Reply
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe: Benjamin Franklin

[ Edited ]

Timbuktu,

 

I know we were discussing Franklin and some of his views on religion.  I came across this url which was interesting in that it took extracts of some of Franklin's letters where he discussed his views.

 

www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/religion/franklin-religion.html 

No idea why these links are not posting properly; but here is where it came from:
When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, ... B = John Bigelow, ed., The Works of Benjamin Franklin (New York: Putnam’s, 1904) ...
www.worldpolicy.org/projects/ globalrights/religion/franklin-religion.html - 7k -
 


Message Edited by bentley on 08-03-2008 01:20 PM
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe: Benjamin Franklin


bentley wrote:

Timbuktu,

 

I know we were discussing Franklin and some of his views on religion.  I came across this url which was interesting in that it took extracts of some of Franklin's letters where he discussed his views.

 

www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/religion/franklin-religion.html 

No idea why these links are not posting properly; but here is where it came from:
When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, ... B = John Bigelow, ed., The Works of Benjamin Franklin (New York: Putnam’s, 1904) ...
www.worldpolicy.org/projects/ globalrights/religion/franklin-religion.html - 7k -
 


Message Edited by bentley on 08-03-2008 01:20 PM
Thanks Bentley, I'll check them out.
 
BTW, my latest DVD is called "Churchill" (2002) from netflix.  It's basically a recording of his speeches.  Nothing can compare to hearing him, in his own voice.  
 Much of what he says, however, is so politically incorrect.  Times have changed so much.  

 

Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe: Churchill et al

[ Edited ]

Timbuktu1 wrote:

bentley wrote:

Timbuktu,

 

I know we were discussing Franklin and some of his views on religion.  I came across this url which was interesting in that it took extracts of some of Franklin's letters where he discussed his views.

 

www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/religion/franklin-religion.html 

No idea why these links are not posting properly; but here is where it came from:
When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, ... B = John Bigelow, ed., The Works of Benjamin Franklin (New York: Putnam’s, 1904) ...
www.worldpolicy.org/projects/ globalrights/religion/franklin-religion.html - 7k 
Thanks Bentley, I'll check them out.
 
BTW, my latest DVD is called "Churchill" (2002) from netflix.  It's basically a recording of his speeches.  Nothing can compare to hearing him, in his own voice.  
 Much of what he says, however, is so politically incorrect.  Times have changed so much.  

 


Yes, they have.  It is interesting to listen to folks speak and realize that even certain single words would never be stated today without some repercussions from someone.  Never mind the landscape of some of these ideas.  BTW: the librarian had a new audio book of the Buchanan book which I decided to listen to probably much to my future chagrin.  However, it is very complementary to Churchill, Roosevelt, Great Britain, the allies at the beginning. Then he starts to discuss that these world wars were the beginning of the destruction of the West, millions of young men were completely wiped out affecting population growths in these countries (France, etc. - true statement); and that World War II was an unnecessary war and he quotes Churchill in his statement to Roosevelt which we discussed.  He also seems to feel that these wars resulted in the demise of the British Empire (probably true) and here is where I differ - he states that he believes that Germany looked up to Great Britain and all it had been able to accomplish and probably something could have been done aside from what occurred (doubtful I believe); then he goes on to state that thank goodness the British people and Churchill were so stalwart otherwise we would all be speaking German and that would not have been a good thing from his viewpoint (true); but then he backtracks and talks about a Churchill cult (and I think he is lumping Bush into that equation somehow - Bush trying to be Churchillian) and that Bush is basically demonizing other countries who have not attacked us as being perceived enemies and that these folks who are not bothering the US ostensibly have to be destroyed before they destroy us (here I have no idea what connections he is trying to make between Churchill and Bush unless he is talking ad nauseum about the Iraq War which was an unnecessary war - other than that I do not see the connection; but Buchanan does).  Now he is trying to prove his theory that the west is doomed and in fact we are not procreating enough to sustain ourselves and the genesis of this gloom and doom theory are these two world wars.
Well Timbuktu that is where I am so far; would never have picked it up if it had not been mentioned by you.  :smileyhappy:
My feeling is that so far it is entertaining, and that facts are mixed with his very far reaching hypothesis and personal feelings.  But I think I will finish it anyways at this point because he does mention different things about the Boers,  Kitchener etc which I find very informative based upon the connection to these events in My Early Life. He is also quoting Lord Roseberry, Lord Salisbury, Joseph Chamberlain and Queen Victoria (he gets around in term of historic timelines).
I do think that Buchanan likes to be a sensationalist and still feel it is all about the money.  
Bentley 

Message Edited by bentley on 08-03-2008 03:50 PM
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Truth.

[ Edited ]

Truth requires me to point out that Leni Reifenstahl's film is widely regarded as one of the best propaganda films ever made. The truth is that it was commissioned as such and both Hitler and Goebbels were reported as being very pleased with it. The truth is that Albert Speer made the City of Nuremberg into a film set for the film with thousands of swastika banners, burning torches and thousands of 'extras' were recruited and carefully choreographed so as not to look militaristic. The truth is that the film was was nothing like the frightening actuality of the real rallies, the truth of which can be seen on documentary newsreels of the time or on extracts on Youtube, which I posted.    

