| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 4:21 am Post subject: WWII - Did King Edward VIII Actually Start the Blitz? |
 |
|
http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/blitz.html
Is there any truth about WW2 that we have been taught about??
| Quote: | Who Started the Blitz?
Between 1940 and 1945, sixty-one German cities with a total population of 25 millions were destroyed or devastated in a bombing campaign initiated by the British government. Destruction on this scale had no other purpose than the indiscriminate mass murder of as many German people as possible quite regardless of their civilian status. It led to retaliatory bombing resulting in 60,000 British dead and 86,000 injured.
Hidden from the public
'It is one of the greatest triumphs of modern emotional engineering that, in spite of the plain facts of the case which could never be disguised or even materially distorted, the British public, throughout the Blitz Period (1940-1941), remained convinced that the entire responsibility for their sufferings rested on the German leaders.' Advance to Barbarism, F.J.P. Veale.
'It may be Inconvenient History but England rather than Germany initiated the murderous slaughter of bombing civilians thus bringing about retaliation. Chamberlain conceded that it was "absolutely contrary to International law." It began in 1940 and Churchill believed it held the secret of victory. He was convinced that raids of sufficient intensity could destroy Germany's morale, and so his War Cabinet planned a campaign that abandoned the accepted practice of attacking the enemy's armed forces and, instead made civilians the primary target. Night after night, RAF bombers in ever increasing numbers struck throughout Germany, usually at working class housing, because it was more densely packed.' The Peoples' War, Angus Calder. London, Jonathan Cape, 1969.*
Hitler forced to retaliate
'Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly three months after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets. Hitler would have been willing at any time to stop the slaughter. Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement confining the action of aircraft to battle zones... Retaliation was certain if we carried the war into Germany... there was a reasonable possibility that our capital and industrial centres would not have been attacked if we had continued to refrain from attacking those of Germany... We began to bomb objectives on the German mainland before the Germans began to bomb objectives on the British mainland... Because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11th, 1940, the publicity it deserves.' J.M. Spaight, CB, CBE, Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry, Bombing Vindicated.
'The attack on the Ruhr was therefore an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London. The primary purpose of these raids was to goad the Germans into undertaking reprisal raids of a similar character on Britain. Such raids would arouse intense indignation in Britain against Germany and so create a war psychosis without which it would be impossible to carry on a modern war.' The Royal Air Force, 1939-1945, The Fight at Odds, p. 122. Dennis Richards, Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
The most uncivilised form of warfare
The eminent British war historian and strategist Captain Sir Basil Liddell Hart declared that by this strategy victory had been achieved "through practising the most uncivilised means of warfare that the world had known since the Mongol invasions" (The Evolution of Warfare. 1946, p. 75).It was "absolutely contrary to international law" (Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain).
'The inhabitants of Coventry, for example, continued to imagine that their sufferings were due to the innate villainy of Adolf Hitler without a suspicion that a decision, splendid or otherwise, of the British War Cabinet, was the decisive factor in the case.' F.J.P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism, p. 169.
Slaying in the name of the Lord
'I am in full agreement [with terror bombing]. I am all for the bombing of working class areas in German cities. I am a Cromwellian – I believe in "slaying in the name of the Lord!"' Sir Archibald Sinclair, Secretary for Air.
Industrial workers, wives and children targetted
'They [the British Air Chiefs] argued that the desired result, of reducing German industrial production, would be more readily achieved if the homes of the workers in the factories were destroyed; if the workers were kept busy arranging for the burial of their wives and children, output might reasonably be expected to fall... It was concentrated on working class houses because, as Professor Lindemann maintained, a higher percentage of bloodshed per ton of explosives dropped could be expected from bombing houses built close together, rather than by bombing higher class houses surrounded by gardens.' Advance to Barbarism, F.J.P. Veale.
So cowardly it had to be hidden
'One of the most unhealthy features of the bombing offensive was that the War Cabinet – and in particular the Secretary for Air, Archibald Sinclair (now Lord Thurso), felt it necessary to repudiate publicly the orders which they themselves had given to Bomber Command.' R.H.S. Crossman, MP, Labour Minister of Housing. Sunday Telegraph, 1 October 1961.
By weight, more bombs were dropped on the city of Berlin than were released on the whole of Great Britain during the entire war.
All German towns and cities above 50,000 population were from 50% to 80% destroyed. Hamburg was totally destroyed and 70,000 civilians died in the most appalling circumstances whilst Cologne was likewise turned into a moon-scape. As Hamburg burned the winds feeding the three mile high flames reached twice hurricane speed to exceed 150 miles per hour. Trees three feet in diameter on the outskirts of the city were sucked from the ground by the supernatural forces of these winds and hurled miles into the city-inferno, as were vehicles, men, women and children.
'What we want to do in addition to the horrors of fire is to bring the masonry crashing down on the Boche, to kill Boche and to terrify Boche' 'Bomber' Butch Harris, quoted in the Sunday Times, 10 January 1993.
Dresden: Children machine-gunned
The strafing of columns of refugees by both American and British fighter planes was par for the course: "it is said that these [zoo] animals and terrified groups of refugees were machine-gunned as they tried to escape across the Grosser Garten by low-flying planes and that many bodies riddled by bullets were found later in this park" (Der Tod von Dresden, Axel Rodenberger, 25 February 1951). In Dresden, "even the huddled remnants of a children's' choir were machine-gunned in a street bordering a park" (David Irving, The Destruction of Dresden). "I think we shall live to rue the day we did this, and that it [the bombing of Dresden] will stand for all time as a blot on our escutcheon" (Richard Stokes, M.P.).
'... the long suppressed story of the worst massacre in the history of the world. The devastation of Dresden in February, 1945, was one of those crimes against humanity whose authors would have been arraigned at Nuremberg if that court had not been perverted. Rt. Hon. Richard. H.S. Crossman, MP, Labour Government Minister.
Firestorm of Hamburg
'Its horror is revealed in the howling and raging of the firestorms, the hellish noise of exploding bombs and the death cries of martyred human beings as well as the big silence after the raids. Speech is impotent to portray the measure of the horror, which shook the people for ten days and nights and the traces of which were written indelibly on the face of the city and its inhabitants. No flight of imagination will ever succeed in measuring and describing the gruesome scenes of horror in the many buried air shelters. Posterity can only bow its head in honour of the fate of these innocents, sacrificed by the murderous lust of a sadistic enemy.' The Police President of Hamburg.
'Three-hundred times as many people died in Hamburg during the ten-day blitz as died in Coventry during the entire course of the war... Not even Hiroshima and Nagasaki, suffering the smashing blows of nuclear explosions, could match the utter hell of Hamburg.' Martin Caidin, The Night Hamburg Died, Ballantyne Books, NY, 1960.
The children
'Of the children these dreadful nights, what can be said? Their fright became horror and then panic when their tiny minds became capable of grasping the fact that their parents could no longer help them in their distress. They lost their reason and an overwhelming terror took over. Their world had become the shrieking centre of an erupting volcano from which there could be no physical escape. Nothing that hell offered could be feared more.
'By the hand of man they became creatures, human in form but not in mind. Strangled noises hissed from them as they staggered pitifully through the streets in which tar and asphalt ran as streams. Some of these tiny creatures ran several hundred feet. Others managed only twenty, maybe ten feet. Their shoes caught fire and then their feet. The lower parts of their legs became flickering sticks of flame. Here were Joans of Arcs... thousands of them. All who had perished unjustly on the fires of the Middle Ages were as nothing when compared with what was happening that night.
'The sounds of many were unintelligible and undoubtedly many more called for their parents from whom they were parted by death or by accident. They grasped their tortured limbs, their tiny burning legs until they were no longer able to stand or run. And then they would crash to the ground where they would writhe in the bubbling tar until death released them from their physical misery.' Martin Caidin.
Phosphorous, used contrary to international law
'Men, women and children too, ran hysterically, falling and stumbling, getting up, tripping and falling again, rolling over and over. Most of them managed to regain their feet and made it to the water. But many of them never made it and were left behind, their feet drumming in blinding pain on the overheated pavements amidst the rubble, until there came one last convulsing shudder from the smoking "thing" on the ground, and then no further movement.' Martin Caidin, The Night Hamburg Died.
'Phosphorous burns were not infrequent.' U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey.
'Phosphorous was used "because of its demonstrated ability to depress the morale of the Germans."' Official British source.
'Even the senseless and highly culture-destroying terror acts, against for example, Lubeck and Dresden, carried out by the Allied pilots, should have been investigated and brought before a proper court of justice.' Major General H. Bratt, Royal Swedish Army.*
'A nation which spreads over another a sheet of inevitably deadly gases or eradicates entire cities from the earth by the explosion of atomic bombs, does not have the right to judge anyone for war crimes; it has already committed the greatest atrocity equal to no other atrocity; it has killed – amidst unspeakable torments – hundreds of thousands of innocent people.' Hon. Lydio Machado Bandeira de Mello, Professor of Criminal Law; author of more than 40 works on law/philosophy.*
'As for crimes against humanity, those governments which ordered the destruction of German cities, thereby destroying irreplaceable cultural values and making burning torches out of women and children, should also have stood before the bar of justice.' Hon. Jaan Lattik. Estonian statesman, diplomat and historian.*
From Michael Walsh, Witness to History, Historical Review Press 1996. Edited, with additions marked * by the National Journal. Photographs from Victor Gollancz, In Darkest Germany, Victor Gollancz Ltd, London 1947.
LETTER TO PBS
Dr. A.R. WESSERLE
16 March 1981
PBS Television
"The Blitz"
Sirs:
Rarely have I come across a television broadcast more vicious in intent and more warped in execution than your recent "Blitz on Britain." As a survivor of the mass air raid executed against my native city of Prague, Bohemia, on the Christian Holy Day of Palm Sunday, 1945, by the Anglo-American strategic bomber force – a raid that maimed or murdered thousands a few seconds before the conclusion of the Second World War – I say this:
1. There can be no comparison between the brutality of the Anglo-American bomber offensive, on one hand, and the minimality of the German-Italian efforts, on the other.
As the commander of the British strategic air offensive, Air Marshal Sir Arthur Harris shows in his Bomber Offensive (Macmillan, New York, 1947), 23 German cities had more than 60 percent of their built-up area destroyed; 46 had half of it destroyed. 31 communities had more than 500 acres obliterated: Berlin, 6427 acres: Hamburg, 6200 acres; Duesseldorf, 2003; Cologne (through air attack), 1994. By contrast, the three favorite targets of the Luftwaffe: London, Plymouth and Coventry, had 600 acres, 400, and just over 100 acres destroyed.
2. Anglo-American strategic bombers, according to official sources of the West German government in 1962, dropped 2,690,000 metric tons of bombs on Continental Europe; 1,350,000 tons were dropped on Germany within its 1937 boundaries; 180,000 tons on Austria and the Balkans; 590,000 tons on France; 370,000 tons on Italy; and 200,000 tons on miscellaneous targets such as Bohemia, Slovakia and Poland. By contrast, Germany dropped a total of 74,172 tons of bombs as well as V-1 and V-2 rockets and "buzz bombs" on Britain – five percent of what the Anglo-Saxons rained down on Germany.
