|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 29, 2022 16:31:32 GMT
"The BBC I was saying was a propaganda arm of the government during WW2, as per the cretins who manned the radio and told sweet lies to their audiences each night to help the war effort."
I don't believe this is true and when I have time I will prove it with the use of contemporary primary sources.
Perhaps you ought to start a new thread on the role of the BBC in wartime, it's a suitably contentious topic for the 'new' Mind Zone I would have thought and should generate significant interest.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 29, 2022 16:38:38 GMT
David Irving was allegedly very good at finding old records. One of his books was highly rated and made his name yet he got involved in the Holocaust and that destroyed his reputation. The arguments I have heard of is that the gassing of people in the numbers alleged could not have happened, not enough man hours to have killed that many in that time. Now in many countries just to ask that question is dangerous as we are still too close to the second world war resolution, perhaps in a 100 years time it will be safe to do so. When nobody cares. Actually there is very little about the Holocaust in any of Irving's thirty-odd books.
But you're right in that the Holocaust is the only historical event that is not open to scholarly debate. In fact, in Germany such debate is officially prohibited since the courts have ruled that the normative account is offenkundig, that is 'manifestly evident' and evidence that runs counter to it is inadmissible.
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Oct 29, 2022 16:48:11 GMT
colbops : I already gave the links to the source materials for my claims and statements - the iPlayer. If you wish to prove me wrong in any detail you'll need to go to the trouble of watching it yourself, something which I very much doubt you'll bother doing. I've no interest in proving you wrong. I'm simply noting that you haven't indicated which of your statements are assertions/claims and supported them, and which are your opinions. That is the standard of posting required in this section now. You haven't met that standard. I've given you 14 examples of where you haven't met the standard required. Lets take a couple of examples at random 4.) 'in the now standard format' Is this an assertion/ claim? or is it an opinion you haven't declared as such? If the former what is the source for this? Do you have some evidence that supports combining archive footage, re-enactment and talking heads is now the standard format for documentaries? Simply pointing to the documentary on Iplayer is not sufficient to support such an assertion/claim. 9.) The BBC’s main contribution to this series is in knitting the three elements together as well as orchestrating the talking heads. What is the source for this assertion / claim? Do you have any evidence to support this? The documentary itself isn't evidence for this. What source do you have that demonstrates the BBC did this, or in fact did anything to contribute beyond ponying up the dough to pay for the documentary?
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Oct 29, 2022 17:24:53 GMT
Some years ago I came across a book in a charity shop.The book was printed in Britain in late 1941. The author described himself as "A political advisor to the British armed forces". Towards the end of the book he said that Germany would be defeated within 2-3 years ... but ... IF NOTHING IS DONE ABOUT THE JEWS THEY WILL GAIN CONTROL OF BRITAIN BY 1948. In 1921, in Henry Ford's 'The International Jew', it says near the start of the book: "No doubt the Germans will find an acceptable solution to their Jewish problem". I had a 1929 set of Encyclopedia Britannicas ... there were NO Jewish contributors ... and very scanty info about Jewish beliefs and practices. At the end of WW1 some American newspapers promoted the view that the Jews had calculatedly profited from the war ... that the rising power of these Jews was a threat to the "gentile" world. There was even the rather bizarre belief that Freud's theories were in some way responsible for the 1929 stock market crash.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 29, 2022 17:34:30 GMT
What is the relevance of your observations to the topic of the thread?
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 29, 2022 18:03:51 GMT
David Irving was allegedly very good at finding old records. One of his books was highly rated and made his name yet he got involved in the Holocaust and that destroyed his reputation. The arguments I have heard of is that the gassing of people in the numbers alleged could not have happened, not enough man hours to have killed that many in that time. Now in many countries just to ask that question is dangerous as we are still too close to the second world war resolution, perhaps in a 100 years time it will be safe to do so. When nobody cares. I think the holocaust business was a red herring. I'm not even concerned about that. There is much more to it and we have been fibbed about so much. Here's an example. The guns used to protect London from German aircraft were not the proper kit but navy guns. Think how it is in the navy that it isn't in London. In the navy there is a lot of water around, in London there are a lot of civilian houses. Should one of these shells land on one then the occupants could be killed and many were. It was not reported at the time for obvious reasons. To the proles these guns were protecting them.
