+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 4
Results 61 to 80 of 80

Thread: Debunking Romantic Ideas About the Past

  1. Link to Post #61
    Australia Avalon Member BMJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th May 2010
    Posts
    1,223
    Thanks
    34,445
    Thanked 5,364 times in 1,068 posts

    Default Re: Debunking Romantic Ideas About the Past

    Quote Posted by Agape (here)
    What’s romantic about this kind of past anyway?

    Yes very immature individuals romanticise the importance of wars and weapons, as SunTzu said in old book called “The Art of War” : “Of matters of importance to every state, war is the greatest”.
    These are my thoughts.

    In response it is not that we as humans are immature but rather that it is a human condition, we seem to have selective memory and only seem to remember the good times and forget about the bad.

    Translating that thought to your personal experience about a bad time in your life do you tend to focus on the good or bad?

    Then think about this in the context of history and it is understandable how we can develop a bias about the past and become romantic about it.

    Therefore "debunking romantic ideas about the past" becomes a process of injecting some objectivity into our thoughts of the past.
    Last edited by BMJ; 11th April 2019 at 04:59.
    In hoc signo vinces / In this sign thou shalt conquer

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to BMJ For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (10th April 2019), Agape (10th April 2019), Hervé (10th April 2019), Merry Mom (10th June 2019), what is a name? (10th April 2019)

  3. Link to Post #62
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    24th September 2014
    Location
    Appalachia
    Posts
    2,551
    Thanks
    9,947
    Thanked 13,078 times in 2,355 posts

    Default Re: Debunking Romantic Ideas About the Past

    Quote Posted by BMJ (here)
    These are my thoughts.

    In response it is not that we as humans are immature but rather that it is a human condition, we seem to have selective memory and only seem remember the good times and forget about the bad.
    Or rather, wish so hard that everyone and everything was always good, that we unrealistically believe that we are safe simply by believing that we are safe and that everyone is loving. The people who believe these kinds of things generally come from first world countries and not the third world, or at least hold these opinions while benefiting from the safety and security of armed police enforcing a system of law and order.

    There have been numerous examples in recent years, very tragic examples, of college-age men and women hitchhiking across the Middle East and Africa to "prove" how love conquers all, etc., etc., only to be brutally murdered or simply disappear, never to be heard from again. It's happened so often that it's almost become a meme.

    Quote 'World peace' hitcher is murdered

    An Italian woman artist who was hitch-hiking to the Middle East dressed as a bride to promote world peace has been found murdered in Turkey.

    The naked body of Giuseppina Pasqualino di Marineo, 33, known as Pippa Bacca, was found in bushes near the northern city of Gebze on Friday.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7344381.stm

    I could go on and on with these stories.


    (Btw, pessimists have a confirmation bias in the opposite direction -- they tend to think everything is bad and only remember negative things. I know people like that as well. Neither view is realistic.)
    Last edited by A Voice from the Mountains; 10th April 2019 at 09:09.

  4. Link to Post #63
    Japan Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    21st March 2019
    Posts
    317
    Thanks
    218
    Thanked 609 times in 227 posts

    Default Re: Debunking Romantic Ideas About the Past

    Quote Posted by BMJ (here)

    In response it is not that we as humans are immature but rather that it is a human condition, we seem to have selective memory and only seem remember the good times and forget about the bad.

    Translating that thought to your personal experience about a bad time in your life do you tend to focus on the good or bad?

    Then think about this in the context of history and it is understandable how we can develop a bias about the past and become romantic about it.

    Therefore "debunking romantic ideas about the past" becomes a process of injecting some objectivity into our thoughts of the past.
    Plato said the idea of philosophy is remembering the past lives, surprisingly.

    There is an Arabic saying with a pun that humans (an-naas) are forgetful (from the verb radical N-S-T)
    But who wanted humans to be forgetful? Do we have to put up with the condition?

    It's the self-proclaimed creator gods (demon god Yahweh and his cohorts). It is about time we rose up against them and smash the paradigm they made us accept.

  5. Link to Post #64
    Australia Avalon Member BMJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th May 2010
    Posts
    1,223
    Thanks
    34,445
    Thanked 5,364 times in 1,068 posts

    Default Re: Debunking Romantic Ideas About the Past

    Quote Posted by A Voice from the Mountains (here)
    Quote Posted by BMJ (here)
    These are my thoughts.