The Federal German Government has established the minimum count – not an estimate – of 635,000 German civilians were killed in France, Italy, Rumania, Hungary, Czecheslovakia, and elsewhere.
3. Both Germany and Britain initiated air raids on naval and military targets as of 3 September 1939. However, when the British attacks on port installations in Northern Germany ended in disaster, with a devastating majority of bombers downed – the Battle of the German Bight – Britain switched over to less costly night air raids on civilian targets such as Berlin and the Ruhr industrial region. By contrast, Germany replied in kind only in the winter months of 1940/41, a year later.
Observers indubitably British, such as the late Labour Minister Crossman, the scientist and writer C.P. Snow, and the Earl of Birkenhead, have demonstrated that it was not Germany but Britain that, after May, 1940, unleashed an official policy of unrestricted and unlimited raids on civilian populations under its new Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, and his science advisor, Dr. Lindemann. Professor Lindemann, the later Viscount Cherwell, coolly calculated that, by using a force of 10,000 heavy bombers to attack and destroy the 58 largest German cities, one-third of the population of Germany would be "de-housed." The assumption, of course, also was that out of those 25-27 million homeless at least ten percent – 2.5 to 3 million people – would be killed. On this score alone, Winston Churchill and his advisors deserve to rank among the maddest mass murderers in history. In fact, as West German records show, 131 German towns were hit by heavy strategic raids. Only the courage of the Luftwaffe pilots, the effectiveness of the air defense network and the strength of the fire fighting organization worked together to prevent a bloodbath to the extent envisioned by the Prime Minister.
4. Blood baths did occur when conditions were right.
When the Anglo-American bombing policy reached its first grand climax in a raid on Hamburg that stretched over several days and nights in July, 1943, a minimum of 40,000 to 50,000 civilians burned to death.
With the defensive power of the Reich worn down in the second half of 1944 and in 1945, the Anglo-Saxons indulged in ever more massive extermination raids against Europe. Communities of little or no military value, even if attacked previously, were now pulverized, preferably under conditions of the utmost horror. Christian holy days, and dates and sites of famous art festivals were select occasions for raids. Many of the most beautiful cities of Europe and the world were systematically pounded into nothingness, often during the last weeks of the war, among them: Wuerzburg, Hildesheim, Darmstadt, Kassel, Nuremberg, Braunschweig. Little Pforzheim in south-west Germany had 17,000 people killed. Dresden, one of the great art centers and in 1945 a refuge for perhaps a million civilians, was decimated with the loss of at least 100,000 souls. Europe from Monte Cassino to Luebeck and Rostock on the Baltic, from Caen and Lisieux in France to Pilsen, Prague, Bruenn, Budapest and Bucharest reeled under the barbaric blows of the bombers.
5. Nor did the extermination raids stop with Europe.
Cigar-chomping General Curtis LeMay demonstrated in. the Far East that record kills could be achieved without resort to atomic weapons. By applying the lessons learned in Europe to the wooden architecture of the Asian mainland and Japan he raised "fire storms" which surpassed even those of Hamburg, Pforzheim and Dresden. Mass raids by superheavy B-29 bombers against Osaka, Nagoya, Kobe and particularly, Tokyo-Yokohama, resulted in a minimum harvest of 125,000 to 150,000 kills per raid. More than 1.2 million Japanese civilians were killed through bombing. Millions of others fell victim to it, from Mukden, Manchuria, to Rangoon, Burma.
It goes without saying that LeMay and his colleagues could not have carried out their campaigns of mass annihilation without the backing of the highest political leaders in the land. In fact, the United States Government had placed orders for the immediate development of four-engined, superheavy, very-long-range bombers (the XB 15, the B-17, the XB 19, the B-24 and the B-29) starting in 1934.
Thus, the Roosevelt Administration had begun to lay plans for offensive, strategic, global war back in 1933, the year of its inception. With the later exception of Britain, none of the other "large" powers followed suit: neither France, Italy and Germany, nor Soviet Russia and Japan the latter with extensive holdings in the Pacific.
These are sobering facts. PBS, with its record of fine programming, has much to lose if it insists on presenting biased reports such as "Blitz on Britain" or "UXB." If you care to tap the unplumbed depths of sentimentality, envy and hatred, start a comic strip. In the meantime, we'll change channels.
Give poor Alistair Cooke, who has been mightily discomfited of late, a much-needed respite.
Sincerely,
Dr. A. R. Wesserle |
_________________
"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
isfahan
Validated Poster
Joined: 19 May 2008
Posts: 141
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Is there any truth about WW2 that we have been taught about?? |
I doubt it. After all, these are the same people who gave us 911 in glorious Technicolor.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TonyGosling wrote: | yeah,
Like Hitler was the reluctant baddie.
moved to controversies |
Is that your interpretation of those articles?? What a disgusting distortion. Why don't you slam any questioning of Bush or the 9/11 official version while you are at it?!
For your edification those articles do not in any way praise or exonerate Hitler but rather suggest that our great leaders were a bunch of lying psychopaths who targetted German working class civilians and for the first time in warfare made non military targets and mass extermination a tactic. That does not make Hitler "reluctant" to do his evil - it just suggests he was perhaps not so different from the sort of filth who control us and if you haven't learned from 9/11 and 7/7 that this is probably the case then you haven't learned anything. Just about everything we are told is bs particularly when it concerns history and economics.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/27/65732/1557/694/557641
| Quote: | So what if I told you that the powers of financial capitalism (bankers etc.), had a far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands, able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.
This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations?
And what if I told you they had succeeded?
Wow! The most powerful bankers creating a world system of financial control, dominating the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole, with secret meetings. Surely you would think Tocque has fallen under the spell of a wild conspiracy theory.
But you can put away the cat in the tinfoil hat. Those are not my words. And it's not a theory. They are the words of one of the greatest, most eminent historians in modern times, the late Carroll Quigley - of Harvard, Princeton and the Georgetown Foreign School. .....
Quigley could write credibly about the far reaching aims of these ruling elites because he himself was a member of the ruling class and, as such, he was given unprecedented access to their private files and records. When he published these words in his 1300 page tome, Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, not only was he adding to the historical record a previously untold story, he was making history himself in doing so.
The story I am about to share is critically important. One simply cannot understand politics without understanding the significant role the ruling class plays in it - behind the scenes, and beyond the grasp of democratic oversight. Quigley is an essential introduction to what I call the adult history of the world. And it is only with this historical understanding that we can understand the forces shaping our world, and possibly hope to affect them.
The time for the common man, or at the very least the educated political class like us, to be let in on the secret has long since passed. To take our country back, we must know who exactly we are taking it back from. And we must know what their real agenda is, and their methods for achieving it. It is simply unacceptable in this information age for so many to be oblivious to the real forces of political power, and to allow those forces to operate in secrecy. |
_________________
"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wepmob2000
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Posts: 431
Location: North East England
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I notice the article made no mention of the first two instances of deliberate terror bombing in WWII, namely the attacks on Warsaw in September 1939, and then on Rotterdam in May 1940. Both attacks deliberately aimed to cause maximum civilian casualties to force a political-military solution........
Who carried out these attacks, was it Britain? Forgive me for my ignorance.
P.S. I always thought, once again, it was the Germans who initiated terror bombing in WWI with their Zeppelin and Gotha raids. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Any criticism of the allies behaviour in WWII is bound to be percieved, rightly in my view, as a defence of Hitler unless expressly mitigated as not being.
I think you know that.
| blackcat wrote: | | TonyGosling wrote: | yeah,
Like Hitler was the reluctant baddie.
moved to controversies |
Is that your interpretation of those articles?? What a disgusting distortion. Why don't you slam any questioning of Bush or the 9/11 official version while you are at it?!
For your edification those articles do not in any way praise or exonerate Hitler but rather suggest that our great leaders were a bunch of lying psychopaths who targetted German working class civilians and for the first time in warfare made non military targets and mass extermination a tactic. That does not make Hitler "reluctant" to do his evil - it just suggests he was perhaps not so different from the sort of filth who control us and if you haven't learned from 9/11 and 7/7 that this is probably the case then you haven't learned anything. Just about everything we are told is bs particularly when it concerns history and economics.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/27/65732/1557/694/557641
| Quote: | So what if I told you that the powers of financial capitalism (bankers etc.), had a far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands, able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.
This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations?
And what if I told you they had succeeded?
Wow! The most powerful bankers creating a world system of financial control, dominating the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole, with secret meetings. Surely you would think Tocque has fallen under the spell of a wild conspiracy theory.
But you can put away the cat in the tinfoil hat. Those are not my words. And it's not a theory. They are the words of one of the greatest, most eminent historians in modern times, the late Carroll Quigley - of Harvard, Princeton and the Georgetown Foreign School. .....
Quigley could write credibly about the far reaching aims of these ruling elites because he himself was a member of the ruling class and, as such, he was given unprecedented access to their private files and records. When he published these words in his 1300 page tome, Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, not only was he adding to the historical record a previously untold story, he was making history himself in doing so.
The story I am about to share is critically important. One simply cannot understand politics without understanding the significant role the ruling class plays in it - behind the scenes, and beyond the grasp of democratic oversight. Quigley is an essential introduction to what I call the adult history of the world. And it is only with this historical understanding that we can understand the forces shaping our world, and possibly hope to affect them.
The time for the common man, or at the very least the educated political class like us, to be let in on the secret has long since passed. To take our country back, we must know who exactly we are taking it back from. And we must know what their real agenda is, and their methods for achieving it. It is simply unacceptable in this information age for so many to be oblivious to the real forces of political power, and to allow those forces to operate in secrecy. |
|
_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony Gosling wrote: | Any criticism of the allies behaviour in WWII is bound to be percieved, rightly in my view, as a defence of Hitler unless expressly mitigated as not being.
I think you know that. |
The views were those of the people quoted below. I think you know that. Criticism of Bush is bound to be perceived as a defence of Saddam Hussein or Al Qaida?? You are either with us or with the terrorists??? FFS!!! If you think our leaders should be beyond criticism then why do you question 9/11 or 7/7? The 1940s were a departure from their usual murderous ways? nonsense!!!
| Quote: | ' The Peoples' War, Angus Calder. London, Jonathan Cape, 1969.
Advance to Barbarism, F.J.P. Veale.
J.M. Spaight, CB, CBE, Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry, Bombing Vindicated.
The Royal Air Force, 1939-1945, The Fight at Odds, p. 122. Dennis Richards
The Evolution of Warfare. 1946 Sir Basil Liddell Hart |
_________________
"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Tony Gosling wrote: | Any criticism of the allies behaviour in WWII is bound to be percieved, rightly in my view, as a defence of Hitler unless expressly mitigated as not being.
I think you know that. |
The views were those of the people quoted below. I think you know that. Criticism of Bush is bound to be perceived as a defence of Saddam Hussein or Al Qaida?? You are either with us or with the terrorists??? FFS!!! If you think our leaders should be beyond criticism then why do you question 9/11 or 7/7? The 1940s were a departure from their usual murderous ways? nonsense!!!
| Quote: | ' The Peoples' War, Angus Calder. London, Jonathan Cape, 1969.
Advance to Barbarism, F.J.P. Veale.
J.M. Spaight, CB, CBE, Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry, Bombing Vindicated.