 

The truth is that to compare the Hitler Youth Movement to the Boy Scout and Girl Guide Movement is an insult to the thousands of young people who grew up in those organisations and who fought in both world wars. The truth is that:  They were not encouraged to beat up Jews! They did not break the windows of Jewish shops! They were not told how to recognise Jews! They were not told to avoid them at school and in the street!  They were not involved in a British/American version of Kristallnacht!

 

The truth is that I did not just give a reference to Hitler Youth uniforms, the link also included details of what the Hitler Youth were all about and what infamous activities they were involved in. The truth is that to compare this to the innocent activities of British and American youngsters is an infamy (but of course those people are not here to defend themselves from such libel because most of them are dead:smileysad:).  

 

The truth requires me to remember that I am proud to have been brought up with a certain point of view about these matters because I was under the impression that it was the infamous and unforgiveable activities of the Nazis and the Hitler Youth which drove both our countries into war. I therefore  hope that there are Americans here who will defend these truths. If not, then their fathers have died in vain. 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

Truth requires me to point out that one person's views of history are necessarily "historical accuracy," but are one person's views.  I'm not going to engage in a lengty debate with you here, it would be pointless, but your interpretation of Leni Riefenstahl's work is only one interpretation of it, and not hers, as she has made clear many, many times.  Of course one is entitled to believe that she is a flat out liar, but historical accuracy requires at least that one acknowledge that there is a divergence of opinions.

 

As to the Hitler Youth wearing military-style uniforms, that is pretty meaningless.  After all, Baden-Powell's English Scouts wore military-style uniforms, in at least some cases deliberately chosen for their military associations.   And as the Wikipedia article on B-P points out, "Several of his military books, written for military reconnaissance and scout training in his African years, were also read by boys. Based on those earlier books, he wrote Scouting for Boys, published in 1908 by Pearson, for youth readership."  Indeed, the very term scout had for him a military connotation.  So it's pretty ironical to criticize the Hitler Youth for having military-style uniforms when the major British youth movement had the same.   It was just the way things were done in Europe at that time of history, and was nothing unique to Hitler or Germany.  (While I'm not up on other youth movements of the 20s and 30s, I wouldn't be at all surprised if many of the youth movements in Spain, France, Belgium, etc. also relied on military-style uniforms.)

 

As to your other points, you are certainly entitled to your own view of history, and I'm not going to spend time here on a full point-by-point refutation.  As one who lived for decades in the center of English political life you have naturally and understandably absorbed that  point of view. I'm sure you would be the first (or, after me, the second) to agree that there are other equally valid points of view about politics and world history.

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 08-03-2008 05:47 PM
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Truth.

Your "truths" reflect, as all historica truths do, the environment in which you were raised and your experiencing events from your particular perspective.  That is certainly a truth.  That in no way makes it the truth.  

 

But it's clear that you have one closed-minded view of history, and I don't have time or willingness to try to show you that the world may be more complex than you perceive it to be.

 


Choisya wrote:

Truth requires me to point out that Leni Reifenstahl's film is widely regarded as one of the best propaganda films ever made. The truth is that it was commissioned as such and both Hitler and Goebbels were reported as being very pleased with it. The truth is that Albert Speer made the City of Nuremberg into a film set for the film with thousands of swastika banners, burning torches and thousands of 'extras' were recruited and carefully choreographed so as not to look militaristic. The truth is that the film was was nothing like the frightening actuality of the real rallies, the truth of which can be seen on documentary newsreels of the time or on extracts on Youtube, which I posted.    

 

The truth is that to compare the Hitler Youth Movement to the Boy Scout and Girl Guide Movement is an insult to the thousands of young people who grew up in those organisations and who fought in both world wars. The truth is that:  They were not encouraged to beat up Jews! They did not break the windows of Jewish shops! They were not told how to recognise Jews! They were not told to avoid them at school and in the street!  They were not involved in a British/American version of Kristallnacht!

 

The truth is that I did not just give a reference to Hitler Youth uniforms, the link also included details of what the Hitler Youth were all about and what infamous activities they were involved in. The truth is that to compare this to the innocent activities of British and American youngsters is an infamy (but of course those people are not here to defend themselves from such libel because most of them are dead:smileysad:).  

 

The truth requires me to remember that I am proud to have been brought up with a certain point of view about these matters because I was under the impression that it was the infamous and unforgiveable activities of the Nazis and the Hitler Youth which drove both our countries into war. I therefore  hope that there are Americans here who will defend these truths. If not, then their fathers have died in vain. 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

Truth requires me to point out that one person's views of history are necessarily "historical accuracy," but are one person's views.  I'm not going to engage in a lengty debate with you here, it would be pointless, but your interpretation of Leni Riefenstahl's work is only one interpretation of it, and not hers, as she has made clear many, many times.  Of course one is entitled to believe that she is a flat out liar, but historical accuracy requires at least that one acknowledge that there is a divergence of opinions.

 

As to the Hitler Youth wearing military-style uniforms, that is pretty meaningless.  After all, Baden-Powell's English Scouts wore military-style uniforms, in at least some cases deliberately chosen for their military associations.   And as the Wikipedia article on B-P points out, "Several of his military books, written for military reconnaissance and scout training in his African years, were also read by boys. Based on those earlier books, he wrote Scouting for Boys, published in 1908 by Pearson, for youth readership."  Indeed, the very term scout had for him a military connotation.  So it's pretty ironical to criticize the Hitler Youth for having military-style uniforms when the major British youth movement had the same.   It was just the way things were done in Europe at that time of history, and was nothing unique to Hitler or Germany.  (While I'm not up on other youth movements of the 20s and 30s, I wouldn't be at all surprised if many of the youth movements in Spain, France, Belgium, etc. also relied on military-style uniforms.)

