10 Aug 2008, 4:15 pm
Judith wrote:
because only some of the ones belonging to the US, France, Russia, Italy, postwar Germany, etc. have been released. In his postscript, Shirer states that some of his documents were unpublished. He also does not list documents that I know have been released since then. I also know that a significant number of documents related to WWII were released by the US government only last year. Why do I know? I requested copies for my own research into what happened to my Grandmother's first husband, so that she could finally know the details of his death. All these years without even knowing where he died, or even the date. She finally knows.
The history is not "new and improved." It's just updated by newly released primary source material. Shirer's book could also be considered, to some degree, primary source material, when he is describing what he, himself, saw. Otherwise, he is filtering history through his own perspective lens just as much as any other historian is. None of us, no historian, no reporter, no one can write a perfectly unbiased report of anything. We color it through our own past, our own experiences. A German reporter would see the war differently than a reporter from Switzerland. Neither would be impartial, though. I agree with you that some people, and (unfortunately) some of them are historians, DO have an agenda and DO leave out things that disagree with that agenda. If they state that agenda at the beginning of whatever they write, you can at least read what they have written with a grain of salt. Take two. They're small. A good historian will consider his or her professional reputation and genuinely try to present the story of the past as clearly and as accurately as possible.
If a book came out using newly released documents and new evidence from recently discovered documented diaries showing that the "shooter on the grassy knoll" was the JFK killer, would you accept the "new and improved" version of that history? And if new evidence for TWA flight 800 came out decisively indicating that it was shot down in a terrorist action, would you then accept that the prior version was incorrect? You can't have it both ways, you know.[/i]
You're right. I didn't know they had still not released files. Their nuclear research, I could see leaving under wraps. But I couldn't see any reason to keep the rest closed.The history is not "new and improved." It's just updated by newly released primary source material. Shirer's book could also be considered, to some degree, primary source material, when he is describing what he, himself, saw. Otherwise, he is filtering history through his own perspective lens just as much as any other historian is. None of us, no historian, no reporter, no one can write a perfectly unbiased report of anything. We color it through our own past, our own experiences. A German reporter would see the war differently than a reporter from Switzerland. Neither would be impartial, though. I agree with you that some people, and (unfortunately) some of them are historians, DO have an agenda and DO leave out things that disagree with that agenda. If they state that agenda at the beginning of whatever they write, you can at least read what they have written with a grain of salt. Take two. They're small. A good historian will consider his or her professional reputation and genuinely try to present the story of the past as clearly and as accurately as possible.
If a book came out using newly released documents and new evidence from recently discovered documented diaries showing that the "shooter on the grassy knoll" was the JFK killer, would you accept the "new and improved" version of that history? And if new evidence for TWA flight 800 came out decisively indicating that it was shot down in a terrorist action, would you then accept that the prior version was incorrect? You can't have it both ways, you know.[/i]
TimT wrote:
I recommend you reread William Shirer's book, pages 1107 through 1112.
[/quote]Judith wrote:
Reread. Noted that it also mentioned mobilization of the Soviet army on the German front, Molotov's suspicions that the Germans were going to attack, preemptive German testing of the Soviet lines, and a communique to the Soviet ambassador declaring war before the invasion.
Yes, I agree. When dealing with a country, numerous personalities are involved and numerous actions will be taken some of which will be contrary to others. I can't say they were all completely surprised.Judith wrote:
TimT wrote:
Judith wrote:
FDR didn't "let" the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor. That's a common conspiracy myth. Please tell me you aren't that credulous. We didn't have the ability to crack the Japanese code. They had gotten an Enigma machine. The Allies weren't able to crack Enigma codes until we had stolen one of the machines, ourselves. Curiosity question, though. If Stalin and Hitler were such good buddies that Stalin was shocked that Hitler attacked, how did Stalin wind up being such great friends with known adversary FDR?!
This doesn't explain how the cameraman knew when to start cranking his camera. Those cameras were the latest thing. But the film had to be prepped in a water bath before loading into the camera. The film was only good for a couple of hours before it had to go back into the water bath.This doesn't explain how the radar men avoided courts martial. Their sole job was to observe and report any unexpected ship or plane movements. When the wave of planes approached Hawaii from the north, they shut off the radar and didn't tell anyone. That could be classed as treason.
You're still leaning too much on conspiracy theorists. Photographs were not of the first wave of attacks. Japanese knew the defects of US radar, which dated from WWI, and flew beneath the radar. The Japanese fleet stayed outside radar range. The radar was NOT turned OFF.
The sources I read, as well as the movie "Tora Tora Tora", all refer to the radar men seeing planes and shutting down the radar "because it was quitting time." What's your source?
TimT wrote:
Judith wrote:
"]
I also hate to have to tell you that many US Marxists aren't anti-Nazi. There is a very active neo-Nazi party in our fair country. They do deny that the Holocaust occurred. They believe that the US should be "cleansed" of all non-whites, Catholics, non-Christians (including certain Christian sects that don't measure up), and other groups. I'd rather deal with the KKK than with them. I can at least communicate with the KKK on a level that gets the point across. (I'll have to tell you THAT story some time. My husband thinks it's hilarious.)