The Royal Air Force, 1939-1945, The Fight at Odds, p. 122. Dennis Richards
The Evolution of Warfare. 1946 Sir Basil Liddell Hart |
|
Good God, I can see why I've f*cked off from this place.
Yet again, Blackcat is determined to go on about how we were the bad guys in WWII while plaintively bleating about how he's never got any intention of defending Nazism.
So - as usual - he ignores the wealth of material about e.g. postwar British antics in Malaya and Kenya and feels determined to demonstrate what everyone knows - that our leaders are as capable of atrocity as our enemies - by citing some Mickey Mouse article from a notorious website that just happens to suggest Hitler didn't start the bombing of civilians when - as Wepmob pointed out and BC ignored - we all know he did.
He can't be arsed to notice that half his quotes refer to events after the Blitz.
It goes without saying he finds this look-here's-a-bunch-of-quotes-that-makes-it-a-proper-historical-analys is methodology appealing (I blame falling educational standards) and he won't stop to think that stuff like this -
| Quote: | | The attack on the Ruhr was therefore an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London. The primary purpose of these raids was to goad the Germans into undertaking reprisal raids of a similar character on Britain. Such raids would arouse intense indignation in Britain against Germany and so create a war psychosis without which it would be impossible to carry on a modern war.' The Royal Air Force, 1939-1945, The Fight at Odds, p. 122. Dennis Richards, Her Majesty's Stationery Office. |
as per BC's article vs
| Quote: | t was to speed the inevitable admission of defeat that during the following afternoon some forty Ju.87's delivered a systematic bombardment of Rotterdam, while negotiations for the surrender of the town were still in progress. There was opposition neither in the air nor from the ground, and the bombing, conducted in a leisurely fashion from 100–200 feet, was a bitter lesson in the potentialities of air supremacy. With the water low in the canals from the dry weather and the main supply pipe quickly severed, the old town was soon as raging inferno. The most densely built-up square mile of the city was devastated, 20,000 buildings destroyed, 78,000 people rendered homeless and nearly 1,000 inhabitants killed. The following morning, except in the Zeeland province, the Dutch forces were ordered to lay down their arms.
The destruction of Rotterdam settled not only the question of further resistance in Holland, but also the question of how far the German Air Force was respecting civilian life and property. When on 15th May the War Cabinet once more considered the propriety of attacking the Ruhr, its remaining doubts had vanished, and the Air Staff was at last given the signal to go ahead. Of the many benefits that this decision was expected to bring, the greatest would be the anticipated effect on the German Air Force; for German air superiority had so paralysed the French ground forces that some diversion of the enemy bombers from their present objectives was imperative. If the Royal Air Force raided the Ruhr, destroying oil plants with its more accurately placed bombs and urban property with those that went astray, the outcry for retaliation against Britain might prove too strong for the German generals to resist. Indeed, Hitler himself would probably head the clamour. The attack on the Ruhr, in other words, was an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London. |
The actual quote. Not to mention -
| Quote: | After the intensity of the struggle to persuade the War Cabinet, the Army and the French that the heavy bombers would be best employed against the Ruhr, the result of their operations came as something of an anti-climax. On the night of 15/16th May, ninety-six Wellingtons, Whitleys and Hampdens took off for objectives east of the Rhine. Seventy-eight were directed against oil plants. Only twenty-four of the crews even claimed to have found them
The following day our bombing policy was again in the melting pot. The Prime Minister had hastened across to France to protest against withdrawals executed, as it seemed to the War Cabinet, 'on account of the penetration of the French line by a force of some 120 German Armoured Fighting Vehicles'. Finding out the real situation, he accepted the French view that our night bombing should be concentrated against the crossings of the Meuse. From then onwards the effort of the heavies was either divided, or else pursued an uneasy alternation, between the objectives east of the Rhine favoured by the Air Staff and the objectives east of the Rhine favoured by the Air Staff and the objectives nearer the battle proposed by the French. At Hamburg and Bremen, where the lines of the coast and the relatively clear atmosphere made identification easier, our bombers did some damage, but they were repeatedly baffled by the industrial haze of the Ruhr. No better results were achieved against the crossings of the Meuse, where the general unsuitability of the targets for night attack was increased by the mist which invariably shrouded the river valley. In sum, during the next few nights the heavy bombers achieved none of their objects. Industrial damage was negligible; whatever delay was inflicted on the German Army was insignificant; not a single German fighter or anti-aircraft gun was withdrawn from the Western front to protect the Reich; and not a single German bomber was diverted from attacking the French armies and their communications to reply to the provocation from England. The assault on the Ruhr, most cherished of all Air Staff projects, was a failure. The conception had been admirable; the timing doubtful; the available means utterly inadequate. |
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-RAF-I/UK-RAF-I-5.html
- indicates the standard of 'quote' he's got from browsing the website of racist Nazi scumbag Simon Sheppard.
BC won't care about how much the drivel he laps up from seedy websites quite blatantly distorts stuff it hopes is obscure enough for people not to be able to check it - he never has before.
It goes without saying it won't have occurred to him that at this point in the war Britain simply didn't have the ability to carry out the mass bombing that came later. For example, modern bombers like the Halifax and Lancaster weren't used until 1941 and 1942 respectively - early in the war Britain lacked the capability to perform the heavy bombing raids that came later.
It is absolutely pitiful how people like BC can continue to 'discover' 'historical' articles on the internet and apparently really believe they've found 'suppressed info' or whatever.
Though I think it's fair to say 'bomber' Harris committed war crimes he may actually have had a point when he famously said
| Quote: | | The Nazis entered this war under the rather childish delusion that they were going to bomb everyone else, and nobody was going to bomb them. |
| Quote: | s there any truth about WW2 that we have been taught about??
|
Not in your case as it's either off the back of a cereal packet or from browsing far right websites. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LOL, I googled the J M Spaight text out of curiosity and found - funnily enough - the whole text is on Holocaust denial website VHO. F*ck knows where all the 'quotes' are allegedly from (no page ref) but there's an interesting stylistic contrast between this -
| Quote: | | Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly three months after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets. Hitler would have been willing at any time to stop the slaughter. Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement confining the action of aircraft to battle zones... Retaliation was certain if we carried the war into Germany... there was a reasonable possibility that our capital and industrial centres would not have been attacked if we had continued to refrain from attacking those of Germany... We began to bomb objectives on the German mainland before the Germans began to bomb objectives on the British mainland... Because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11th, 1940, the publicity it deserves.J.M. Spaight, CB, CBE, Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry, Bombing Vindicated. |
and stuff like this -
| Quote: | The extracts from Hitler's speeches quoted in Chapter II included a number of references
to the ruthlessness of our raids as the Germans saw them. With our methods of brutality
the German propagandists contrasted the burning German desire to save non-combatants
from the rigours of war. One of them, speaking on the Berlin radio on 8 August, 1941,
stated that the Führer had always been in favour of a convention to prevent the bombing
of civilians in the interests of humanity. He was nothing of the sort. He was in favour of it
in the military interests of Germany. He wanted a particular kind of convention which
would have banned the type of bombing which did not suit his book but would have left
the type which did perfectly uncontrolled. His proposals of 1935 and 1936 would not
have prevented the bombing of Warsaw, Rotterdam or Belgrade. They would have
prevented our raids on the Ruhr. It was to rise, indeed, to the height of impudence to
[p. 107]
mention the Führer and regard for the interests of humanity in the same breath. What
Hitler really thought upon this subject has been disclosed by one who was formerly
intimate with him.
Hitler and Humanitarianism
Herr Hermann Rauschning has put it on record that shortly after the Reichstag fire (27
February, 1933) Hitler summoned him, with Gauleiter Forster, to the Reich Chancellery
to discuss a report on the Danzig situation. The discussion veered round to the subject of
the place of brute force in government. 'I have no choice,' said Hitler, 'I must do things
that cannot be measured by the yardstick of bourgeois squeamishness. . . . The world can
only be ruled by fear.' The same subject came under discussion when Rauschning saw
Hitler again, in the autumn of 1933, at Danzig. 'Brutality is respected,' Hitler said.
'Brutality and physical strength. . . . The people need wholesome fear. They want to fear
something. They want someone to frighten them and make them shudderingly
submissive. . . . Terror is the most effective political instrument. I shall not permit myself
to be robbed of it because a lot of stupid bourgeois mollycoddles choose to be offended
by it. It is my duty to make use of every means of training the German people to severity
and to prepare them for war. . . . My behaviour in war-time will be no different. The most
horrible warfare is the kindest. I shall spread terror by the surprise employment of all my
measures. The important thing is the sudden shock of an overwhelming fear of death.' |
http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres4/Bombing.pdf
... notice how the article totally de-contextualises the mention of "the Führer had always been in favour of a convention to prevent the bombing".
Ah well, I'm off again. I'll leave Blackcat free again from notions of reality so he can wallow like a pig in sh*t in his far right internet articles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
lol - are you trying to say that blackcat hasn't actually read any of these books, or verified that these citations are accurate, or if these authors agree in any way with the claims made in the article he posted - and instead is just falling over himself to blindly believe what's posted on a website that's filled with all manner of holocaust denying/jew-baiting/nazi whitewashing cr@p - yet again?
surely not....  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| (PS don't leave us Dogsmilk - the effortless manner in which you repeatedly kick the asses of the nazi whitewashers, jew baiters and holocaust deniers who seem determined to destroy the credibility of this forum is one of the few things around here that could be described as essential reading) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 12:47 pm Post subject: Is there any truth about WW2 that we have been taught about? |
|
|
Benjamin Freedman Speaks:
A zionist Defector Warns America
by Benjamin H. Freedman (1961)
The First World War
The second World war
Search |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:07 pm Post subject: Re: Is there any truth about WW2 that we have been taught ab |
|
|
| Andrew. wrote: | Benjamin Freedman Speaks:
A zionist Defector Warns America
by Benjamin H. Freedman (1961)
The First World War
The second World war
Search |
*yawn*
Though this goes round and round and round the net repeated by Jew theorists who believe Freedman making big claims he couldn't substantiate - claims that have nothing to do with the Blitz which the thread is about - are to be blindly believed, this is old hat of appeal only to those a few fishes short of an aquarium; you'd have o be the kind of gullible sort that thinks some bloke called Muad Dib is the Messiah to be into Benny F
| Quote: | Daryl Bradford Smith makes a big deal out of this speech on his Web site. Here are twenty-five lies told by Freedman -- and repeated by Daryl Bradford Smith:
(1) "In other words, Christian boys are going to be yanked out of their homes, away from their families, and sent abroad to fight in Palestine against the Christian and Moslem Arabs who merely want to return to their homes."
In the forty-six years since this speech was delivered, not one U.S. soldier has fought in Israel or the Palestinian territories.
(2) "[T]he United States will trigger World War III."
Hasn't happened yet.
(3) "[T]he Arab nations called a meeting in Lebanon and there they decided to resurrect, or reactivate, the government of Palestine, which has been dormant more or less, since the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists."
There was never a Palestinian government to resurrect. Nominal political control over the Palestinian people had been exercised by Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, but this was during the period that Palestine was still a British colony. That mandate expired on May 15, 1948, and the same day, Israel declared its statehood. The Palestinians, by contrast, when the war was over, were occupied by either Egypt (in the Gaza strip) or Jordan (in the West Bank and East Jerusalem). Neither power offerered the Palestinians autonomy, much less statehoof. King Abdullah of Jordan never even entertained the idea. Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt made moves toward an "All-Palestine Government," but didn't act against Israel militarily until 1967 -- six years after Freedman gave this speech.