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Oct 29, 2022 18:33:53 GMT
Pretty sure anti-aircraft shells were set to go off at a certain altitude with timed fuses so only the duds would fall back to earth.
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 29, 2022 19:15:46 GMT
Pretty sure anti-aircraft shells were set to go off at a certain altitude with timed fuses so only the duds would fall back to earth. You mean for hitting ships at sea level. This is what they were using. What they were not using was guns made for the job. Besides even if it did not explode, if it came through your roof you would know about it. The proles were likely thinking it was damage from the Germans.
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 29, 2022 19:26:53 GMT
"The BBC I was saying was a propaganda arm of the government during WW2, as per the cretins who manned the radio and told sweet lies to their audiences each night to help the war effort." I don't believe this is true and when I have time I will prove it with the use of contemporary primary sources. Perhaps you ought to start a new thread on the role of the BBC in wartime, it's a suitably contentious topic for the 'new' Mind Zone I would have thought and should generate significant interest. To be quite frank with you I'm bored shitless talking about Hitler but it is slightly less boring than talk to myself. Everyone goes on about war - everyone ignore positive progress. I've tested this theory countless times on the Brits. There is only one thing more boring and that is football. Anyway, I've looked into the wider political going on during the time and it is safe to say we were not run by saints. Radio was a military tool, like most things invented in Blighty it was inspired by death. Even nuclear power, which you might see as positive was eagerly pursued not because it was a benefit to us but a benefit to the military. All they do now is switch to Putin and make him the new Hitler. The Schiller Institute did some good research on propaganda of this period.
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Oct 29, 2022 19:43:22 GMT
You mean for hitting ships at sea level. This is what they were using. What they were not using was guns made for the job. Besides even if it did not explode, if it came through your roof you would know about it. The proles were likely thinking it was damage from the Germans. What was being used was designed for the job Baron and your misguided viewpoint of others' intelligence compared to your own is showing up your ignorance. During WW2, people were very clued up on what things were. People were able to distinguish planes, bombs and weapons based on sound, were very adept at identifying different types of munitions, and would quite easily be able to tell the difference between a British AA shell and a German bomb.
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Oct 30, 2022 12:55:53 GMT
David Irving was allegedly very good at finding old records. One of his books was highly rated and made his name yet he got involved in the Holocaust and that destroyed his reputation. The arguments I have heard of is that the gassing of people in the numbers alleged could not have happened, not enough man hours to have killed that many in that time. Now in many countries just to ask that question is dangerous as we are still too close to the second world war resolution, perhaps in a 100 years time it will be safe to do so. When nobody cares. I think the holocaust business was a red herring. I'm not even concerned about that. There is much more to it and we have been fibbed about so much. Here's an example. The guns used to protect London from German aircraft were not the proper kit but navy guns. Think how it is in the navy that it isn't in London. In the navy there is a lot of water around, in London there are a lot of civilian houses. Should one of these shells land on one then the occupants could be killed and many were. It was not reported at the time for obvious reasons. To the proles these guns were protecting them. On the guns the Germans had 88m anti-flak guns for shooting at aircraft though they could also turn them towards destroying tanks not sure if they used different ammo.