 

As to your other points, you are certainly entitled to your own view of history, and I'm not going to spend time here on a full point-by-point refutation.  As one who lived for decades in the center of English political life you have naturally and understandably absorbed that  point of view. I'm sure you would be the first (or, after me, the second) to agree that there are other equally valid points of view about politics and world history.

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 08-03-2008 05:47 PM

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Truth.

[ Edited ]

I would be very willing to learn which of the facts I have stated are not true and what books/links/video-clips etc etc you can use to support your case that Reifenstahl's film was not a staged propaganda version of the Nuremberg Rallies, that the actual Nuremberg Rallies were not extremely militaristic, that the Hitler Youth were not militaristic and involved in the persecution of Jews and that the uniform of the Boy Scouts somehow made them like the Hitler Youth.

 

As this thread is discussing War, it seems appropriate that we all learn just what complexities there are about the things we have discussed here which somehow makes all of these things a 'close minded view of history'.   

 

(I am of course aware of David Irving's view of WWII history but I prefer to stick with more recognised and palatable historians.  Again, my apologies to any Jewish readers here.) 

 


Everyman wrote:

Your "truths" reflect, as all historica truths do, the environment in which you were raised and your experiencing events from your particular perspective.  That is certainly a truth.  That in no way makes it the truth.  

 

But it's clear that you have one closed-minded view of history, and I don't have time or willingness to try to show you that the world may be more complex than you perceive it to be.

 


Choisya wrote:

Truth requires me to point out that Leni Reifenstahl's film is widely regarded as one of the best propaganda films ever made. The truth is that it was commissioned as such and both Hitler and Goebbels were reported as being very pleased with it. The truth is that Albert Speer made the City of Nuremberg into a film set for the film with thousands of swastika banners, burning torches and thousands of 'extras' were recruited and carefully choreographed so as not to look militaristic. The truth is that the film was was nothing like the frightening actuality of the real rallies, the truth of which can be seen on documentary newsreels of the time or on extracts on Youtube, which I posted.    

 

The truth is that to compare the Hitler Youth Movement to the Boy Scout and Girl Guide Movement is an insult to the thousands of young people who grew up in those organisations and who fought in both world wars. The truth is that:  They were not encouraged to beat up Jews! They did not break the windows of Jewish shops! They were not told how to recognise Jews! They were not told to avoid them at school and in the street!  They were not involved in a British/American version of Kristallnacht!

 

The truth is that I did not just give a reference to Hitler Youth uniforms, the link also included details of what the Hitler Youth were all about and what infamous activities they were involved in. The truth is that to compare this to the innocent activities of British and American youngsters is an infamy (but of course those people are not here to defend themselves from such libel because most of them are dead:smileysad:).  

 

The truth requires me to remember that I am proud to have been brought up with a certain point of view about these matters because I was under the impression that it was the infamous and unforgiveable activities of the Nazis and the Hitler Youth which drove both our countries into war. I therefore  hope that there are Americans here who will defend these truths. If not, then their fathers have died in vain. 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

Truth requires me to point out that one person's views of history are necessarily "historical accuracy," but are one person's views.  I'm not going to engage in a lengty debate with you here, it would be pointless, but your interpretation of Leni Riefenstahl's work is only one interpretation of it, and not hers, as she has made clear many, many times.  Of course one is entitled to believe that she is a flat out liar, but historical accuracy requires at least that one acknowledge that there is a divergence of opinions.

 

As to the Hitler Youth wearing military-style uniforms, that is pretty meaningless.  After all, Baden-Powell's English Scouts wore military-style uniforms, in at least some cases deliberately chosen for their military associations.   And as the Wikipedia article on B-P points out, "Several of his military books, written for military reconnaissance and scout training in his African years, were also read by boys. Based on those earlier books, he wrote Scouting for Boys, published in 1908 by Pearson, for youth readership."  Indeed, the very term scout had for him a military connotation.  So it's pretty ironical to criticize the Hitler Youth for having military-style uniforms when the major British youth movement had the same.   It was just the way things were done in Europe at that time of history, and was nothing unique to Hitler or Germany.  (While I'm not up on other youth movements of the 20s and 30s, I wouldn't be at all surprised if many of the youth movements in Spain, France, Belgium, etc. also relied on military-style uniforms.)

 

As to your other points, you are certainly entitled to your own view of history, and I'm not going to spend time here on a full point-by-point refutation.  As one who lived for decades in the center of English political life you have naturally and understandably absorbed that  point of view. I'm sure you would be the first (or, after me, the second) to agree that there are other equally valid points of view about politics and world history.

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 08-03-2008 05:47 PM

 

 


 

Message Edited by Choisya on 08-03-2008 06:29 PM
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe: Hello

As an observer, this conversation though a very interesting one appears to be going in the wrong direction.  I have no problem with most tangential topics in the Off Topic Cafe aside from those that may bring discomfort to any individual.  There is no problem with any of the postings here if they are sensitive to the community who may be reading MY EARLY LIFE. I wholeheartedly believe in free speech; but some of the images posted may be hard for some groups to handle. 
Is it more important to win the argument; if the images or links are causing discomfort.  I don't know what else to say.  Again, I respect everyone's viewpoint here and admittedly the discourse is thought provoking; but a word of caution, please.
Just a thought to consider.   
Bentley 

 

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Truth.