(4) "Within two years Germany had won that war [World War I]: not alone won it nominally, but won it actually."
Freedman claims that before August 1, 1916, Germany had won the World War I. This is simply not true.
Germany was fighting a two-front war during World War I. Plus it had soldiers deployed in the Middle East to assist the Ottoman Turks, who were losing badly and would continue to lose until all their territory was gone. During the period that Freedman is discussing, Germany was fighting the combined forces of France and the British Empire (Canadian, Indian, South African, and ANZAC troops were there also) at the Battle of the Somme. The battle went from July 1, 1916, to November 18, 1916, and was declared a stalemate. Losses for both sides were about equal, which means Germany actually lost more troops because it was fighting alone on its own side. At the same time, beginning before the Battle of the Somme and ending afterwards, the Germans lost to the French at Verdun, though they sustained fewer casualties. The losses for Germany were so severe that she changed her position on the Western front from offensive to defensive, which remained the case until surrender in November 1918.
Germany did rather better on the Eastern Front, driving into Poland and ultimately leading to the tsar's overthrow in March 1917. But Germany was still fighting Russia in the summer of 1916, as well as in the Middle East with the Turks.
(5) "At that time, the French army had mutinied. They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting. They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed."
Neither the French troops nor the Russian troops had mutinied at the time Freedman says they did. French losses at Verdun were around 150,000 -- not 600,000, as Freedman claims. If the Italian army had collapses, that would be a surprise to the Italian soldiers at the Battle or Gorizia, where the Italians defeated Austria-Hungary in eleven days.
(6) "[T]he Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: 'Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.'"
There's a staggering amount of disinformation in here. First, there was no German peace offer, and if there were, it would have been coming from a position of weakness to better fight on their Eastern Front.
(7) "They [Zionists] told England: 'We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.'"
This is very interesting given the actual state of affairs in the Middle East at that time. England and France had already divided up the Ottoman holdings in the Middle East. In fact, they had done so the previous year -- with the Sykes-Picot Agreement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes-Picot_Agreement). It hadn't promised Palestine to anyone -- it had left it an issue to be decided in the future.
( "However, they [the British] made that promise, in October of 1916"
I have no idea where Freedman gets this date, given that the Sykes-Picot Agreement had been signed in May 1916, and it contravened the only other possible offer on the table at the time, which was the promise by Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner in Egypt, to Sharif Hussein of Mecca (father of Abdullah I of Jordan) that Arab nationalism would be realized with the defeat of the Turks. However, none of McMahon's correspondence ever promises him Palestine.
(9) "Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany."
Actually it was six months later, on April 6, 1917, and it was Congress that declared war, the President not being allowed by the Constitution of the United States to do so. The U.S. declared war on Austria-Hungary in December, with less than a year left in the war. Notably, the U.S. never declared war on the Ottomans? Why not? Because they were finished by then. Given that it was the Ottomans who controlled Palestine up to this point, how could U.S. entry have secured this if it came so late?
The answer is that it couldn't.
Moreover, Freedman completely ignores the importance of the Zimmermann Telegram, a communique sent by the German Foreign Minister, Arthur Zimmermann, to Mexico, urging it to form an alliance against the U.S. This was the smoking gun that led the U.S. into the war. Interventionism was the result of the fear of the Germans (who, remember, were not winning the war -- the telegram dates from January 1917) that the U.S. would enter to stake territory for its Allies. There was, after all, already an Allied Expeditionary Force of American soldiers fighting in Europe.
(10) "After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.” Because they didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration."
So according to Freedman's chronology, in October 1916, the British promise the Zionists Palestine, it takes them six months to get us into the war, but the Balfour Declaration still wasn't issued until seven months after we declared war on Germany. This doesn't add up.
(11) "Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know."
Well, Bernard Baruch was certainly at the Paris Peace Conference, but where this figure of 116 other Jews as a separate delegation (Baruch was with the American delegation; after all, he was head of the War Industries Board). As for Freedman being there, I have yet to see a single independent source that verifies he was there. Not one.
(12) "The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, 'How about Palestine for us?'"
Well, first of all, the land that was cut out of Germany was land that was, with very few exceptions, populated by non-German people, e.g., Poland. Austria ceded Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, these being Slavic nations whereas Austria was and is a Germanic nation.
But the real kicker is that the "Jewish delegation" demanded Palestine at this point. While it is true that an important agreement on Palestine was made at this point, it was not made between Bernard Baruch and the British government, as Freedman would have us believe. Rather, the agreement was made between Chaim Weizmann and the leader of the Arab delegation. Weizmann was of course a Zionist but a British citizen -- not one of these virtually nonexistent German Zionists that we're told about.
Freedman doesn't tell us about the Arab delegation, but it was led by Sharif Hussein's other son, Faisal, who would become the first King of Iraq. You can read the agreement here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/faisaltext.html
So Britain didn't hand Palestine over to the Zionists. Ultimately, it was Faisal that did.
(13) "And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, 'Oh, that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war.' And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost."
Given that the New York Times published news of the Balfour Declaration a mere twelve days after the declaration was issued, it was a known agreement by the time of the Paris Peace Conference. (There were two more stories in the Times alone before the Peace Conference began.) In other words, Freedman was lying.
Notably, it is on the basis of this lie that Freedman then argues that the Germans were justified in their hatred of Jews. He ignores all evidence of German anti-Semitism between 1871 and 1919.
(14) "When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew who Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners. And he wrote back that he found them in very fine condition."
In 1933, the only people in concentration camps were political prisoners and not Jews. More on this below.
(15) "They were in excellent shape; everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to be maybe 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time."
That's an exaggeration obviously, but even more so for 1933 in Germany. The KPD (Communist Party) in Germany was led by Ernst Thaelmann, a Gentile. He was arrested and put in Dachau in 1933 and kept in solitary confinement until Hitler had him shot in 1944. But Jews in Germany tended not to vote for the KPD, despite its quite excellent returns in the elections between 1929 and 1932 (it always polled in the top three parties). Most Jews in Germany voted instead for the SPD, the Social-Democratic Party of Germany. This was not a communist party.
An illustrative example can be made with the situation in the Soviet Union, where far more leaders of the Communist Party there were Jews. Even conceding that this is the case, the vast majority of Jews in Russia between March 1917 and November 1917, when the Bolsheviks seized power, were not in communist parties. They tended to be either in Zionist parties or in the Jewish Bund or the PSR (social democrats). These latter two parties were the only parties in the USSR condemn the Bolshevik coup in the Congress of Deputies that had been established after the tsar had been overthrown.
Germany had even fewer Jews and, given the explanation already given that their living standard was better in Germany and that they fled there from Russia in 1905, it is not unreasonable to conclude that fewer Jews were communists in Germany than in Russia, particularly in 1933.
(16) "Well, I don't want to go by what they were called. We're now using English words, and what they were called in Germany is not very material. . . but they were Communists, because in 1917, the Communists took over Germany for a few days."
As already demonstrated, the KPD existed in Germany, as did the SPD, and their platforms were so different, in fact, that the KPD refused to join SPD-led governments.
(17) "Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words 'made in Germany' on it."
The Untermeyer boycott was so incredibly ineffective that Germany had experienced complete economic recovery by 1937.
(1 "The Jews -- I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews. I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are. If Jesus was a Jew, there isn't a Jew in the world today, and if those people are Jews, certainly our Lord and Savior was not one of them, and I can prove that."
The largest Christian organization in the world is the Roman Catholic Church. In his 1965 encyclical Nostra Aetate, Pope Paul VI wrote, "The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people."
I think the Pope probably can speak on greater authority on these matters than Freedman.
(19) "The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars."
While there is no doubt that the Khazarian Empire adopted Judaism as its official religion and that this empire stretched into parts of Eastern Europe, there was still a settlement of Jews along the Rhine Valley that pre-dated the Khazars. They did not emigrate to Poland and points east of there until the 16th century, long after the Khazars were gone. These Jews spoke Yiddish, which is based on German, whereas the Khazars spoke a Turkish language.
Furthermore, genetic tests conducted in the last two years indicate that the vast majority of Jews derive from only four women, and that the priestly tribe of Jews, the kohenim, share a Middle Eastern common ancestor.
(20) "When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, the very first prayer that you recite, you stand -- and it's the only prayer for which you stand -- and you repeat three times a short prayer. The Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months -- any oath, vow or pledge that you may take during the next twelve months shall be null and void."
The Kol Nidrey nullifies only vows made to God. This is one of the oldest libels against Judaism and has been disproven repeatedly.
(21) "And further than that, the Talmud teaches: 'Don't forget -- whenever you take an oath, vow, and pledge -- remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and that exempts you from fulfilling that.'"
The Talmud says no such thing and I challenge any person to prove otherwise.
(22) "There was no English word because Judea had passed out of existence. There was no Judea. People had long ago forgotten that. So in the first translation he used the word, in referring to Jesus, as 'gyu', 'jew'. At the time, there was no printing press."
Freedman's linguistic analysis of the word "Jew" is so terrible it would make a real linguist laugh in hysterics. Suffice it to say that, yes, there was no letter J in the Roman alphabet, but they did not pronounce their word for Jew (Iudean) with the /j/ phoneme at the beginning.
(23) "Just like 'anti-Semitic'. The Arab is a Semite. And the Christians talk about people who don't like Jews as anti-Semites, and they call all the Arabs anti-Semites. The only Semites in the world are the Arabs. There isn't one Jew who's a Semite. They're all Turkothean Mongoloids. The Eastern european Jews."
Well, Jews are Semites, but that's beside the point. The word coined by Wilhelm Marr nearly a century before Freedman's speech was Antisemitismus and it was coined to apply to Jews only -- not to Arabs.
(24) "They've never been persecuted for their religion. And I wish I had two rows of Rabbis here to challenge me. Never once, in all of history, have they been persecuted for their religion."
Jews were consistently persecuted only on religious grounds until the 19th century. Before then, the charge was "Christ-killer." That is a religious basis.
(25) "But Benjamin Franklin observed, and by hearsay understood, what was happening in Europe."
Freedman is referring to a hoax of an anti-Semitic quote attributed to Ben Franklin that was actually created by William Dudley Pelley in 1933. |
http://bluwiki.com/go/The_Benjamin_Freedman_Speech |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
simplesimon
Moderate Poster
Joined: 08 Nov 2007
Posts: 249
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gruts wrote:
| Quote: | | PS don't leave us Dogsmilk |
LMFAO. I think we all know he never will. I have my suspicions about why, but a more charitable explanation would be that macho pride prevents it.
Especially when people keep mining quotes from "dodgy" websites, and randomly chucking them about as if they have any kind of significance whatsoever. As in:
"Hitler will have no war, but he will be forced into it,
not this year but later..." - Emil Ludwig in Les Annales, June 1934
"The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by
every Jewish community, on every conference, in all labor unions
and by every single Jew in the world. There are reasons for
the assumption that our share in this fight is of general importance.
We shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany.
Germany is striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover
her lost territories as well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests
call for the complete destruction of Germany..."