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Oct 30, 2022 13:10:29 GMT
I think the holocaust business was a red herring. I'm not even concerned about that. There is much more to it and we have been fibbed about so much. Here's an example. The guns used to protect London from German aircraft were not the proper kit but navy guns. Think how it is in the navy that it isn't in London. In the navy there is a lot of water around, in London there are a lot of civilian houses. Should one of these shells land on one then the occupants could be killed and many were. It was not reported at the time for obvious reasons. To the proles these guns were protecting them. On the guns the Germans had 88m anti-flak guns for shooting at aircraft though they could also turn them towards destroying tanks not sure if they used different ammo. Hitting a tank is one thing, as it has a lot of armour, but for a warship the modern ones are virtually unsinkable. It was possible to sink WW2 ships, but you needed some huge mother of all guns to do it. The fuselage of an aircraft is the other end of the armour spectrum. Anyway, there are pictures of these guns and they were positioned all around London. I have a feeling one or two are still there. It's just one of the titbits of information I picked up from a Youtube historian and author of a whole stack of books on British history.
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on Oct 30, 2022 16:25:44 GMT
Did the Nazis simply respond to American anti-semitism alba-valb.org/resource/anti-semitism-in-the-1920s-and-1930s/"Anti-Semitism existed in America from early colonial days. Until the Civil War, however, as long as Jews were only a small percentage of the country’s population, it remained latent. Anti-Semitism became more open in the 1880s with the arrival of approximately two million Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe. They came mostly from areas of the Russian empire where religious persecution was common. By the end of the nineteenth century conditions for Jews worsened with the passage of more restrictive legislation and recurrent government sponsored violent attacks against Jewish communities called pogroms. Jews began fleeing in great numbers to the United States. Many Americans who traced their roots to northwestern Europe and Scandinavia grew increasingly concerned with the arrival of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe whom they considered to belong to inferior “races” and additionally in the case of Jews, because of their religious beliefs. Anti-Semitism was based on a combination of pervasive and contradictory Jewish stereotypes. Jews were portrayed as vulgar “money grabbing” capitalists as well as dangerous revolutionaries. Anti-Semitism spread through every aspect of American society: Newspapers and magazines commonly printed anti-Semitic articles and cartoons; anti-Semites held high positions in the federal government particularly in the State department; Jews were excluded from social clubs and faced discrimination in employment opportunities, especially in the professions; many towns adopted zoning regulations to prevent the sale of land and houses to Jews. Starting in 1922, following the example of Harvard, many prominent northeastern universities imposed strict quotas on the numbers of Jews they admitted. During the 1920s, automaker Henry Ford’s weekly newspaper, the Dearborn Independent (with a circulation of 700,000) launched a vicious campaign against what he termed “The International Jew” which he accused of everything from threatening the capitalist system to undermining the moral values of the nation, and finally he even held them responsible for World War I." In 1911 a book was published in Germany which praised the contribution of Germany's Jews to the success of the German state. Germany was a success because of ... apart from other factirs ... the "... financial skills of Germany's Jews". The founding and rise of Germany was seen by some non-German antisemites as " a Jewish plot". In the mid-30s several American aircraft designers ... amongst the most skilled in the world ... went to Germany and helped them build up their airforce. Most the German planes involved in the early part of the war had significant features designed by these American experts.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Oct 30, 2022 20:40:28 GMT
"Did the Nazis simply respond to American anti-semitism"
No. Anti-semitism, or to give it its original German term Antisemitismus had been a constant strain in European culture since the early Middle Ages.
What changed under the Nazis, and indeed in German or mitteleuropaische society generally is that from the late 19C on it changed from being religiously-based to racial.
But, all that aside what, again. is the relevance of any of this to the thread topic?
|
|
|
Post by jeg er on Oct 30, 2022 22:01:12 GMT
"Did the Nazis simply respond to American anti-semitism" No. Anti-semitism, or to give it its original German term Antisemitismus had been a constant strain in European culture since the early Middle Ages. What changed under the Nazis, and indeed in German or mitteleuropaische society generally is that from the late 19C on it changed from being religiously-based to racial. But, all that aside what, again. is the relevance of any of this to the thread topic? well, at least it means you got some serious replies on your thread
|
|