How recently have you watched Triumph of the Will and listened both to the translation of it and to Leni Riefenstahl's comments on the making of it?  With the perspective of some distance from the actual events and the war, it is much easier to look at it objectively than was possible in the 1940s and 50s. 

 

If it had really been viewed when it was made as Nazi propaganda and militaristic, it seems curious that it would have won major awards not only in Germany but in Vienna (a gold medal at the 1935 Venice Biennale) and France (Grand Prix at the 1937 World Exhibition in Paris). 

 

Whether the film should be considered art, documentary, propaganda, or some mix of those is still hotly debated, and by no means resolved.  What is undeniable is that it is a magnificent piece of creativity and the product of an extraordinary cinematic talent.

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe: Hello

Bentley wrote, in part:  Is it more important to win the argument; if the images or links are causing discomfort. 

 

I am not trying to win any argument.  I am simply putting forward the proposition that there is no single truth in history, that how one interprets history is very much a matter of one's perspective and one's personal history (consider for just one simple example the question whether the outcome of the War Between the States was a triumph or disaster for freedom and the rights of self-determination).   History is complex, and to assert that there is only one truth, or only one correct way of looking at it, and that right and wrong are clear and unambiguous, is far too simplistic and is a position I will ardently oppose wherever I find it.  

 

Choisya is perfectly entitled to her point of view, and to try to persuade others, me included, of the validity of her point of view. And I am perfectly entitled to my point of view, and to try to persuade others, Choisya included, of the validity of my point of view.

 

I have no problem with somebody holding a different interpretation of history than you or I might have, as long as they do not claim that they have THE truth and anybody who disagrees with them must be wrong.  That I find offensive, as well as intellectually bankrupt.   

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe: Churchill et al


bentley wrote:

Timbuktu1 wrote:

bentley wrote:

Timbuktu,

 

I know we were discussing Franklin and some of his views on religion.  I came across this url which was interesting in that it took extracts of some of Franklin's letters where he discussed his views.

 

www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/religion/franklin-religion.html 

No idea why these links are not posting properly; but here is where it came from:
When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, ... B = John Bigelow, ed., The Works of Benjamin Franklin (New York: Putnam’s, 1904) ...
www.worldpolicy.org/projects/ globalrights/religion/franklin-religion.html - 7k 
Thanks Bentley, I'll check them out.
 
BTW, my latest DVD is called "Churchill" (2002) from netflix.  It's basically a recording of his speeches.  Nothing can compare to hearing him, in his own voice.  
 Much of what he says, however, is so politically incorrect.  Times have changed so much.  

 


Yes, they have.  It is interesting to listen to folks speak and realize that even certain single words would never be stated today without some repercussions from someone.  Never mind the landscape of some of these ideas.  BTW: the librarian had a new audio book of the Buchanan book which I decided to listen to probably much to my future chagrin.  However, it is very complementary to Churchill, Roosevelt, Great Britain, the allies at the beginning. Then he starts to discuss that these world wars were the beginning of the destruction of the West, millions of young men were completely wiped out affecting population growths in these countries (France, etc. - true statement); and that World War II was an unnecessary war and he quotes Churchill in his statement to Roosevelt which we discussed.  He also seems to feel that these wars resulted in the demise of the British Empire (probably true) and here is where I differ - he states that he believes that Germany looked up to Great Britain and all it had been able to accomplish and probably something could have been done aside from what occurred (doubtful I believe); then he goes on to state that thank goodness the British people and Churchill were so stalwart otherwise we would all be speaking German and that would not have been a good thing from his viewpoint (true); but then he backtracks and talks about a Churchill cult (and I think he is lumping Bush into that equation somehow - Bush trying to be Churchillian) and that Bush is basically demonizing other countries who have not attacked us as being perceived enemies and that these folks who are not bothering the US ostensibly have to be destroyed before they destroy us (here I have no idea what connections he is trying to make between Churchill and Bush unless he is talking ad nauseum about the Iraq War which was an unnecessary war - other than that I do not see the connection; but Buchanan does).  Now he is trying to prove his theory that the west is doomed and in fact we are not procreating enough to sustain ourselves and the genesis of this gloom and doom theory are these two world wars.
Well Timbuktu that is where I am so far; would never have picked it up if it had not been mentioned by you.  :smileyhappy:
My feeling is that so far it is entertaining, and that facts are mixed with his very far reaching hypothesis and personal feelings.  But I think I will finish it anyways at this point because he does mention different things about the Boers,  Kitchener etc which I find very informative based upon the connection to these events in My Early Life. He is also quoting Lord Roseberry, Lord Salisbury, Joseph Chamberlain and Queen Victoria (he gets around in term of historic timelines).
I do think that Buchanan likes to be a sensationalist and still feel it is all about the money.  
Bentley 

Message Edited by bentley on 08-03-2008 03:50 PM
 
Thanks so much for the low down on the book.  Getting it from the library is a good idea, no money for him.  I knew his point was about the Iraq war.  I did read his book "Death of the West".  Most if it was very true and reasonable although his prejudices do come through.  He was the first to explain the demographics and what it will mean, but since then, many people have picked up on it and others (such as Mark Steyn) have written similar books.  Since they are not as hated as Bucannan, they have gotten more respect.
I can see the point about Bush being Churchillian.  Not to mention Tony Blair.  Sometimes I think that it's the very thing we just talked about, the change in sensibilities, that makes it impossible to call evil, evil today. Of course it wasn't that popular in those days either, was it?  It's only after the fact that everyone seemed in agreement.  Well, ALMOST everyone.    But we have been attacked.  Repeatedly.  I think the attackers are counting on the fact that we're not strong in our beliefs and we're soft hearted, people.  They've said as much.  Honestly, though, it's a complicated situation and I don't have the expertise to fully understand.  I just wish someone did!   