- Valadimir Jabotinsky in Mascha Rjetsch, January 1934
"Germany is the enemy of Judaism and must be pursued with deadly hatred.
The goal of Judaism of today is a merciless campaign against all German peoples
and the complete destruction of the nation. We demand a complete blockade of trade,
the importation of raw materials stopped, and retaliation towards every German, woman and child."
- A. Kulischer, October 1937
"There can be no doubt that he (Hitler) broadened the war in 1941 only on preventive grounds.”
- A.J.P. Taylor
"We entered the war of our own free will, without ourselves being directly assaulted."
- Winston Churchill, July 1943
“I believe now that Hitler and the German people did not want war. But we declared war on Germany,
intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of balance of power,
and we were encouraged by the "Americans" around Roosevelt.
We ignored Hitler's pleadings not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realise
that Hitler was right. He offered us the co-operation of Germany;
instead, since 1945, we have been facing the immense power of the Soviet Union.
I feel ashamed and humiliated to see that the aims we accused Hitler of,
are being relentlessly pursued now, only under a different label."
– British Attorney General
Sir Hartley Shawcross, March 1984.
As if all this wasn't bad enough - I can't find my British Library pass, and I haven't personally interviewed everyone quoted, neither secured sworn affidavits. I just got them off teh interweb!
TonyGosling wrote:
| Quote: | | Any criticism of the allies behaviour in WWII is bound to be percieved, rightly in my view, as a defence of Hitler |
I can't speak for those quoted, but daresay they would disavow any suggestion that they were "defending Hitler".
| Quote: | | unless expressly mitigated as not being. |
For myself, happy to oblige (though it is tiresome to jump through hoops unnecessarily): I am not defending Hitler.
| Quote: | | I think you know that. |
I hope you know that.
==================
_________________
If you want to know who is really in control, ask yourself who you cannot criticise.
"The hunt for 'anti-semites' is a hunt for pockets of resistance to the NWO"-- Israel Shamir
"What we in America call terrorists are really groups of people that reject the international system..." - Heinz "Henry" Kissinger |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | LMFAO. I think we all know he never will. I have my suspicions about why, but a more charitable explanation would be that macho pride prevents it. |
Maybe I will and maybe I won't. I do as I wish.
I realise you have infantile paranoid fantasies about me being some kind of 'agent' and if you need that to make you feel all important, you are welcome to whatever grandiose delusions float your boat.
"Macho pride" (?) has, however, nothing to do with anything. Don't be silly.
Don't be silly, though, is a big ask considering your frankly hilarious take on dad's army recently. I hope it was satire on your part or else I genuinely worry for your mental state, despite the entertainment value of your comedic chunterings. There was a reunion special of allo allo last year. God knows what you made of that. Or what about are you being served??. hi de hi? The mind boggles.
You really cannot be so fundamentally stupid to think you genuinely make sense of the past by just wheeling out quotes even if they're real quotes.
However, it is people like you that continue to wheel out this stuff and just ignore it if it is shown to you how they are distorted or made up. Being generous and assuming you don't have learning difficulties, I can only assume you are ideologically driven to push a particular political perspective. Either that or you are simply taking the piss.
I mean -
"We entered the war of our own free will, without ourselves being directly assaulted."
- Winston Churchill, July 1943
Well duh. A junior school child knows we declared war on Germany. Has any one ever suggested Germany attacked Britain first? What a pointless quote.
Emile Ludwig? And exactly what searing insight are we getting from a one line quote from a German biographer and writer?
Or a polemic by Jabontinsky? Are they accurate? What's the context? You neither know nor care.
Btw the Hartley Shawcross quote is made up and was popularised by neo-Nazi Michael Walsh. It's been covered on this forum before. There's no actual record of it, it didn't appear in his memoirs and it contradicted his general stated position. Not that you give a sh&t - you'll peddle any lie that serves your political agenda. At least that's how you've behaved so far.
This is what he said at Nuremburg -
| Quote: | That these defendants participated in and are morally guilty of crimes so frightful that the imagination staggers and reels back at their very contemplation is not in doubt. Let the words of the defendant Frank, which were repeated to you this morning, be well remembered: "Thousands of years will pass and this guilt of Germany will not be erased". Total and totalitarian war, waged in defiance of solemn undertakings and in breach of treaties; great cities, from Coventry to Stalingrad, reduced to rubble, the countryside laid waste, and now the inevitable aftermath of war so fought - hunger and disease stalking through the world; millions of people homeless, maimed, bereaved. And in their graves, crying out, not for vengeance but that this shall not happen again, ten million who might be living in peace and happiness at this hour, soldiers, sailors, airmen and civilians killed in battles that ought never to have been.
Nor was that the only or the greatest crime. In all our countries when, perhaps in the heat of passion or for other motives which impair restraint, some individual is killed, the murder becomes a sensation, our compassion is aroused, nor do we rest until the criminal is punished and the rule of law is vindicated. Shall we do less when not one but on the lowest computation twelve million men, women and children are done to death. Not in battle, not in passion, but in the cold, calculated, deliberate attempt to destroy nations and races, to disintegrate the traditions, the institutions and the very existence of free and ancient States. Twelve million murders. Two-thirds of the Jews in Europe exterminated, more than six million of them on the killers' own figures. Murder conducted like some mass- production industry in the gas chambers and the ovens of Auschwitz, Dachau, Treblinka, Buchenwald, Mauthausen, Maidanek and Oranienburg. |
Idiots with no knowledge of history get excited about mention of particularly Dachau with relation to gas chambers....now!
People like you aren't interested in history, you're interested in propaganda. You trawl the internet looking for things that appear to confirm your belief system. Or you're just having a laugh. Either way, it's a waste of time on my part. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dogsmilk.
If your going to refute Benjamin Freedman's
Speech, then you should actually read his speech first because your post makes little reference to his actual speech. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are you thinking of a different speech? Because I was thinking of this one -
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm
And posted something that raises numerous pertinent objections directly relating to it.
Is there a special edition with extra jooo theory or something? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | Are you thinking of a different speech? Because I was thinking of this one -
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm
And posted something that raises numerous pertinent objections directly relating to it.
Is there a special edition with extra jooo theory or something? |
That is not his speech. This is how it starts.
“Here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co-religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad statement, but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep.”
And Dogsmilk, people dont like the Taunts and the threat of murder. I suggest you learn some common sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Andrew. wrote: | | Dogsmilk wrote: | Are you thinking of a different speech? Because I was thinking of this one -
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm
And posted something that raises numerous pertinent objections directly relating to it.
Is there a special edition with extra jooo theory or something? |
That is not his speech. This is how it starts.
“Here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co-religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad statement, but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep.”
And Dogsmilk, people dont like the Taunts and the threat of murder. I suggest you learn some common sense. |
Well my apologies for picking the wrong 1961 transcript of the same name - some innovative types have come up with the revolutionary notion of providing a link to things you want people to look at; maybe you could consider this radical idea?
Actually, what I originally posted does talk about significant portion of this -
http://100777.com/jewry/freedman
which I assume is exactly what you mean. In fact it appears to be a slightly different version covering a lot of the same bullsh*t. Though some crank has added some bible verses and totally false stuff about Hitler being half Jewish and suchlike.
What part of this big pile of w&nk do you find particularly stimulating? It's largely the same old piffle that has been raised here ad infinitum by the jooo crew.
| Quote: | | nd Dogsmilk, people dont like the Taunts and the threat of murder. I suggest you learn some common sense. |
What are you blathering on about?
Have you forgotten to take a drug you should be taking or been recklessly taking one you shouldn't? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dogsmilk you have an amazing capacity to turn any thread into a Jew bashing one. I don't see any reference in the original article to anything to do with Jews. It was an article about the blitz and I don't recall any Jews being particularly involved in it. Not that any mention of WW2 is going to be allowed to pass without your hobby horse being brought out for a canter. Well done!! Meanwhile, if the original article is untrue or downright nonsense then it can be opened up for debate and people can demonstrate it to be so. Posting a link does not mean I believe it but means it may make for interesting discussion since we are lied to routinely about world events so why not about events from WW2. You have said in the past that you believe all subjects including even "holocaust denial" should be allowed to be debated so where has you open-mindedness suddenly gone? You make a point of reducing every thread wherever possible to the one subject that seems to be on your single mind, which is that Jews are perfect and must be beyond criticism, and even where they are not being mentioned must be introduced so that you can spout on about how everybody is bashing them. Considering 9/11 and the massive and blatant involvement of the Jewish state you had better keep up the propaganda because the dam may break. That of course is where you and your lickspittle Gruts are really coming from. Good luck. By the way - there is a thread about the Economic collapse which you have avoided so far. Don't you see the opportunity to claim the contributors are blaming the Jews (without mentioning them of course) and are therefore really Holocaust deniers? Get stuck in boy - the place is full of threads that you can turn into Jew Bashing (sorry Jooooo bashing - sounds so much more impressive!) fests - never mind the intent - you know everybody is out to get the Jooos.
_________________
"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 05, 2008 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Dogsmilk you have an amazing capacity to turn any thread into a Jew bashing one. |
I see. So I take it it's somehow my fault Andrew randomly decided to bring up some tired old Benny F horsesh*t then? Pardon me for daring to respond.
| Quote: | | Posting a link does not mean I believe it but means it may make for interesting discussion |
uh huh
| Quote: | | Is there any truth about WW2 that we have been taught about?? |
Ah - the classic line of someone who doesn't believe what they just read but just wants an interesting discussion.
| Quote: | | which is that Jews are perfect and must be beyond criticism |
Don't talk sh*t.
| Quote: | | the massive and blatant involvement of the Jewish state |
Really.
And don't tell me - it's all inextricably connected to the Blitz.
| Quote: | | Get stuck in boy - the place is full of threads that you can turn into Jew Bashing |
Why bother when next week you'll wheel out yet another 'article' from a far right website that just happens to suggest the Nazis weren't in the wrong and subsequently claim you were innocently just trying to spark debate on the same old subject but naughty old me with my one track mind took your excited flourishing of it the wrong way?
Still, you've outdone yourself with your endorsement of Heretical.com. Bravo!
You can really only go to the Vanguard news network from here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gruts
Major Poster
Joined: 28 Apr 2007
Posts: 1050
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TonyGosling wrote: | | Any criticism of the allies behaviour in WWII is bound to be percieved, rightly in my view, as a defence of Hitler unless expressly mitigated as not being. |
the nazis weren't the only villains of WW2, but blackcat's tireless attempts to whitewash the germans and to blame the western allies and jews for the war (and pretty much all the evils in this world to boot) generally involve denying reality and using the dodgiest, credibility-free sources on the internet to do it.
against my better judgement I checked out the website from which blackcat copied and pasted the article that started this thread....
http://www.heretical.com/
....and as usual it's full of sickening holocaust denying/jew-baiting/nazi whitewashing garbage. for example, take a look at one of their "holocaust parodies" - houswitz (tanzen macht frei):
http://www.heretical.com/houswitz/index.html
I guess that if you're sufficiently sociopathic you can find this kind of thing amusing. 
do you ever wonder why blackcat spends so much of his time trying to associate this forum with this kind of material?
and when challenged about what he's doing he invariably says something as disingenuous as....
| blackcat wrote: | | Dogsmilk you have an amazing capacity to turn any thread into a Jew bashing one. I don't see any reference in the original article to anything to do with Jews. |
....before running off to look for more websites that promote holocaust denial/jew baiting/nazi whitewashing, from which he can copy and paste more credibility-free drivel.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dogsmilk wrote:
I see. So I take it it's somehow my fault Andrew randomly decided to bring up some tired old Benny F horsesh*t then? Pardon me for daring to respond.
