one-man or oligarchical rule. Even now, with all the fear-mongering by the left and press this country is still a free democracy. Otherwise there'd be a lot of leftist mouthpieces with bullets in their necks from NPR, ABC, CBS, Michael Moore, etc. Yet, they can blather on all they want about "oppression of rights and a Bush is Hilter" and NOTHING happens to them.

Think that would happen in France? Germany? Iraq when Saddam was in power?

Wseivelod
12-25-2004, 12:59 AM
If CNN covered WWII, we would have a LOT more gaping holes in our visual history; most namely, them covering an event and blowing it out of proportion to shift the mass's attention from other things. I am sure that something like Dachau would have been fed on for deeeeeecades, had a massive amount of Kodak (tm) moments been shot by CNN. But than again, something also pivotol, and exciting, like Operation Bodenplatte, would not have had any video coverage. You would just read the bottom line ".........Jerry attacks Europe bases before fleeing", in the midst of other things.

On the flip side, they would have new grphics like eeeevery week. And a new logo, for each new battle that came up. And they would keep it for about 4 days, than trash it, and add "You are watching CNN, who has offered coverage of the events shaping our world now, including Operations Torch, Midway, and combat in China". it would be in every commercial, and they probably would have been able to cover part of Pearl in some way.

Corporate news seriously blows.

civildog
12-25-2004, 01:27 AM
Excuse me, but while Bodenplatte might've got you all kinds of exciting video footage, "something like Dachau" SHOULD be "fed on for decaaaades."

Lest we forget and it happens again.

Really, the lack of perspective and proportion among the younger generation today really boggles the mind.