 

Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Truth.


Everyman wrote:

Your "truths" reflect, as all historica truths do, the environment in which you were raised and your experiencing events from your particular perspective.  That is certainly a truth.  That in no way makes it the truth.  

 

But it's clear that you have one closed-minded view of history, and I don't have time or willingness to try to show you that the world may be more complex than you perceive it to be.

 


Choisya wrote:

Truth requires me to point out that Leni Reifenstahl's film is widely regarded as one of the best propaganda films ever made. The truth is that it was commissioned as such and both Hitler and Goebbels were reported as being very pleased with it. The truth is that Albert Speer made the City of Nuremberg into a film set for the film with thousands of swastika banners, burning torches and thousands of 'extras' were recruited and carefully choreographed so as not to look militaristic. The truth is that the film was was nothing like the frightening actuality of the real rallies, the truth of which can be seen on documentary newsreels of the time or on extracts on Youtube, which I posted.    

 

The truth is that to compare the Hitler Youth Movement to the Boy Scout and Girl Guide Movement is an insult to the thousands of young people who grew up in those organisations and who fought in both world wars. The truth is that:  They were not encouraged to beat up Jews! They did not break the windows of Jewish shops! They were not told how to recognise Jews! They were not told to avoid them at school and in the street!  They were not involved in a British/American version of Kristallnacht!

 

The truth is that I did not just give a reference to Hitler Youth uniforms, the link also included details of what the Hitler Youth were all about and what infamous activities they were involved in. The truth is that to compare this to the innocent activities of British and American youngsters is an infamy (but of course those people are not here to defend themselves from such libel because most of them are dead:smileysad:).  

 

The truth requires me to remember that I am proud to have been brought up with a certain point of view about these matters because I was under the impression that it was the infamous and unforgiveable activities of the Nazis and the Hitler Youth which drove both our countries into war. I therefore  hope that there are Americans here who will defend these truths. If not, then their fathers have died in vain. 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

Truth requires me to point out that one person's views of history are necessarily "historical accuracy," but are one person's views.  I'm not going to engage in a lengty debate with you here, it would be pointless, but your interpretation of Leni Riefenstahl's work is only one interpretation of it, and not hers, as she has made clear many, many times.  Of course one is entitled to believe that she is a flat out liar, but historical accuracy requires at least that one acknowledge that there is a divergence of opinions.

 

As to the Hitler Youth wearing military-style uniforms, that is pretty meaningless.  After all, Baden-Powell's English Scouts wore military-style uniforms, in at least some cases deliberately chosen for their military associations.   And as the Wikipedia article on B-P points out, "Several of his military books, written for military reconnaissance and scout training in his African years, were also read by boys. Based on those earlier books, he wrote Scouting for Boys, published in 1908 by Pearson, for youth readership."  Indeed, the very term scout had for him a military connotation.  So it's pretty ironical to criticize the Hitler Youth for having military-style uniforms when the major British youth movement had the same.   It was just the way things were done in Europe at that time of history, and was nothing unique to Hitler or Germany.  (While I'm not up on other youth movements of the 20s and 30s, I wouldn't be at all surprised if many of the youth movements in Spain, France, Belgium, etc. also relied on military-style uniforms.)

 

As to your other points, you are certainly entitled to your own view of history, and I'm not going to spend time here on a full point-by-point refutation.  As one who lived for decades in the center of English political life you have naturally and understandably absorbed that  point of view. I'm sure you would be the first (or, after me, the second) to agree that there are other equally valid points of view about politics and world history.

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 08-03-2008 05:47 PM

 

 

Everyman!  When did you become a relativist?  What happened to Plato?  Universal truth?  The Good?  

 

Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe: Churchill et al


bentley wrote:

Timbuktu1 wrote:

bentley wrote:

Timbuktu,

 

I know we were discussing Franklin and some of his views on religion.  I came across this url which was interesting in that it took extracts of some of Franklin's letters where he discussed his views.

 

www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/religion/franklin-religion.html 

No idea why these links are not posting properly; but here is where it came from:
When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, ... B = John Bigelow, ed., The Works of Benjamin Franklin (New York: Putnam’s, 1904) ...
www.worldpolicy.org/projects/ globalrights/religion/franklin-religion.html - 7k 
Thanks Bentley, I'll check them out.
 
BTW, my latest DVD is called "Churchill" (2002) from netflix.  It's basically a recording of his speeches.  Nothing can compare to hearing him, in his own voice.  
 Much of what he says, however, is so politically incorrect.  Times have changed so much.  

