WW2 politics, and leading up to the War and beyond...

[Markk]

Did conservatives ever reach a consensus on whether Britain should own or lease their battleships?

Some of them haven’t even reached a consensus on who the ‘good guy’ was when choosing between Hitler and Churchill.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... s-00179091

Cakes I brought this part of the threat that was banished to a lower kingdom for obvious reason.

Did you listen to the podcast?

There is a great topic, for a great discussion buried in your attempt to derail the affects of the LLA.

The History of Hitler's rise to power, along with Japan's, and how the US as isolationists wanted nothing to do with with the foreign conflicts, and how the Roosevelt hedged his political means, whether right or wrong, for the US to have to enter into the world conflict.

There was dirty business by all major world leaders leading up to the war, and in the US entering the war. From Roosevelt knowing about Pearl Harbor before the attack, to the dirty dealings for land grabs knowing that Germany and Japan were defeated. How Churchill dealt with Stalin without Roosevelt being involved.

To suggest that Churchill is somehow the bad guy over Hitler is just utter nonsense, Hitler being the poster child for evil....and so is asserting Carlson believes that or suggests it, is just showing you are just reading stuff that is comments taken way out of context. I hardly agree with all his views, but I agree with others, and strongly on some, and strongly disagree with others. You can learn a lot from his views, and laugh at others, if you are confident enough to know what you believe and why you believe and are not afraid to explore critical thought, and allow yourself to ponder a bit on different views outside your comfort zone. The same with folks like Bill Maher, and Joe Rogan. I listen to them all, they all say nutty stuff, and yet the also are spot on about other things, and what I appreciate about all three, they all have no problem saying they were wrong on some of their views, and that they say stupid things all the time, and allow their views to grow instead of dying of hills trying to defend something for just tribal allegiance when they know they were wrong, as the main stream pundits too often do.

Do yourself a favor and listen to the podcast, and allow yourself to make honest critique of the article you pasted.

But anyway, what it your take, if you have any, on say the Big Three, and the politics leading up to, and then during and after the war?

[Bret Ripley]

... From Roosevelt knowing about Pearl Harbor before the attack ...

Dude: some people have argued that, sure, but when all is said and done there is no good reason to believe it is true.

[Chap]

... From Roosevelt knowing about Pearl Harbor before the attack ...

Dude: some people have argued that, sure, but when all is said and done there is no good reason to believe it is true.

Oh, but in order to have the right to say that, you have to listen to any podcast and watch any video that Markk puts up. In his world that is called 'doing research'.

[Bret Ripley]

Dude: some people have argued that, sure, but when all is said and done there is no good reason to believe it is true.

Oh, but in order to have the right to say that, you have to listen to any podcast and watch any video that Markk puts up. In this world that is called 'doing research'.

Yes, well, lucky for us Americans 'Dunning-Kruger' is one of those things that only happens to other people. (Say, shouldn't you be writing in German?)

[Oof, that reminds me of an honest-to-gawd conversation I had with a former US soldier I worked with back in the early 90s. I had mentioned that my wife is from England, to which he replied: "in the Army I was stationed in Germany, and over there they speak a language called 'German.' What language do they speak in England?" I wish I was making that up.]

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Equating Roosevelt’s difficult decisions or Churchill’s wartime diplomacy with the genocidal ambitions of Hitler is a false equivalence, which is the favorite pastime for today’s fascists to do on discussion forums.

The claim that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor in advance is a long-debunked conspiracy theory, and while Allied leaders made compromises, like Churchill’s dealings with Stalin, they did it under existential pressure. Not that it matters to Unreachable, but it was the Axis powers who initiated wars of aggression and committed mass atrocities.

Pushback against Tucker Carlson is fair when he echoes narratives that downplay or relativize Hitler’s crimes; pointing that out isn't tribalism, it’s accountability. Critical thinking does mean engaging with diverse viewpoints, but it also means applying standards of evidence and moral clarity, not flattening distinctions between those who fought fascism and those who embolden it.

- Doc

[Markk]

... From Roosevelt knowing about Pearl Harbor before the attack ...

Dude: some people have argued that, sure, but when all is said and done there is no good reason to believe it is true.

Roosevelt wanted the US in the war, and whether rightfully so or not, is not the argument here. You took a snippet of my point, without context.

There was dirty business by all major world leaders leading up to the war, and in the US entering the war. From Roosevelt knowing about Pearl Harbor before the attack, to the dirty dealings for land grabs knowing that Germany and Japan were defeated. How Churchill dealt with Stalin without Roosevelt being involved.

Keep it is context to my point. There is maybe no other subject written about, except for maybe religion that I know of besides WW2.