    In response it is not that we as humans are immature but rather that it is a human condition, we seem to have selective memory and only seem remember the good times and forget about the bad.
    Or rather, wish so hard that everyone and everything was always good, that we unrealistically believe that we are safe simply by believing that we are safe and that everyone is loving. The people who believe these kinds of things generally come from first world countries and not the third world, or at least hold these opinions while benefiting from the safety and security of armed police enforcing a system of law and order.
    Yes alot of people suffer from ostrich syndrome, whereby when confronted with the truth they would rather continue believe only in the good and so place their head in the sand hoping to safely avoid these hard truths, all the while their behind is feeling the full force of the consequence of their ignorance.



    Quote Posted by A Voice from the Mountains (here)
    (Btw, pessimists have a confirmation bias in the opposite direction -- they tend to think everything is bad and only remember negative things. I know people like that as well. Neither view is realistic.)
    Well my optimistic confirmation bias has been exposed and AVFTM you have proven the point that objectivity can be a hard thing to attain.
    Last edited by BMJ; 10th April 2019 at 10:05.
    In hoc signo vinces / In this sign thou shalt conquer

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BMJ For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (10th April 2019), Hervé (10th April 2019)

  7. Link to Post #65
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,231
    Thanks
    57,251
    Thanked 90,499 times in 14,925 posts

    Default Re: Debunking Romantic Ideas About the Past

    How Plumbing (Not Vaccines) Eradicated Disease

    by Joel Edwards April 6, 2015
    Last updated on: June 5, 2015


    Vaccines get all the glory, but most plumbers will tell you that it was water infrastructure – sewage systems and clean water – that eradicated disease, and they’re right.

    Disease Before Plumbing
    After the fall of the Roman Empire, Europeans despised all things Roman, including bathing. There was a widespread belief that getting wet caused illness. This contempt and fear of bathing persisted through the Dark Ages.

    Some Europeans defied local customs by bathing, but this was usually done over great protest. When Queen Elizabeth bathed, her servants panicked, fearing she would become ill and die.

    This resistance to bathing was brought across the Atlantic to America, influencing habits all the way into the 1800s. In 1835, Philadelphia almost passed an ordinance forbidding wintertime bathing. Ten years later, Boston did outlaw bathing, except by medical directive. (Though this law was not widely enforced, it does illustrate the American resistance to bathing as late as the mid 1800s.)

    How Plumbing Eradicated Disease
    Before plumbing was widely used, indoor facilities consisted of a washstand and a washbowl, a pitcher, and a chamber pot or commode. Human waste was thrown into the street or anywhere convenient.

    This total lack of sanitation in urban areas filled with rats and other vermin provided the perfect environment to spread disease. The Black Plague alone killed 75 million – 200 million people – including 1/3 of Europe’s population. Though this disease is not entirely eradicated, human infection has become a rare occurrence. The last plague epidemic in America was in the early 1900’s.

    Polio and Plumbing
    Polio thrives in fecal matter and is easily transmitted through human waste. Plumbing and water sanitation in India is way behind the rest of the industrialized world. In areas where sanitation and hygiene are good, polio is rare. In areas where sanitation and hygiene are poor, the disease can spread rapidly.

    Immunization efforts have received a lot of publicity and have garnered most of the credit for India being declared “polio free” by the World Health Organization. As recently as 2009, India reported 762 cases of polio, and at that time, these numbers made India the polio capital of the world. In 2014, there are currently no “official” documented cases of polio, but without proper sanitation there is no way this can last.

    A Polio Breeding Ground
    India is the second most populous nation in the world, with an estimated population of 1.2 billion. Currently, 780 million Indians do not have a toilet; 96 million Indians do not have access to clean drinking water. In rural areas, open defecation is still more common than attempting to dispose of human waste in a more sanitary fashion, such as burying it.

    There have been some efforts to improve sanitation, but they pale in comparison to the extensive efforts to vaccinate Indians. Over 9 billion has been spent in this vaccination public health campaign. In some parts of India, children have received as many as 30 doses of the oral polio vaccine before their fifth birthday. Bill Gates, the World Health Organization, and GAVI have ardently been pushing vaccines on people who still don’t have access to clean drinking water or the sanitary means to dispose of human waste.