 


Yes, they have.  It is interesting to listen to folks speak and realize that even certain single words would never be stated today without some repercussions from someone.  Never mind the landscape of some of these ideas.  BTW: the librarian had a new audio book of the Buchanan book which I decided to listen to probably much to my future chagrin.  However, it is very complementary to Churchill, Roosevelt, Great Britain, the allies at the beginning. Then he starts to discuss that these world wars were the beginning of the destruction of the West, millions of young men were completely wiped out affecting population growths in these countries (France, etc. - true statement); and that World War II was an unnecessary war and he quotes Churchill in his statement to Roosevelt which we discussed.  He also seems to feel that these wars resulted in the demise of the British Empire (probably true) and here is where I differ - he states that he believes that Germany looked up to Great Britain and all it had been able to accomplish and probably something could have been done aside from what occurred (doubtful I believe); then he goes on to state that thank goodness the British people and Churchill were so stalwart otherwise we would all be speaking German and that would not have been a good thing from his viewpoint (true); but then he backtracks and talks about a Churchill cult (and I think he is lumping Bush into that equation somehow - Bush trying to be Churchillian) and that Bush is basically demonizing other countries who have not attacked us as being perceived enemies and that these folks who are not bothering the US ostensibly have to be destroyed before they destroy us (here I have no idea what connections he is trying to make between Churchill and Bush unless he is talking ad nauseum about the Iraq War which was an unnecessary war - other than that I do not see the connection; but Buchanan does).  Now he is trying to prove his theory that the west is doomed and in fact we are not procreating enough to sustain ourselves and the genesis of this gloom and doom theory are these two world wars.
Well Timbuktu that is where I am so far; would never have picked it up if it had not been mentioned by you.  :smileyhappy:
My feeling is that so far it is entertaining, and that facts are mixed with his very far reaching hypothesis and personal feelings.  But I think I will finish it anyways at this point because he does mention different things about the Boers,  Kitchener etc which I find very informative based upon the connection to these events in My Early Life. He is also quoting Lord Roseberry, Lord Salisbury, Joseph Chamberlain and Queen Victoria (he gets around in term of historic timelines).
I do think that Buchanan likes to be a sensationalist and still feel it is all about the money.  
Bentley 

Message Edited by bentley on 08-03-2008 03:50 PM
 
Just wondering Bentley, what did he think could have been worked out with Great Britain?  I can see that Hitler would have approuved of the British, in a genetic sense (yuck).  The Queen is German and I believe the king that abdicated (for the woman he loved), was it Edward VI? was a Nazi sympathizer.  Does he mean that the British could have made a deal with Germany?  Didn't the Norwegians do something like that?   There's so much I have to read but I really am curious about that book.  I understand your reactions.  When I read Death of the West I had similar feelings.  He makes brilliant points, really original, independent thinking, and then you realize the creepy part that underlies what he's saying.  But a good idea is a good idea, whatever it's source.  
 
 

 

Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Truth.


Everyman wrote:

How recently have you watched Triumph of the Will and listened both to the translation of it and to Leni Riefenstahl's comments on the making of it?  With the perspective of some distance from the actual events and the war, it is much easier to look at it objectively than was possible in the 1940s and 50s. 

 

If it had really been viewed when it was made as Nazi propaganda and militaristic, it seems curious that it would have won major awards not only in Germany but in Vienna (a gold medal at the 1935 Venice Biennale) and France (Grand Prix at the 1937 World Exhibition in Paris). 

 

Whether the film should be considered art, documentary, propaganda, or some mix of those is still hotly debated, and by no means resolved.  What is undeniable is that it is a magnificent piece of creativity and the product of an extraordinary cinematic talent.

 
I watched part of that movie recently and you're right, it's very well done.  She was a talented filmaker.  Wouldn't it be nice if talent and brains only occurred in people with good intentions?  If people with evil intentions were always inept?  What a world that would be!

 

Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe: Churchill et al

[ Edited ]
Timbuktu said:
Thanks so much for the low down on the book.  Getting it from the library is a good idea, no money for him.  I knew his point was about the Iraq war.  I did read his book "Death of the West".  Most if it was very true and reasonable although his prejudices do come through.  He was the first to explain the demographics and what it will mean, but since then, many people have picked up on it and others (such as Mark Steyn) have written similar books.  Since they are not as hated as Buchanan, they have gotten more respect.
I can see the point about Bush being Churchillian.  Not to mention Tony Blair.  Sometimes I think that it's the very thing we just talked about, the change in sensibilities, that makes it impossible to call evil, evil today. Of course it wasn't that popular in those days either, was it?  It's only after the fact that everyone seemed in agreement.  Well, ALMOST everyone.    But we have been attacked.  Repeatedly.  I think the attackers are counting on the fact that we're not strong in our beliefs and we're soft hearted, people.  They've said as much.  Honestly, though, it's a complicated situation and I don't have the expertise to fully understand.  I just wish someone did!    