There are also rabid Marxists in this country. But it is illegal to publicly suspect anyone of Marxist sympathies -- even if they admit to them! I also hate to have to tell you that many US Marxists aren't anti-Nazi. There is a very active neo-Nazi party in our fair country. They do deny that the Holocaust occurred. They believe that the US should be "cleansed" of all non-whites, Catholics, non-Christians (including certain Christian sects that don't measure up), and other groups. I'd rather deal with the KKK than with them. I can at least communicate with the KKK on a level that gets the point across. (I'll have to tell you THAT story some time. My husband thinks it's hilarious.)
Judith wrote:
Since when is that illegal? I don't just suspect a friend of mine. I KNOW he does. He just doesn't have any intentions of inciting a violent overthrow of the US government. That would be the only part that would be illegal.
It is "illegal" in terms of tort law. Accusing someone of being a communist without them declaring themselves to be such leaves you open to being sued. And have been. No one dared call Angela Davis a communist even though she said she was. I can't name other names because this is a public forum.Judith wrote:
You are still thinking about the individuals used as troops in the war, not the political powers inciting the war. I'm not certain who said this--I'll follow up with a reference later--but it was a politician during the WWII era. "War is politics by another means." They then "justify" their war by using idealistic terms in order to "sell" it to the masses, so that others will die for their gain.
When Mao's Red Guard were on their killing spree, they were doing it out of ideological zeal.Judith wrote:
BTW, humanists did nothing to destroy my first marriage. Alcoholism killed him at a very young age. Nor my second. He was a sociopath and should rightly be imprisoned for life for what he did. A lot of marriages might now be saved if our culture learned that valuing marriage in reality, instead of just paying it lip service, was a good plan. It might also be a good thing to value our children enough to make being a stay at home mom an honorable thing. Right now, I get asked "What do YOU do?" and when I answer, the person's eyes sort of glaze over, then they wander off to look for someone interesting to talk to. Yes, I'm a historian and an artist. But for a little while, I'm a historian and artist AT HOME while I preschool my 4yo. She needs me more than the outside world does.
Darn straight she does! Don't listen to those feminist fanatics.Judith wrote:
Meanwhile, you appear to actually qualify as far right. I suspect that I'm somewhat centrist, but with conservative views in many areas.
Naw, I'm the centrist with conservative views in many areas! 
Here, try the World's smallest political quiz: http://www.theadvocates.org/quizp/index.html
I'm an Independent.
Judith wrote:
You'll be a target? Dearheart, you've watched too many X-Files. Unless you're making front page headlines, you're not big enough to be a target. Otherwise, my Mom and I, with our outspoken attitudes, would have been ground chickies long ago. Great-grandma would have been a suffragette if she hadn't been so busy being the closest thing the Big Moccasin Gap had to a physician at the time.
I see some ominous trends in our society. When the economy collapses we will lose any real democracy. When anarchists and rioters hit the streets the government will have to clamp down -- hard. The president will have to be despotic to bring order in our country. If the president is Marxist, the Christians and patriots will end up in concentration camps. If the president is non-communist, the communists and Satanists will end up in the concentration camps.
Where do I get such ideas? "The Lessons of History" by Will & Ariel Durant.
I am aware of conspiracies by the government from the inside. My father was an intelligence officer. I overheard a lot. He shared some. The government is devious, dishonest and self-centered. It is also amoral. I've seen & heard things I can't share. I'm just glad I didn't get recruited by the CIA as some friends were.
10 Aug 2008, 5:06 pm
Bradleigh
Veteran
Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia
10 Aug 2008, 11:33 pm
11 Aug 2008, 10:31 am
12 Aug 2008, 2:08 am
12 Aug 2008, 10:03 am
12 Aug 2008, 1:27 pm
12 Aug 2008, 1:57 pm
12 Aug 2008, 4:34 pm
12 Aug 2008, 4:44 pm
Eggman wrote:
Any technology significantly more advanced the ours could be considered magic.
Unless it conflicts with our religion. When Christians heal someone, it is usually discredited as "faulty diagnosis." Trying to get the before & after x-rays is difficult. Our fifth dimensional technology is rejected by materialists who don't believe in more than four dimensions. 
12 Aug 2008, 5:46 pm
12 Aug 2008, 7:19 pm
12 Aug 2008, 8:31 pm
12 Aug 2008, 8:52 pm
Quote:
They have introduced courses for priests to combat what they call the most extreme form of "Godlessness."
And I thought they would be figthing reason, if it weren't for the mentioning of exorcism
Quote:
The Vatican is particularly concerned that young people are being exposed to the influence of Satanic sects through rock music and the Internet.
The Internet, of course, the PPR forum is the proof!
Now, after the War on Terrorism, there is going to be a War on Satanism?
Bradleigh
Veteran
Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia
13 Aug 2008, 7:35 am
13 Aug 2008, 8:21 am
