Trump've said the USA won in I and II World Wars

In life outcome and intension don't always marry up.
They intended to reap the spoils but failed to do so.

The war was a quagmire.

The spoils for America of WW2 was an empire. Markets and territory world wide.

 

Dude, the US didn't set out to be an empire nor a superpower. No one knew what the US was capable of doing until it happened.

 

It had nothing to do with the Jews, and everything to do with Winston Churchill and Frankly Roosevelt.

If arms were being shipped to Britain during WWI, then there could have been an agreement between Winston Churchill who was Lord of the British Admiralty, and Franklyn Roosevelt who was the Asst. Secretary of the Navy. Since Churchill's mother was from NYC, and Roosevelt was an aristocrat and Governor of NYS, they must have known one another from way back.

I think they threw us into both wars.

 

Ja, mein frau. No doubt the dirty Jews made them do it. /sarcasm

 

I am not trying. I am saying. Some people are vulnerable to propaganda and if it tells them what they like to hear - they believe everything mentioned. Even the only reference of the article is for unpublished article or himself.

The revolutions and wars caused a lot of deaths and troubles. If we still remember that 'revolution' is not just about communism, but about the unlawful change of government, then we must admit that it brought casualties everywhere and always. If the Clintons or the Bushs or another respected family decide to overthrow Trump, but if they choose not the Congress or impeachment but something like revolution, they will have to kill. At least some guys of their own to prove that Trump is bloody criminal and his regime was tyranny and the revolutionaries were the saviors. So basically and logically the casualties happened because of revolution and not the communism or Marxism. Next thing is wrong management. If any regime or any politician manages something completely wrong, then the people around him will suffer or die (the last case if the society is not developed). In this point of viewing the ill management of Hitler, Lenin or Herbert Hoover don't have anything to do with ideology or regime. It's up to situation and decisions. Besides, if we talk about Soviet Russia (and they mostly talk about soviet Russia,, because propaganda is not science - it cannot be neutral) the ideology of early soviets was extremely flexible.

Let's take for instance the most ... the best person. For instance Mother Theresia. Let's see if propaganda works in her case. I am going to lie, manipulate with the facts and try to make an impression:
Firstly 'Mother Theresia' is not a real name of the criminal. Her real name is Agnesa (Antigona) Gongea Boiagi. Like every criminal operating in a secret terrorist organization she had to conceal her name for all her life. She studied in a closed group of people of religios fanatics, which has never been checked by civil governments in Ireland, the nest of terrorism. After graduation with honours as the most bloodthirsty graduate she went to India where she spread the famine and poverty. Literally every man or woman or even kid which was touched by her was either poor or ill. Her mastership of bringing poverty and diseases killed millions of people, at least 10 million people died in India (see Wikipedia) as a result of her activity. But now the organization extablished by her brought grief to billions of people. Watch yourself. Whenever you here of an earthquake, fire or flood - there will always be people wearing black clothes, which is of course a secret sign that all the people picked and organized by Agnesa Boiagi are religious fanatics. To conceal the numerous crimes this organization bought the title of saint for Agnesa and billions of kids all over the world were deceived to think she was any good. However some people who survived told that she was literally eating the kids' heads off. She ate so many kids that every Wednesday or Friday at least she couldn't eat any more meat...

Look we have a text about a saint and really kind-hearted person. Communists were nothing better than any politician. And politicians are as a rule nasty people. But you see how easy it is to make up something like it. Moreover if this very text is offered to some aggressive atheist societies they would rather believe in it.

 

:0)

Apparently, in France the importance that the USA played in WW2 increased dramatically after saving private ryan was at the cinema.
Before that Movie, the average french person didn't place a huge amount of importance on the part played by America.

However, as we all know, history is written by the winners....take cowbodys and indians as a classic example.

I read an interesting book on WW2 that mentioned that one of Hitlers captured officers commented that it was the refusal of the russians to give up, and the death of more germans than expected that caused the single biggest issue for the germans.