    They Say Tomato, I say Tomatoe
    The current polio vaccine campaign in India is highly controversial due to the high rate of vaccine injury and death. There were 53,000 cases of NPAFP, a non-polio acute flaccid paralysis, among those vaccinated. NPAFP is a disease that is clinically indistinguishable from polio and twice as deadly that is caused by the live, weakened, polio viruses in the vaccine. Incidences of the disease rose and fell with the number of doses of the vaccine administered. To call this disease anything other than polio is semantic subterfuge, a whitewash for Big Pharma’s image.
    In the past 13 months, India has reported 53,563 cases of NPAFP at a national rate of 12 per 100,000 children—way above the global benchmark set by WHO of 2 per 100,000.”
    Jan, 13 2014 quote from LiveMint Newpaper, the second largest business newspaper in India.
    It would be less expensive in human cost and far more effective to improve India’s water infrastructure, improving India’s sanitation and hygiene.

    London England and Cholera
    In the 1800’s the European infant mortality rate was very high, from 25% to 70%. In the early-to-mid 1800s, London had little in the way of water infrastructure. The majority of people used town pumps and communal wells to get their drinking water. Waste disposal was far from adequate. Most Londoners dumped raw sewage and animal wastes into open pits known as “cesspools” or directly into the Thames River. Unfortunately, the Thames River was also the source of drinking water for many Londoners.

    Cholera spreads easily through contaminated water and food and kills very quickly; it often proves fatal within hours of the first symptoms of vomiting or diarrhea.

    In 1854, yet another outbreak struck London, claiming the lives of tens of thousands of Europeans. In Soho, a suburb of London, there were more than 500 fatal cases of cholera in ten days.

    Dr. John Snow, who lived near Soho, was able to directly investigate what was causing the outbreak. Five years earlier, Dr. Snow had written an article about what he believed caused cholera. It was in the water, he argued. This idea flew in the face of the “wisdom” of his time. In the 1850s, doctors believed that bad vapors, or a “miasma in the atmosphere” caused disease. Dr. Snow dared to believe something different, to try something different, believing he might see different results.

    Dr. John Snow Traced Cholera To Its Source
    Dr. Snow traced the cholera outbreak to the Broad Street pump. He persuaded the town officials to remove the pump handle, and the cholera outbreak abruptly ended. Some time later, the outbreak was traced back to a woman cleaning a dirty diaper in the well.

    Though it took some time, Dr. Snow convinced the authorities that fecal matter was contaminating the water supply. Today Dr. John Snow is widely regarded as the father of epidemiology.

    Refugee Camps, Dysentery Epidemic, and Poor Sanitation
    The Rwandan refugee camps set up in Zaire in 1994 struggled with outbreaks of dysentery. Sanitation was poor; the refugees defecated openly in common areas. Human waste built up in the same areas where the refugees drew water that was used for cooking and drinking. Heavy rain flooded the area and dysentery became epidemic, at its peak it was killing 2,000 people a day.

    Refugee camps have always been a haven for diseases related to poor sanitation. Once U.S. and UN officials brought in purified water and encouraged people to use outhouses and latrines for defecation, the incidences of dysentery fell.

    Chicago’s Population Grew from 350 in 1835 to More than 60,000 by 1850
    The industrial revolution drove rapid population growth. Chicago’s water infrastructure wasn’t designed to handle such a rapid rise in population. Chicago was dealing with many different diseases, but it had especially high rates of typhoid fever. The source of the rapid increase in disease was traced to the city’s water and sanitation.

    The majority of the city’s sewage was directed to the Chicago River, which flowed right back into Lake Michigan, which provided the city’s drinking water. This, of course, contaminated Chicago’s drinking water and created a cycle of disease.

    It took many years to solve the problem, but in the early 1900s Chicago modernized their water infrastructure. They reversed the flow of several rivers and streams, and as a result, typhoid fever and all other infectious diseases plummeted.

    Conclusion
    Sanitation prevents disease by removing the cause of disease transmission, but this is not new information. Moses taught sanitation. He made many rules for encampments. The Greeks and the Romans created elaborate systems of aqueducts, baths, and drainage. When the Roman Empire crumbled, sanitation became a lost art. Civilization paid the price: plague after plague struck areas of dense population.

    Smallpox continued to infect Europe’s population until plumbing infrastructure became commonplace. Although, sanitation ended this disease, the smallpox vaccine takes the credit.