What are the pros and cons in the argument that Roosevelt did not know or have information that Japan was going to attack, and how and when? Like all conspiracies like this, we may never know for sure. But we do know a lot about both the arguments.... for or against. We know for sure that there was a lot on information and tips that they were going to attack soon, and that FDR did not react to them.

But anyways my point is that there is so much we just don't see and understand the truth about what led up to the war, and the politics behind it, because we were taught a hero's history, which is good, in that the war was fought and won, and even lost, by heroes. But understanding the whys and dirt by the governments and leaders that got us in these wars in altogether a different story.

[Marcus]

In other conspiracy theory developments, I have heard some news about 1) the flatness of the earth, and 2) the setting of charges to bring down the World Trade Centers, and of course 3) Kolob.

As Markk says, "...Like all conspiracy's like this, we may never know for sure. But we do know a lot about both the arguments.... for or against."

Also,

"We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases."

Penn & Teller

[Bret Ripley]

Dude: some people have argued that, sure, but when all is said and done there is no good reason to believe it is true.

Roosevelt wanted the US in the war, and whether rightfully so or not, is not the argument here. You took a snippet of my point, without context.

What you wrote about Roosevelt was an ill-supported conspiracy theory. Context doesn't really help that -- it just makes it an ill-supported conspiracy theory surrounded by other stuff. This should go without saying: if you are trying to make a point about Roosevelt's goals regarding the war -- or anything else, for that matter -- you would be better served by avoiding spurious arguments in support of that point.

[Markk]

Equating Roosevelt’s difficult decisions or Churchill’s wartime diplomacy with the genocidal ambitions of Hitler is a false equivalence, which is the favorite pastime for today’s fascists to do on discussion forums.

The claim that Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor in advance is a long-debunked conspiracy theory, and while Allied leaders made compromises, like Churchill’s dealings with Stalin, they did it under existential pressure. Not that it matters to Unreachable, but it was the Axis powers who initiated wars of aggression and committed mass atrocities.

Pushback against Tucker Carlson is fair when he echoes narratives that downplay or relativize Hitler’s crimes; pointing that out isn't tribalism, it’s accountability. Critical thinking does mean engaging with diverse viewpoints, but it also means applying standards of evidence and moral clarity, not flattening distinctions between those who fought fascism and those who embolden it.

- Doc

Did you listen to the podcast at all? I agree push back is fair, in fact I encourage it, it is how we learn; but at least understand what you are pushing back against.

Where did Tucker down play Hitler's crimes? He certainly did not in the podcast. If you listened to it, you would have heard him say he was a huge fan of Churchill.

Copper, right or wrong, is not a fan of Churchill, as much of Britain was through out his life....and he generally stated why. He stated how Churchill went to war knowing they did not have the means to go to war. He stated his failures in WW1, that he was a alcoholic, and was prone to unusual behaviors like playing with toy soldiers.

I at this point am an ignorant fan of Churchill, but after listening to the podcast understand there is so much more to the man and his leading Britain into WW2 than I will never know.

Cooper also spoke about Jonestown and Jim Jones, pre his going off the deep end. And how he was a proponent for civil rights way back in the 50s, before MLK. He spoke how Huey Newton, Angela Davis, Jesse Jackson, and Harvey Milk all supported Jim Jones, before he went nuts. I didn't know this watching and reading about Jones in documentaries and articles. They focus on his last days, and not how he really started.

The point is, Copper's approach to history is from the beginning. He said he reads, then reads more, and reads more, over and over to understand who he is learning about, not just the narrative that history might portray and assimilate to. He assumes, as examples, that Hitler, Stalin, Jones, Churchill, or anyone else was once a three year old like you and I. He explores the reasons why these people make the decisions they do, and the journey that leads to who they became, whether good or evil, and why.

As an example I believe from my limited exposure to Copper, his style of preparation and written history is similar to Dan Vogel's approach....both do their homework and whether we agree with them, you will learn far more from their hard work than you will disagree with.

but it was the Axis powers who initiated wars of aggression and committed mass atrocities.

Who is saying otherwise?

Listen to the podcast.

[Markk]

Roosevelt wanted the US in the war, and whether rightfully so or not, is not the argument here. You took a snippet of my point, without context.

What you wrote about Roosevelt was an ill-supported conspiracy theory. Context doesn't really help that -- it just makes it an ill-supported conspiracy theory surrounded by other stuff. This should go without saying: if you are trying to make a point about Roosevelt's goals regarding the war -- or anything else, for that matter -- you would be better served by avoiding spurious arguments in support of that point.

If you need to make that "The" argument, instead of what I am relating, fine. I will grant you I should have been clearer that we do not know for sure Roosevelt's knowledge of the attack.

My point stands.