Bentley responded:
He is a very bright, articulate man; it is just that he seems to appeal to extreme provocative language and thoughts.  However, the book so far is entertaining; but I would not pay money for it.   It is an interesting "listen" for me because he does discuss many of the people who we are reading about in My Early Life and also some of the skirmishes.
I do not see Bush as being Churchillian nor Blair; maybe in their own minds they are trying to take a page from Churchill's play book; but the shoe does not fit (different time, different event, different circumstances). Maybe Bush believes (if Buchanan's theory is correct) that history will vindicate him and he will be proven to have had it right when everyone else had it wrong and did not want to get involved in the first place.
Bush wanted us to believe that Saddam was a real threat. He has tried to make us believe in the axis of evil so that we would never think that even talking to any of these folks would be possible.  He wants to take a hard line with everyone; as Richardson told him; pretty soon we will only be talking to the Vatican.  Hard to believe; but this is what Buchanan is saying as well.   However, as we discussed before, negotiating with certain groups is not in our best interests; but you can certainly see the dilemma.
I believe the gist of the book is that Great Britain lost its empire and so does every other country that strives for imperialism in one form or another.   
One of Buchanan's sites has him stating the following:
"The Bush Doctrine is democratic imperialism. This will bleed, bankrupt and isolate this republic. This overthrows the wisdom of the Founding Fathers about what America should be all about.
-- Where the Right Went Wrong"
I don't think I disagree with the above and I think that is what is odd about listening to him; there are many things that you are absolutely for or believe; then you listen further and the next things out of his mouth; you are diametrically opposed to and wonder where on earth did that thought come from.  So much so that it almost obliterates your accepting any of this ideas as valid; because you start questionning the basis of his thinking process and if you are just being reeled in.  
Yes I agree, the attackers remind me of the Red Rover game I used to play as a kid; god that game hurt; but you kept getting hit over and over again to see if you would hold up and if you didn't you didn't gain a member of the other team. You always knew where the weakest links were and you kept trying over and over again to be successful till you broke them.  You just kept wearing them down or the other team would wear your team down.  This warfare is similar to that game.
I believe the American people are a resilient group; but we have a lot to lose; the other group has nothing to lose at all; they do not even value their lives. That is what is truly different about this situation; if we do not understand their value system; it is certainly hard then to find their achilles heel (if they even have one).  
All in all, I like to listen to opposing views; you always find some real gems in the rough and he is entertaining.
Bentley 
 
 

 

Message Edited by bentley on 08-03-2008 11:28 PM
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Truth.

Timbuktu1 wrote, in part:   Everyman!  When did you become a relativist?  What happened to Plato?  Universal truth?  The Good? 

 

They're still there!  But we're talking here not about the forms, which are universal truth, but about the interpretations of them.  A chair is a chair because it conforms to the universal truth of the eidos of chair, as a stool is a stool because it conforms to the universal eidos of stool.   But whether a particular thing is seen to be a chair or a stool is interpretative.  We will never know.  On one level you could say that it is what it is, and the person who calls it one thing is right and the one who calls it the other is wrong, but the problem is that here on earth we can never know which is which.  I may call it a chair and you may call it a stool, and we may both hae our reasons for saying that, and who's to know which of us is actually right?  We won't know until we meet the eidae face to face.

 

And I'm not sure there is an eidos of historical events, particular recent historical events.  They are so prone to interpretation, generally based on one's personal experiences, upbringing, and value systems.  It's tempting to think that a fact is a fact and that's all there is to say about it, but other than the most basic facts such as dates, places, and even those can be controversial, the fact is that a historical fact is very seldom a fact, but is usually a viewpoint based on one interpretation of the evidence.  This doesn't mean that there is no universal truth or good; it's a recognition that while we may seek and strive for it, the actuality is that we aren't going to find it here on earth.  

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe: Churchill et al

Timbuktu stated:
Just wondering Bentley, what did he think could have been worked out with Great Britain?  I can see that Hitler would have approuved of the British, in a genetic sense (yuck).  The Queen is German and I believe the king that abdicated (for the woman he loved), was it Edward VI? was a Nazi sympathizer.  Does he mean that the British could have made a deal with Germany?  Didn't the Norwegians do something like that?   There's so much I have to read but I really am curious about that book.  I understand your reactions.  When I read Death of the West I had similar feelings.  He makes brilliant points, really original, independent thinking, and then you realize the creepy part that underlies what he's saying.  But a good idea is a good idea, whatever it's source.  
Bentley responded:
Hard to tell yet; he keeps throwing curve balls; he praises then he pulls the rug right from underneath the same people.  I don't think he was too much for the GB and Poland alliance; he seemed to be singing Lord Salisbury's protectionist policies first and then he seemed to take a swipe at him too; but I think he was leaning towards Salisbury's approach (whatever that really was about).  
I think the incident with Edward was misunderstood; even Churchill has stated as much; but there are always going to be some who believe what you stated. In Chasing Churchill the bodyguard described that situation according to Churchill, and basically indicated that this situation was very overblown and made to sound controversial when it was not.
Genetically, H liked a pure race and in that vein; H would have approved of GB, that is true.  But I think he had a respect for GB; but not necessarily did that mean that a) they could trust him or b) that any negotiation would work.  In fact, Chamberlain tried that and had egg on his face.  So GB tried both a and b; and failed.  That is why I do not buy his arguments on that point.  GB had to fight as hard as they could; otherwise things could have turned out very differently. 
You are right about his ideas and he is brilliant; but there is something so preachy about him and smug; almost as if he has been listening to himself too long.  
He is good for the television medium; but not for the oval office. 
 

 


 

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Truth.

 Choisya criticised my post by saying: "The truth is that to compare the Hitler Youth Movement to the Boy Scout and Girl Guide Movement is an insult to the thousands of young people who grew up in those organisations and who fought in both world wars. "  As though I had made a general comparison of the two.  Which I had not, and it is both dishonest and shameful to imply that I had.