Had the germans army been at the expected strength when it hit France, the UK/USA coalition would've been met by a much larger force than it was.

 

The US has pursued a policy of military expansion from day one.

Cuba, Africa, Mexico, Canada, the very United States themselves were united by conquest.
While the US would never name itself an "Empire", it is one, it has one, and the nature of man's ambitions do not change just because you are born under a different coloured flag.

 

OK. Questions need the answers. (Sorry for inability to insert several quotes instead of inverted commas.

"you disagree that Stalin and Mao are responsible for the deaths of 100M of their own countrymen as @APACHERAT posted?"
Yes. I disagree with this statement. I am sure that this is pure propaganda against the rivals of the US which are obviously USSR and China.

"Do you go to school for Young Pioneers? Are Stalin and Mao heroes of yours?"
No. I am a 40 years-old anti-communist (not that I can't like communists, but I don't like communism ideas), Christian and Russian. Stalin and Mao are not my heroes, but they are certainly great people who deserve a lot of attention and everyone of them did a lot of great things to become a hero for his people.

"Stalin was without doubt one of the most ruthless world leaders of the 20th Century"
Without doubt it's a pure propaganda. If I don't have any argument as the sentence or article you posted I would without doubt use 'without doubt', 'everyone knows', 'an undisputable fact is' etc.

"estimates of the number of deaths he caused vary wildly – from 3 million to 60 million...."
And I would start with 0 and largely hesitate trusting such different figures. Would you take a job if you are promised 300-6000 USD for it? It would be something like active sales without any guaranteed salary (0 USD). If we start with 'millions of stalin's victims' we start with trusting propaganda from the very beginning.

"Dictators are, as you might imagine, not keen to record how many people they are killing.So it is tricky to establish exactly how many people died as a result of Stalin’s policies."
I know that every dictator is different. As for Soviet Russia under Stalin it was extremely bureaucratized and thourughly counted every penny and every kid. Every convicted person has a number of documents around him and they are still stored and available in archives. But the thing is that the modern USA 'kills' more convicted than Stalin's USSR (this is for death penalties only!). The most spread punishment under stalin was sending a person to heavy physical works in cold regions of USSR. Of course it is cruel. But Stalin acted in a country which hasn't had decades of flourishing life like the US. He acted in a country which has just gone out the bloodiest civil war in history.

Estimates of the death toll vary widely, from 3.5-8 million (G Ponton) at the low end to 60 million (A Solzhenitsyn).
Both are lying and misinterpreted. Stalin was cruel. Another person would never have made a career during the revolution. But the 60 million refer to all people who suffered at all under Stalin. These are not people who died or were killed. For instance, during the WWII Hitler found a lot of help from Crimean tatars. Under occupation they helped Hitler to kill people and to manage the territory. After Crimea was freed Stalin had either to sign death for most of Crimean tatars men. That would have killed the whole nation. Instead Stalin decided to send all those people away from Crimea to undeveloped regions. That certainly led to increasing death level and is completely unjusty, but it is understandable. If Stalin was soft he wouldn't have won in WWII.

Returning to the figures. Their main task is to make an impression that Stalin killed a lot of people. None of these figures has ANY proof. They are rough estimations in the very best case. Solzhenitsyn himself being a young soviet officer once wrote in a letter to his friend that some of the decisions of high commandment led to unnecessary victims. The special service analyzed the letter and used it as an evidence to convict him. So he himself is a proof that Stalin was cruel but not bloody. The life of Solzhenitsyn was broken but not taken away. He still established himself as a writer. He survived as absolutely most part of the people who were convicted under stalin. Did they die in jails? Yes. They did. But people die in jails all over the world. They even die when they are not in jail. Everyone dies. 100% of people die. Convicting Stalin of all these deaths is not justy.