>This post came before my post.
Gruts wrote:
(PS don't leave us Dogsmilk - the effortless manner in which you repeatedly kick the asses of the nazi whitewashers, jew baiters and holocaust deniers who seem determined to destroy the credibility of this forum is one of the few things around here that could be described as essential reading)
Dogsmilk wrote:
which I assume is exactly what you mean. In fact it appears to be a slightly different version covering a lot of the same bullsh*t. Though some crank has added some bible verses and totally false stuff about Hitler being half Jewish and suchlike.
> You keep going on about how much you are against Nazism and also about Jew baiting. This is not about all Jews but for example people like zionist George Sherff (Bush) who is Ashkenazi Jewish (pretending to be Christian) IF you are genuine you would be on our side of this debate because some but not all Jews and some! Non Jews are going to get many of you killed also, if nothing is done about putting a stop to their activities. If you are not genuine then I expect you to continue with your baiting whilst falsely hiding behind the banner of the misnamed title anti-semitism. Many Jews are being used and set up by the PTB and are assisting the PTB whilst assisting in there own demise of many Jews also. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | This post came before my post. |
Gruts made a supportive comment (thank you btw) in a general sense. He wasn't raising an issue. For an as yet undisclosed reason, you chose to raise BF in the middle of a thread about the Blitz. I replied. Then SS chipped in with some of his dumb quotes. The issue is not really relevant other than in response to BC's usual accusation that my responding to issues others raise is somehow evidence of me constantly raising said issues.
| Quote: | | zionist George Sherff (Bush) who is Ashkenazi Jewish (pretending to be Christian) |
Please evidence this daft assertion.
You say "This is not about all Jews" and immediately follow this statement by falsely stating George Bush is Jewish without any attempt to explain the relevance if he were.
Christ it's pathetic.
| Quote: | | IF you are genuine you would be on our side of this debate because some but not all Jews and some! Non Jews are going to get many of you killed also |
So anyone who disagrees with the rubbish you post is by definition not "genuine"? You're either with us or you're with teh jooos, right?
And you make this bold assertion while conspicuously failing to address any of the points in the piece I posted or explain which aspects of the BF speech you find particularly convincing and why.
What is this "going to get killed" you refer to? It may have escaped your notice, but people are being killed on this tortured planet each and every day. Many of them in e.g. African countries. Please explain how your assertion directly links with demonstrable facts from the BF speech you can corroborate from other sources.
| Quote: | | If you are not genuine then I expect you to continue with your baiting whilst falsely hiding behind the banner of the misnamed title anti-semitism |
I see. So challenging people constantly blaming everything on Jews is "baiting". I assume for the sake of consistency you would also think that challenging people who blame everything on Muslims is "baiting" and 'hiding behind the banner' of Islamophobia...?
You refer to the "misnamed title" anti-semitism. This entirely pointless argument about the etymology of the term ignores:
1/Language is not static. Words ultimately have meaning based on a consensus over their usage. If a word has a generally accepted meaning, then its etymological roots are rather meaningless.
For example, it strikes me that the word "villain" appears to represent a class bias:
| Quote: | villain
1303, "base or low-born rustic," from Anglo-Fr. and O.Fr. villain, from M.L. villanus "farmhand," from L. villa "country house" (see villa).
"The most important phases of the sense development of this word may be summed up as follows: 'inhabitant of a farm; peasant; churl, boor; clown; miser; knave, scoundrel.' Today both Fr. vilain and Eng. villain are used only in a pejorative sense." [Klein]
Meaning "character in a novel, play, etc. whose evil motives or actions help drive the plot" is from 1822. Villainous is recorded from c.1300, from O.Fr. vileneus; villainy (c.1225) is from O.Fr. vilanie. |
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=villain
So if you use the word "villain" to mean "bad guy" are you wrong because it comes from a reference to "farmhands" coming from "villa"? Are you displaying class bias against rustic types? Only a pedant trying to obfuscate would care about such things. Look at where all kinds of words come from and you'll see their common usage has altered from their original literal meaning. This "anti-semitism means semitic people generally so there" argument is just pointless and pathetic as it ignores what everyone - including those making the pedantic argument - understands the term to mean today. It's about as ridiculous saying you can't be homophobic if you go on about 'the gays' because being gay just means you're full of mirth (and according to the dictionary linked to above a "gay house" was a brothel in the 19th century. Ah well, at least I've learned something from my conversation with you.)
In fact, shouldn't 'homophobia' literally mean "fear of men"? or with the homos in homosexual otherwise mean "fear of same"? - If this is to be believed -
| Quote: | | 1892, in C.G. Chaddock's translation of Krafft-Ebing's "Psychopathia Sexualis," from homo-, comb. form of Gk. homos "same" (see same) + Latin-based sexual (see sex |
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=homosexual&searchmode=none
(this website is fascinating!)
Obviously that term is "wrong" and shouldn't be used!
2/The term was popularised by Wilhelm Marr who used it to mean Jews. You are, of course, aware of the historical existence of anti-semitic leagues who were perfectly frank about the fact they meant Jews and it's doubtful they'd have taken pedantic arguments about the term seriously themselves.
3/ | Quote: | | From a weak cosmopolitan I had become a fanatical antisemite. |
- Adolf Hitler
Guess what - he meant Jews.
As did the Nazis generally. And everyone - including brazen anti-semites - happily agreed with the general definition until some people decided to play silly buggers for the purpose of obfuscation.
I have gone overboard on this point a bit, but just because I am sick and tired of seeing this feeble 'argument' being made all over the place.
| Quote: | | Many Jews are being used and set up by the PTB and are assisting the PTB whilst assisting in there own demise of many Jews also. |
This highly detailed elucidation of exactly why BF was right cuts like a shard of sunlight, illuminating everything. I see it all so clearly now. I am sure if you continue making vague comments totally devoid of information you will win me over completely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | War on Iran: The Perfect Storm from Hell
As the global bankers’ plan to bring down the American and world’s economy continues (so that they can acquire as much of our wealth as possible at ‘fire sale’ prices ~ an old strategy), the world is facing another much worse danger. A regional war in the Middle East that will involve global strategic weapons of mass destruction with deaths in the hundreds of millions in North America, Europe, the Middle East and globally.
I have served as a consultant to three very high tech aerospace firms. My specialty is conceptualizing advanced warfare especially as it relates to new cutting edge advanced weapon systems. What I see unfolding with a war on Iran is the most frightening set of circumstances I have ever seen; and I have been involved in advanced theoretical weaponry strategy and design for over 20 years.
The rise of the Likud/neo-cons, with Benjamin Netanyahu as the unholy high priest, has been a disaster for Israel, America, the Middle East, and the world at large. The smartest thing that (counterfeit-)Israel ever did was to use American money to buy off Jordan and Egypt and make peace with them. The dumbest thing was to empower the Likud Party hardliners centered on Bibi Netanyahu and the Bush/Cheney Administration (with supporting roles played by Sharon, and neo-con leaders in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and elsewhere). Four years ago (counterfeit-)Israel was nowhere near a MAD (mutually assured destruction) environment. Today it has a very dangerous four-front MAD environment and it was unable, in the Second Lebanon War of two years ago, to overturn the dangers surrounding it, in fact the level of MAD danger has increased considerably since the summer of 2006.
The war party in Israel and America has facilitated the rise of a regional (Iran/Syria/Lebanon/Palestine) MAD. I truly believe that the Likud/neo-con strategy is a total failure. The stated goal of the strategy is to break-up and weaken several Middle Eastern states that pose, or could pose, a strategic risk to Israel. To this end Saddam was encouraged to attack Kuwait resulting in the First Gulf War. When he was able to demonstrate, even in the face of intense allied air attacks, his ability to “deliver ordinance on target” using his Scud missiles the United States (and allies) decided not to drive all the way to Bagdad. We knew that he was holding back “the heavy stuff” and only using “dumb” high explosive warheads; not the chemical, biological and radiological warheads that could have caused massive damage to Israel and to the Saudi oilfields. Saddam Hussein's military had prepared what it called the "great equalizer", an arsenal of 25 Scud warheads carrying over 11,000lb of biological agents, including deadly botulism poison and anthrax germs (an additional 33,000lb of germ agents were placed in artillery shells and bombs). It was only after he was forced into denuding himself of his advanced weaponry that the neo-cons were able to begin the Second Gulf War.
After Iraq, the Likud/neo-con war strategy calls for the neutralizing of Iran and Syria. The Iranians’ response was to train and equip Hezbollah in Lebanon and to deepen their strategic alliance with Syria.
During the 2006 Second Lebanon War, the Iranian trained and equipped Hezbollah forces repeated the efforts of Saddam during the First Gulf War. They delivered a very large number of rockets with “dumb” high explosive warheads on Israel. The Hezbollah Special Forces are in-effect a highly trained and well-equipped Iranian commando force of at least a Brigade in size. They man and protect a large number of mostly unguided and rather crude rockets, generally Katyusha 122mm artillery rockets with a 19 mile/30km range and capable of delivering approximately 66 pounds/30kg of warheads. Additionally, Hezbollah are known to possess a considerable number of more advanced and longer range missiles. During the 2006 war Hezbollah fired approximately 4,000 rockets (95% of which were Katyushas) all utilizing only "dumb" high explosive warheads. Some Iranian built and supplied Fajr-3 and Ra'ad 1 liquid-fueled missiles were also fired. At the time of the 2006 war Hezbollah was reported to have in the range of 13,000 rockets. There are creditable reports that this number has been rebuilt and expanded upon since the end of that war and that the number of rockets is now at least 20,000 and perhaps 30,000 or more.
During the 2006 war the world watched as Israeli towns were hit time and time again by the Katyushas. What was not discussed by the main stream news media was the fact that the ordinance delivered by the Katyushas was mainly harassment fire with very limited effect. The Iranian/Syrian trained and supplied Hezhollah commandos were holding back their "heavy stuff" both in terms of their longer range guided missiles capable of hitting southern Israel and most importantly warheads of strategic military importance. That is NBC (nuclear [in this case radiological] biological and chemical) and advanced-conventional warheads. They were demonstrating their ability to deliver "ordinance on target" and their ability to survive a heavy Israeli ground and air combined arms attack.
Hezbollah has the capability of loading truly strategic warheads on the large number of mostly crude older technology unguided rockets that it has. The use of advanced-conventional fuel-air explosive (FAE) warheads on the Katyushas would have had a much more profound effect in Israeli cities. The use of FAE submunitions on the larger missiles capable of hitting any target in Israel would have given Hezbollah the firepower of low-yield nuclear weapons without crossing the nuclear threshold. Coupled with the large number of missiles in Syria and those in Iran, the Hezbollah rockets posed, and continue to pose, a truly grave strategic threat to Israel if FAE warheads are used. This threat is dramatically increased if radiological ("dirty bombs"), chemical, and/or biological warheads are used.