 

All I said about the issue was "As to the Hitler Youth wearing military-style uniforms, that is pretty meaningless.  After all, Baden-Powell's English Scouts wore military-style uniforms, in at least some cases deliberately chosen for their military associations.   And as the Wikipedia article on B-P points out, "Several of his military books, written for military reconnaissance and scout training in his African years, were also read by boys. Based on those earlier books, he wrote Scouting for Boys, published in 1908 by Pearson, for youth readership."  Indeed, the very term scout had for him a military connotation.  So it's pretty ironical to criticize the Hitler Youth for having military-style uniforms when the major British youth movement had the same.   It was just the way things were done in Europe at that time of history, and was nothing unique to Hitler or Germany."

 

This is another example of your frequent practice of changing the ground in the middle of a discussion and setting up false straw men for the fun of knocking them down.  I did not compare the Hitler Youth to the Boy Scout movement (and I didn't even mention the Girl Guide movement, hyour bringing that in is ) other than to uniforms and the overall military aspects of the two organizations.

 

All that you said in your initial post that I responded to was:  "Historical accuracy also leads me to point out that the Nuremberg Rallies were rallies of members of the National Socialist Party and its spin-off, the Hitler Youth movement, who wore military style uniforms."   You didn't say anything about the activities of the Hitler Youth, anything about what they stood for, but based your criticism only on the fact that they wore military style uniforms.  I accurately pointed out that so did the Baden-Powell Scouts.  If you don't like that aspect of the Scouts, okay, but it was there in both England and Germany, and puffing getting all indignant at me doesn't change that reality.

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Truth.

Choisya wrote in part:  The truth requires me to remember that I am proud to have been brought up with a certain point of view about these matters because I was under the impression that it was the infamous and unforgiveable activities of the Nazis and the Hitler Youth which drove both our countries into war.

 

This just shows how different the world looks from different sides of the Atlantic.  

 

I was brought up to believe that the persecution of the Jews, Kristalnacht and other atrocities, aren't what brought England or America into the war, that both countries were in reality willing to overlook those as internal matters to Germany (as today we don't go to war over the Chinese persecution of the Tibetans because it's an internal matter to China).  German invasions of Austria and the Sudenland didn't even provoke declarations of war by either of our cuntries.  It wasn't until Germany invaded Poland in 1939, almost a year after Kristallnacht, that England declared war. And I'm not aware, though I may be wrong, that the Hitler Youth had any role in the invasion of Poland, so it's hard to blame them for driving the countries into war.

 

And certainly the United States didn't enter the war because of the atrocities against Jews.  We stayed clear of the European theater, at least officially and legally, though we did give aid and comfort to our fellow English-speaking friends (arguably in violation of international law).  We didn't enter the war and declare war on Japan and then Germany until Pearl Harbor, which certainly had nothing directly to do with  "the infamous and unforgiveable activities of the Nazis and the Hitler Youth."

 

So obviously you and I were brought up with very different points of view and impressions of what drove both of our countries into war. Of course, I may be wrong, and maybe it was indeed the activities of the Hitler Youth which drove both England's declaration of war after the invasion of Poland in late 1939 and our declaration of war after Pearl Harbor more than two years later.  But that's not what I was taught, and frankly not what I now believe. 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Frequent Contributor
bentley
Posts: 2,509
Registered: ‎01-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe: BUCHANAN

Convinced that Buchanan loved Lord Salisbury and his policies:

 

Here is another quote:

 

"Strategic retreats that turn into routs are often the result of what Lord Salisbury called “the commonest error in politics … sticking to the carcass of dead policies.”

 

Another article that I found -  pretty much shows where the entire book that I am listening to is going:

 

http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/07/pjb-honorable-exit-from-empire/

 

Article is called Honorable Exit from Empire! 

 

 

Frequent Contributor
Timbuktu1
Posts: 1,572
Registered: ‎12-31-2007
0 Kudos

Re: Off-Topic Cafe - DISCUSSION ABOUT WAR : Truth.


Everyman wrote:

Timbuktu1 wrote, in part:   Everyman!  When did you become a relativist?  What happened to Plato?  Universal truth?  The Good? 

 

They're still there!  But we're talking here not about the forms, which are universal truth, but about the interpretations of them.  A chair is a chair because it conforms to the universal truth of the eidos of chair, as a stool is a stool because it conforms to the universal eidos of stool.   But whether a particular thing is seen to be a chair or a stool is interpretative.  We will never know.  On one level you could say that it is what it is, and the person who calls it one thing is right and the one who calls it the other is wrong, but the problem is that here on earth we can never know which is which.  I may call it a chair and you may call it a stool, and we may both hae our reasons for saying that, and who's to know which of us is actually right?  We won't know until we meet the eidae face to face.

 

And I'm not sure there is an eidos of historical events, particular recent historical events.  They are so prone to interpretation, generally based on one's personal experiences, upbringing, and value systems.  It's tempting to think that a fact is a fact and that's all there is to say about it, but other than the most basic facts such as dates, places, and even those can be controversial, the fact is that a historical fact is very seldom a fact, but is usually a viewpoint based on one interpretation of the evidence.  This doesn't mean that there is no universal truth or good; it's a recognition that while we may seek and strive for it, the actuality is that we aren't going to find it here on earth.  

 

 


But Socrates said that to hurt another human being is to hurt yourself.  What you're saying means there is no purpose and no way to know, so anything goes, which sure sounds like the Sophists to me!  Man is the measure of all things?  What about the image of the hero?  The image of the good society?  If there's no way to know, then why bother?  Why try?  If  your idea of good is as valid as my idea of good then Hitler's idea of good is equally valid, pretty much what you've said!