Now as for industrialization. When any society transfers from agrarian state to industrialized it has a lot of victims. In GB these times were earlier. The land owners in order to have more sheep sent the people away who could have been (and sometimes were) convicted to death for... being homeless. A lot of people had to leave to the colonies. Did they die in the way? Of course they did. Russia and China started later and had their victims later. So I don't see the fault of communism or monarchy or Christianity. It just happens so. When rural population is made to live in cities a lot of them die in between. In the very 'best' case because of alcoholism and crimes. Stalin, Mao, Queen Elizabeth - doesn't matter.

My viewpoint is that all the revolutionaries shouldn't have operated in Russia 900AD - 1922AD. But after the civil war was over and the nation needed the state I cannot blame the people who without special education and skills started to restore the country. Stalin was cruel revolutionary. But he coped with the task and that is why he is still LOVED (not by me I have respect towards him) by majority of Russian population.

The myth about Stalin started by... Khrushev. The next general secretary of the USSR. He was more bloody personally than Stalin. But he gained the power on a promise to new soviet elite that they will never be sent from their positions, that they are safe. Under Stalin any person in any position could have been Siberia that quick. Not under Khrushev. He stopped the competition of elite and put another stone to its coming graveyard. Of course the system when people have to pay with their lives for competition inside the state is inhuman. But it is alive. Khrushev's system died when general secretaries started to die one afer another and the most demand to next general secretary (Gorbachov) was to be young and healthy. As a result he outlived the USSR... Under Stalin Gorbachov would have been send to Siberia at the level of his activity in kolkhoz. And the guys like Yeltsin would never appear at all. BTW I know a different country who recently had a crisis of leaders. The best families there are led by old guys and ladies and the young and active candidate won the elections but hasn't taken the power still from the best families...

To sum it all up.
The history is full of blood and suffering. There are some rules of the history, which need to be learnt. However there is propaganda, which doesn't teach anything but always blames the ones and praizes the others. Propaganda makes you think what someone else wants you to think. Most of times it is a lie. 100% cases it is manipulation. Blaming only one person in a historical process is propaganda from the very beginning. A person can be responsible only for his decisions. And to estimate them one must understand the complexity of the task and motivation. Most people who think that 'communists', 'dictators' were just killing people because they were 'communists' or 'dictators' are just bowing propaganda without any understanding of the politics.

 

Is outrage still your sole line of defense? Man up and tell me what's wrong with Freedman's speech.

 

First - All of my admiration for the "propaganda piece" about Mother Theresa; Spectacular exemple of hysterical, bias-based, yellow reporting, an occurence that's too common today, and that makes such a perfect match with ignorance and lazyness. Magistral. I wish I had written it.

Now that being said, the Ghoul of Calcutta did have some fascination with suffering... "It" thought it was a gift of god or something, and felt almost living again in its presence. Creepy stuff.

 

If you want to hate the United States or think it evil, no one can change your mind for you. OTOH, those who are interested can easily find the definition of "Empire", which does not fit the United States:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/empire
a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom, as the former British Empire, French Empire,Russian Empire, Byzantine Empire, or Roman Empire.

a government under an emperor or empress.

 

Thanks for your answers, but disagree that history is just propaganda. Where do you obtain your history?

 

What outrage? You're the one that's upset. As for Freedman, he's well known to be an antisemitic (odd for a former Jew, but true) and Holocaust denier. His association with Conde McGinley and the pro-Nazi "Common Sense" is more proof of his beliefs and bias. I can see why you revere him so much.

http://debs.indstate.edu/u588n4_1954.pdf
Anti-Semitism is the chief stock in trade of Common Sense, which now distortedly defines communism as “a false face for Judaism.” Typical of headlines which appear in the publication are: “Jewish Leaders Are Crazy For Power, *” “Zionists Threaten Russia With War ;,’ “ ‘Brotherhood’-Jew Trap For Christianity;” and “Invisible Government Rules Both Parties; Adlai and Ike Marxist Stooges.“ Articles in Common Sense have even attacked water fluoridation as a Red plot by “the invisible rulers” aimed at mass destruction of the American people. The violent nature of this propaganda is illustrated by an article written by George Thomas Adams in the issue of Common Sense for December 1, 1952. In the course of a discussion of anti-Semitic pogroms in Communist countries, Adams stated: * * * If the Russian people wish to throw off their Jewish yoke, what right have we to criticize them? * * * We should be doing the same....