The massive number of Hezbollah rockets could also be outfitted with chemical warheads. It is worth noting that the joint Syrian-Iranian chemical warfare R&D and production program is perhaps the largest and most complicated on earth. Generally the Israelis have shown themselves to be prepared for chemical warfare, however a chemical war attack following closely behind a FAE attack (to open up bunkers and apartment buildings) would have greater effect. While it is not necessary to utilize a rocket to deliver a biological war attack, it could be done and there is some benefit militarily to a rapid dispersal of biowar agents under the cover of conventional attacks. Radiological weapons deliver the long term (which can be hundreds of thousands of years) lethal effects of radiation without the blast effect of a nuclear bomb.
The combined military strategic capability of NBC/Advanced Conventional warheads and very large numbers of rockets operated and protected by Hezbollah, coupled with the arsenal of Syria and Iran (and Hamas) acts as a MAD (mutually assured destruction) between Israel and Iran/Syria. Yes the Israelis can nuke the hell out of both Iran and Syria; however, they possess a fatal return punch.
The response from the Israeli and neo-con hardliners to the new MAD strategic environment has been frightening. Instead of recognizing the danger to Israel and to the entire world from the Iranian/Syrian “checkmate” on the aggressive Israeli/neo-con strategy, and making major changes to their strategy, they are attempting to “tough it out”. The issue of “danger from the Iranian nuclear program” is a smokescreen to facilitate the coming war on Iran and her allies (Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas) and to continue with the next stage of the neo-con strategy. The response from the hardliners is more war and damn their WMD (weapons of mass destruction). This is most unwise and most dangerous to the entire world.
When the USSR was falling apart, and in the aftermath of the USSR breakup, Iran spent a lot of money to hire some of the best Soviet biological war experts. The advanced biowar weapons that Iran has developed gives Iran a Global Strategic Weapon of Mass Destruction that can unleash levels of death among the populations of the major neo-con nations (USA, UK, France, German, Italy, etc.) very similar to that from a global strategic nuclear strike. This means that Iran and her allies have a MAD with America, Canada, the United Kingdom, France, German, Italy, etc.
Most people think of biological warfare as anthrax and smallpox; they do not understand that there has been a major shift in technology. The difference between the old biowar (that most people think of) and advanced biowar (with its recombination DNA designer super killer viruses) is like the difference between an old Model T Ford and a 2008 Rolls Royce Phantom. Both are cars, or biological weapons, but there is a difference of several orders of magnitude.
Regardless of how a war against Iran breaks out, it is likely to very quickly escalate to the usage of WMD. There has been talk among USAF war planners of a 1,200 (some say 2,000 to 3,000 or more) target attack on Iran’s nuclear, industrial, military, political and religious infrastructure. If a foreign enemy were to bomb 1,200 or more targets in the United States what would be the response of the American government and its military? Actually the answer to this question is well known. The stated doctrine of the United States of America is to rain hundreds of hydrogen bombs (WMD) on the territory and people of such an aggressor; this has been our policy for approximately 60 years. Why do we presuppose that the Iranians would not do the same?
If Iran is hit by either an Israeli and/or an American air attack, it is certain that Iran will respond. This response, even if is non-WMD at first, will certainly result in more escalation and counter-escalation. The chances of a regional Middle East war between Iran/Syria/Hezbollah/Hamas and Israel/USA not becoming a nuclear and advanced biological war nightmare are very low. In fact, since both sides know this, there is a strong military incentive to move to all out usage of WMD when the first bombs begin to fall (in order to utilize more of one’s weaponry before its destruction).
The end result will be a third or so of Israelis dead and large parts of the Israeli nation poisoned for hundreds of thousands of years by radiological warheads. Syria, Iran, and large parts of Lebanon and Palestine will cease to exist and will be little more than a green radioactive debris field poisonous to all forms of life higher than a cockroach for hundreds of thousands of years (longer than modern man has existed). The Iranian oilfields and most likely the oilfields of a large part of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other areas of the Middle East are also apt to be so poisoned by Iranian radiological warheads or Israeli/American nuclear fallout.
The world will suffer its most complete economic collapse in history. All of this will take less than one week.
At about two weeks, after the beginning of the war on Iran, emergency rooms and doctors’ offices will begin to see a sudden spike in a number of new diseases with numerous very ill people being admitted to hospitals in North America, and Western Europe and what is left of Israel. By that time the Iranian and Syrian states will have effectively ceased to exist with insufficient manpower and organization to even bury their dead.
The many new genetically engineered viruses causing the strange diseases showing up will have been spread by sleeper agents supplied with a number of new viruses and distributed in public places (movie theaters, shopping malls, churches, etc.) quietly without anyone knowing. Humans themselves will become the vectors of the diseases/biowar agents. Although the Bush Administration has spent $40 billion on biowar defense in the last couple of years, there is little that can realistically be done against a global strategic advanced biowar attack. The tactic of necessity will be to lock down everyone, with only key persons being allowed to leave their homes, in order to let the multiple genetically engineered diseases burn themselves out (a nice way of saying letting everyone who has the illnesses die off).
Expect to see dear old Bibi Netanyahu as ‘head’ of what is left of (counterfeit-)Israel. Expect to see sub dermal RFID chips implanted under the skin of the population left in the major neo-con states to “prove your disease free status” and necessary to buy, sell, or work. Expect to see military checkpoints everywhere and total control by the neo-con national governments over all aspects of life. Expect to see concentration camps for persons suspected of disloyalty to the state (this will include many viewers of sites like this one). Expect to see levels of death, fear, repression that are almost incomprehensible.
Expect to see the various biological warfare diseases spread throughout the world, even with a total shutdown of international travel. Millions will die in Russia and China. Expect to see those national governments not controlled by the neo-con masters to go ape-Limbaugh when their populations face the nightmare of advanced biowar. Expect the regional war in the Middle East to trigger an all out global battle utilizing all forms of weapons of mass destruction within a few months of the initial attacks on Iran.
Stirling
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Andrew - could you possibly explain why you have now decided to ignore everything said previously and randomly post a blog entry which - among other things - makes wild and totally unsubstantiated claims about 'sleeper agents' spreading killer diseases by a guy calling himself the "Earl of Stirling, Viscount of Canada, Viscount of Stirling, Lord Alexander of Tulibody (1630), Lord Alexander of Tulibody (1633), etc., Chief of Clan Alexander, I also hold several honorific old Canadian great offices-of-state: Lord Lieutenant and Governor of Canada, Lord High Admiral of Nova Scotia, Lord Lieutenant of Nova Scotia, Lt.-Gen. of Nova Scotis"
Thanks.
This chump seems to have a preoccupation with making evidence free claims about impending bio-doom, like here in Sept 2007
| Quote: | Global biowar will not come upon us like global thermonuclear war. It will sneak up on the world with not even a whisper at first to announce its deadly presence. It will likely begin when a massive conventional and/or nuclear strike is made against Iran. While the world's attention is focused on what is happening in the Middle East, a small number of Iranian agents, already positioned in Europe, Canada, America, Australia and elsewhere will take action. It is highly likely that no one will even notice the attack. Simple hidden aerosol devices are apt to be employed to quietly and unobtrusively spray small amounts of genetically engineered viruses in public gatherings, such as in churches and synagogues, in movie theaters, in shopping malls, in restaurants, etc. Those doing the spreading may or may not be vaccinated against the nightmare viruses that they spread (in the Iraq-Iran War tens of thousands of Iranian volunteers flooded the battlefields in human wave attacks that were suicidal in nature...sometimes there were not even enough rifles to go around and the volunteers were told to pick up the guns of their fallen comrades). There is not apt to be one or two diseases spread but dozens of different totally new bioengineered diseases that we humans have no natural defenses against.
|
http://europebusines.blogspot.com/2007/09/how-to-survive-iranian-biowa r-attack.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew.
Validated Poster
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 1518
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Andrew - could you possibly explain why you have now decided to ignore everything said previously.
>I did say use your common sense. Do you think all these troubles are by accident and coincidence? Read use common sense and digest & and at least learn some critical thinking skills. As it seems your not very good at this skill. Read things from both sides to start. You often find the answers are already there. Oh and you can even buy some titles.
He is giving you an analogy, a nasty one but possible.
And don’t forget about our primary immune functions being ruined by the rubbish most of us eat.
And vaccines wont save you, there a con also. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | learn some critical thinking skills. As it seems your not very good at this skill. |
Oh the irony.
| Quote: | | Do you think all these troubles are by accident and coincidence |
What "troubles" are you referring to? The world is immeasurably complex and involves the continual conjunction of intentionality, unforeseen consequence, accident, coincidence and just sh*t happening.
| Quote: | | Read things from both sides to start. You often find the answers are already there |
Look, you may think you sound 'deep', but I can assure you I am not impressed by meaningless statements. You are just sounding like a dick.
| Quote: | | Oh and you can even buy some titles. |
Yeah I know.
| Quote: | | He is giving you an analogy, a nasty one but possible. |
If you read his rather zany blog, he has several times repeated the same stuff as fact and boasted that - among others - Rense has picked up his stuff. Proving once again that Rense will basically carry anything.
Many things are "possible". Yet more are conceivable. The question is are they likely and if so on what basis.
If it is an "analogy" then please - o wise one - explain what it is analogous of.
| Quote: | | And don’t forget about our primary immune functions being ruined by the rubbish most of us eat. |
Why do you insist on just making blanket statements you fail to substantiate? Do you just think of something and decide it's true?
Why am I even interacting with someone who apparently just says random stuff?
| Quote: | | And vaccines wont save you, there a con also. |
Yeah - that's why we're all still dying of Polio and Smallpox, right?
And like George Orwell wouldn't likely have given his right arm to have had access to a TB jab before he hit his 40s. Not to mention contemporary residents of e.g. Swaziland. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.counterpunch.org/young08062008.html
| Quote: | The Atomic Bombing of Japan
By KEVIN YOUNG
Since the late 1940s the common justifications for President Truman's decision to drop two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki have consisted of four basic assertions: 1) that the bombs saved more lives than they took by eliminating the need for a US ground invasion of Japan, 2) that the bombs were dropped on military targets essential to the Japanese war machine, 3) that the bombs were dropped only after a process of careful deliberation by US leaders, 4) that those leaders were forced into dropping the bombs because of the Japanese leadership's refusal to surrender, and 5) that the bombings effectively ended the Pacific war by convincing Japan's leaders to surrender. These five assertions had their origins in the public statements of Truman, Secretary of War Henry Stimson, and others in the years 1945-47, and constitute the core of what might be labeled the "official narrative" concerning the use of the atomic bombs [1].
Historical scholarship in recent decades has completely refuted the first three assertions. Most scholars who have studied the use of the atomic bombs agree that Truman and his advisers knew a mainland invasion of Japan to have been "an unlikely possibility" given Japan's dire military situation in late-July 1945 [2]. Even in the event of a US mainland invasion, the highest projected casualty estimates for US forces were not "over a million" like Stimson and Truman later claimed, but between 30,000 and 50,000 [3]. More importantly, prior to August 1945 Truman and his advisers had considered it possible that the war would end without either the atomic bombs or a mainland invasion by US forces [4].