....Benjamin Harrison Freedman, a retired toilet goods manufacturer of 960 Park Avenue, New York City.

 

The United States entered both wars to make money, and did. Congratulations!

 

Like any other scientific knowledge you find history in the books. Books give you material to think of and structure. You have to rely on someone elses opinion. You have to tell facts of opinions. You have to better and alter your knowledge about history with every learnt piece of information. Unfortunately I cannot recommend a 100% trustworthy source, which has all the truth possible and no propaganda.

Unfortunately almost everything we discuss here is propaganda. And I am sure that I am not an exclusion. Although it mainly refers to soviet times.

I actually find it quite useful inside the country. Because absolute majority of people would not need any knowledge of history. But propaganda comes to the hearts and souls and it builds an important part for any nation. Any nation needs to have somewhat a pride of themselves to stay optimistic in hard times. But when it gets humiliating and aggressive towards a different nation there comes the risk of war.

 

Agreed history shouldn't be taken as gospel, that it can be biased by the historian/author. OTOH, when several records intersect, it's a good indication that what was written is true. For someone to declare it's propaganda for political reasons despite numerous confirming references is silly.

 

Yeah, but that's still outrage and nothing else, Max.

You don't even attack Freedman personally (which is the Hasbara method), but an anti-communist paper he worked for and changed hands, inan indirect and weasely attack by association (which is also Hasbara). Cheap, petty, out-of-context and most of all irrelevant to our discussion here. Is that all you found?

What do you think of the speech that I copied in here... What, you missed it? Here it is again; Attack him on this:

http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/freedman.htm

 

You are free to call it Martian, Zionist or whatever tickles your fancy, dude. I'm content to let others decide for themselves.

Hasbara method? Are you seeing a Jew behind every door, kid?

 

Max, once again you evaded the question (which, incidently, is also a Hasbara way of debating). I never said you were a jew. No need to be a jew to use Hasbara methods - plenty of goyim uses them with gusto.

If you don't want to comment, just tell it, dammit, and play your trap with somebody less gullible. Thanks in advance.

 

Ahhh, you do see a Jew behind every door! Fascinating.

I may be slow, but only a ****ing moron would believe that a person who continually lies about, ridicules and insults someone is sincere about obtaining an opinion about a document from them.

 

Thank you Max.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_diplomacy_of_Israel

 

You're welcome, Vic. Good luck on your Jew hunt.

 

All countries expanded their territories. In the US the expansion was from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and it was called 'Manifest Destiny'. What they didn't want is the European Imperial nations expanding into the America's, so they established the Monroe Doctrine.

As for going outside the country, the US didn't need to. Even before the revolution, the colonists had the highest standard of living in the world. The American churches had schools, orphanages, and hospitals all over the Far East, Africa and Middle East and the US was seen as the most humane and charitable nation in the world. ..and rightfully so.

It all changed in the sixties. Where Kennedy had established the peace corp to help nations develop themselves and prosper, the administrations that came after him... and especially the Clinton administration, deceived the public into thinking the NGO's in other nations had honorable intents, when they were nothing but a means to manipulate governments into serving us.

 

Da, tovarish. So what do you call Russia expanding into Ukraine or China expanding into Tibet?

 

I guess then compassion and taking care of the sick and suffering is considered creepy? Interesting!

Anyway it's part of Christian beliefs that suffering softens people's heart and makes them kinder and more compassionate. We call it God's Grace, and it's a gift God gives so they will be able to enter His Kingdom/Dimension.

But look, if you want to believe that there is no existence outside of this carnal one, that's your prerogative.