The claims that Truman and advisers used the bombs on military bases, and after careful consideration of alternatives, have both been proven false; Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major population centers, not military targets, and high-level officials later admitted that the bombs had been used hastily [5]. US officials clearly knew beforehand that the bombings would result in massive civilian deaths in both cities, but as J. Samuel Walker notes, that realization made little impact on US leaders given the long-established strategy of targeting civilian populations [6]. In fact, very little deliberation occurred as to whether or not the bombs should be dropped; according to historian Barton Bernstein, "it was not a carefully weighed decision but the implementation of an assumption" [7]. Once the bombs were developed, it was assumed they would be used.
Recent scholars have also pointed to some of the motives for the bombings not mentioned by Truman and others: the desire to assert US power vis-à-vis the Soviet Union [8]; the political imperative of not appearing soft on Japan [9]; the need to justify the $2 billion spent on the Manhattan Project to develop the bombs [10]; and the pervasive anti-Japanese racism that increased US officials' (and the public's) enthusiasm for the bombs' use [11].
Yet until recently even revisionist historians have continued to accept the last two major points of the official narrative listed above. First, most scholars have accepted the claim that Japan rejected the Potsdam Proclamation (issued by the Allies on 26 July 1945, calling for the Japanese to surrender unconditionally), and that the rejection of the ultimatum led immediately to the bombs' use. Second, there has been general agreement that the atomic bombs played a central role in forcing Japan to surrender.
Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, however, has recently challenged both points. Hasegawa argues that Truman and others demanded "unconditional" surrender on July 26 assuming that Japan would not accept the offer, allowing the US to then justify use of the atomic bombs ("unconditional surrender" was understood to include the removal of the emperor from Japanese society, a severe affront to Japanese traditions). Challenging the argument that the bombs forced Japan's surrender, Hasegawa cites a number of Japanese sources suggesting that the Soviet declaration of war against Japan on August 7-8, not Hiroshima and Nagasaki, compelled Japan to surrender.
The Insistence on Unconditional Surrender
The official narrative holds that Truman and his advisers insisted on unconditional surrender from the Japanese in order to, in Stimson's words, "render them powerless to mount and support another war" [12]. The official version also holds that the Japanese "promptly rejected" the July 26 ultimatum [13]. Stimson claimed afterwards that prior to August 6 there had been "no indication of any weakening in the Japanese determination to fight" [14]. In turn, most recent historians have accepted the claim that Japan rejected the surrender ultimatum. J. Samuel Walker (cited above) notes some ambiguity in the Japanese response, but he nonetheless characterizes that response as a "contemptuous rejection" of the ultimatum and sympathizes with US officials who interpreted it as such [15].
But Hasegawa observes that no one in the Japanese government ever formally rejected the terms of the Potsdam Proclamation. During the days following the ultimatum at least some of the Japanese leaders were known to be contemplating its meaning, though Japan made no formal reply [16]. Instead, Truman and his staff "seized upon" an offhand (and very ambiguous) comment from Prime Minister Suzuki implying his reluctance, accepting that sole comment as representative of the official Japanese reaction [17]. Truman and his advisers intentionally fabricated Japan's "prompt rejection" of the offer and subsequently incorporated it into their narrative justifying the use of the bombs.
While the ultimatum was never rejected, Truman and his Secretary of State James Byrnes knew that the demand for unconditional surrender would not be readily accepted either. According to Hasegawa, they insisted on unconditional surrender knowing it was unlikely to yield any result, so that afterwards they could justify the bombs' use by citing Japan's intransigence [18]. Hasegawa's strongest supporting evidence for this claim is a detail of supreme importance, though one which is usually neglected in the standard histories: Stimson, Chief of Staff George Marshall, and General Thomas Handy had, prior to July 26, already approved a directive (circulated on July 24-25) that ordered the use of multiple atomic bombs against Japan "as soon as weather will permit" [19]. In addition, Hasegawa notes that US officials had not sent the ultimatum through normal diplomatic channels and cites passages from the diaries of Truman and Department of State adviser Walter Brown that suggest the ultimatum was merely a "prelude" to the use of the bombs [20].
The Soviet Entry, Not the Bombs
Hasegawa's second major challenge to what has become the official scholarly version of the bombs' use is that the Soviet declaration of war rather than the atomic bombs was the major factor compelling Japan to surrender. The direct role of the bombs in bringing about Japan's surrender has always been part of the official narrative, for obvious reasons [21]. Yet that argument has also gone virtually unchallenged among revisionist historians and those who criticize the bombs' use [22].
Hasegawa continually emphasizes Japanese leaders' need to maintain the Soviet position of neutrality. Both the hawks and the doves agreed on this imperative, though for slightly different reasons [23]. For several months prior to the Soviet invasion, Japanese leaders had been actively seeking to maintain Soviet neutrality. By mid-June members of the peace faction had begun pursuing Soviet mediation (in an unprecedented intervention, the emperor himself even started working directly with the "Big Six" leaders toward this end) [24]. War advocate Colonel Tanemura's April 29 memo emphasized the "life and death importance" that Japanese leaders from both factions attached to the issue of Soviet neutrality [25].
Given the Japanese imperative of keeping the Soviet Union neutral, Stalin's declaration of war on August 7-8 was disastrous. According to Hasegawa, Japanese leaders' diaries and testimonies suggest that the imminent Soviet invasion was more influential in compelling them to accept the Potsdam conditions. Although Emperor Hirohito's desire to end the war became more urgent after Hiroshima, only on August 9 after the Soviet declaration of war did he clearly say that "it is necessary to study and decide on the termination of the war" [26]. The other peace advocates in the Foreign Ministry on the same day began to urge acceptance of the Potsdam ultimatum [27]. The reactions of the more hawkish military officials seem to have been similar. Both Admiral Toyoda and Army Deputy Chief of Staff Kawabe were surprised at the news of Hiroshima but were not ready to temper their views on continuing the war [28]. Many military officials hoped to mount a final defense, but had counted on Soviet neutrality in order to do so [29]. The Soviet declaration of war destroyed those hopes, and severely weakened the war faction's leverage within the government.
The major strength of Hasegawa's work, and one reason for its new arguments, is its in-depth analysis of Japanese primary sources. Few previous historians in the US had consulted the personal writings of figures like Toyoda, Kawabe, and Tanemura. But Hasegawa also makes more extensive use of Allied primary sources, including the memoirs and diaries of Truman, Byrnes, Brown, and others, which play a key role in his argument about the intent of the Potsdam Proclamation. Hasegawa's careful scholarship has significantly enriched our understanding of the intentions behind the demand for "unconditional surrender," as well as the dynamics behind the Japanese decision to surrender.
Sixty-Three Years Later
More ominously, though, the fact that Hasegawa's book comes six decades after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaski suggests the ease with which the official version of historical events often pervades both mainstream commentary and scholarly research. Even many conscientious historians have unthinkingly repeated the basic claims that Hasegawa challenges. Outside of the historical profession, though, all aspects of the official narrative are usually accepted without question, and very few of the preceding facts are known or acknowledged. Many of the long-refuted claims used to justify the use of the atomic bombs are even today frequently accepted as truth. For example, news anchors, journalists, and presidents in recent decades have continued to repeat outlandish casualty estimates for a US invasion which have no basis in the documents preceding August 1945 [30].
Based largely on the assertions and omissions of the official narrative, and that narrative's broad acceptance by mainstream commentators, much of the US public continues to deem the use of the atomic bombs justified. As two recent scholars note, the belief "that the bomb, and the bomb alone, ended the war and saved countless American lives remains an article of faith" [31]. The propaganda has been remarkably successful; many US citizens continue to support not only the use of atomic bombs on Japan in 1945, but have also advocated the use of nuclear weaponry in recent conflicts as well (in 1991 almost half of the US public supported the use of atomic weapons against Iraq) [32].
The acquiescence of the US public to war and violence overseas depends in large part on US leaders' ability to selectively exclude certain factual details from the historical record, but it also depends on the leaders' ability to shield the public from the human evidence—in this case, the images of charred corpses, deformed Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors, and eyewitness accounts describing the immediate aftermath of the bombings. Such images are essential to any honest history of warfare, be it atomic or "conventional." The modern-day observer can never completely understand the horrifying experiences of the victims at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the photographs, video footage, and post-war fiction inspired by the bombings can at least offer a window into those experiences [33]. For precisely this reason war-making politicians have always sought to restrict access to this sort of information (a pattern which has reached new extremes in the US since 2001).
Sixty-three years after the US bombing of Japan (including not only the two atomic bombs but also the merciless area bombing of Japanese cities in spring and summer 1945) killed perhaps half a million people, few of the possible "lessons" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki seem to have been learned. The United States is currently engaged in two major wars that have claimed 1-2 million lives, with thousands more to follow should the US invade Iran or—as Obama and McCain both propose—further escalate military actions in Afghanistan. Public consent for these enterprises has depended on official lies and propaganda, alongside the narrative of US history common in high schools and news media across the country that portrays the US as exceptionally benevolent in the world sphere. The memory of World War II has been central to this portrayal, even though the history of US bombing strategy in the war, including the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, suggests a slightly different story. If known and acknowledged, this history might prompt important questions: was World War II really a battle between two moral absolutes, or, as Gandhi suggested, was the difference between the Axis and Allied commanders "only one of degree" [34]? Of even more direct relevance for today, are the domestic ingredients which gave rise to World War II—militarism, national chauvinism, and concentrated control over decision-making and the means of violence—things of the past? Contemporary solutions depend to a large degree on an honest accounting of the past, which offers plenty of lessons for those willing to listen.
Kevin Young is a graduate student in history at Stony Brook University. He can be reached at: kayoung@ic.sunysb.edu |
| Quote: | | Public consent for these enterprises has depended on official lies and propaganda |
OFFICIAL PROPAGANDA BY WHOM??????
_________________
"The conflict between corporations and activists is that of narcolepsy versus remembrance. The corporations have money, power and influence. Our sole influence is public outrage. Extract from "Cloud Atlas (page 125) by David Mitchell. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | OFFICIAL PROPAGANDA BY WHOM?????? |
Who do you think? What's your point?
I have skim read this article because I am tired but it looks quite interesting. Thanks for posting it. I wish I knew more about this stuff. However -
| Quote: | Historical scholarship in recent decades has completely refuted the first three assertions. Most scholars who have studied the use of the atomic bombs agree that Truman and his advisers knew a mainland invasion of Japan to have been "an unlikely possibility" given Japan's dire military situation in late-July 1945 [2]. Even in the event of a US mainland invasion, the highest projected casualty estimates for US forces were not "over a million" like Stimson and Truman later claimed, but between 30,000 and 50,000 [3]. More importantly, prior to August 1945 Truman and his advisers had considered it possible that the war would end without either the atomic bombs or a mainland invasion by US forces [4].
|
Since these WWII historians are all lying shills who refuse to tell us the truth about WWII, I wonder why you would trust them. Indeed, footnote 3 references something by Robert Jay Lifton, a Jewish psychiatrist who specialises in psychohistory with particular reference to the effects of war and who wrote 'official history' Holocaust text the Nazi doctors. Brrrrrrr! I think he's sound, but don't let SimpleSimon see you posting this stuff - Lifton is one of them!
If you're interested, there is a review of the J Samuel Walker book used quite heavily as a source in the article here -
http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.cgi?path=276944155221 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