    When most of us think of a conscientious objector, we think of someone who refused military service for moral or religious reasons. In the 1800s, the term came into use for someone who refused vaccinations for their children. There was a great deal of resistance to the smallpox vaccine. Some statistics placed fatalities from the vaccine as high as 1 in 200

    In modern times, objections to vaccines are mounting. Refusing to vaccinate is as controversial today as it was when the first vaccines were forced on British citizens almost 200 years ago.

    Vaccines often contain toxins like aluminum and mercury, and many vaccines contain aborted fetal tissues. The reality of vaccine injury and death is making the news, though the propaganda and out and out lies from pharmaceutical companies cause a polarized division between those who are pro vaccine and those who are against.

    If you are reading this, you probably have access to running water and a working toilet. If you choose to forego vaccines for yourself or your children, bear in mind that you will need additional protection to avoid contracting illnesses. Exercise, sleep, stress management, and a truly healthy diet are all essential for an immune system to work at optimal efficiency.

    While the medical professionals and the pharmaceutical companies are quick to take credit for our increased life expectancy, in truth, they are not the heroes. Have you thanked a plumber lately?

    If you’re looking to increase your body’s ability to protect itself against disease, check out Make Your Immune System Bulletproof with These Natural Remedies. Also, see How to Detoxify from Vaccinations & Heavy Metals.

    Further Reading:
    Sources:
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  8. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (5th June 2019), BMJ (3rd June 2019), Constance (15th May 2019), Dennis Leahy (2nd June 2019), Franny (5th June 2019), Intranuclear (2nd June 2019), Ivanhoe (9th June 2019), onawah (14th May 2019), Satori (14th May 2019), Sophocles (2nd June 2019)

  9. Link to Post #66
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,231
    Thanks
    57,251
    Thanked 90,499 times in 14,925 posts

    Default Re: Debunking Romantic Ideas About the Past

    8-10 Million Iranians Died over Great Famine Caused by British Empire (1917-1919), Documents Reveal

    By Sadegh Abbasi Global Research
    June 02, 2019
    Khamenei.ir 4 November 2015


    Featured image is from Khamenei.ir

    This article was originally published in November 2015.
    The document in the American Archives, reporting the widespread famine and spread of epidemic disease in Iran, estimates the number of the deceased due to the famine to be about 8-10 million.
    ***

    One of the little-known chapters of history was the widespread famine in Iran during World War I, caused by the British presence in Iran. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Britain became the main foreign power in Iran and this famine or–more accurately–‘genocide’ was committed by the British. The document in the American Archives, reporting the widespread famine and spread of epidemic disease in Iran, estimates the number of the deceased due to the famine to be about 8-10 million during 1917-19 (1), making this the greatest genocide of the 20th century and Iran the biggest victim of World War I (2).



    It should be noted that Iran had been one of the main suppliers of food grains to the British forces stationed in the empire’s South Asian colonies. Although bad harvest during these two years made the situation worse, it was by no means the main reason why the Great Famine occurred. Prof. Gholi Majd of Princeton University writes in his book, The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia, that American documents show that the British prevented imports of wheat and other food grains into Iran from Mesopotamia, Asia, and also the USA, and that ships loaded with wheat were not allowed to unload at the port of Bushehr in the Persian Gulf. Professor Majd argues that Great Britain intentionally created genocide conditions to destroy Iran, and to effectively control the country for its own purposes. Major Donohoe describes Iran of that time as a “land of desolation and death” (3). But this event soon became the subject of a British cover up.

    Britain has a long record of its several attempts to conceal history and rewrite it in their own favor. The pages are filled with conspiracies that were covered up by the British government to hide its involvement in different episodes that would tarnish the country’s image. One of the clear examples is the “Jameson Raid”; a failed coup against Paul Kruger’s government in South Africa. This raid was planned and executed directly by the British government of Joseph Chamberlain under the orders of Queen Victoria (4) (5). In 2002, Sir Graham Bower‘s memoirs were published in South Africa, revealing these involvements that had been covered up for more than a century, focusing attention on Bower as a scapegoat for the incident (6).

    The records that were destroyed to cover up British crimes around the globe, or were kept in secret Foreign Office archives, so as to, not only protect the United Kingdom’s reputation, but also to shield the government from litigation, are indicative of the attempts made by the British to evade the consequences of their crimes. The papers at Hanslope Park also include the reports on the “elimination” of the colonial authority’s enemies in 1950s Malaya; records that show ministers in London knew of the torture and murder of Mau Mau insurgents in Kenya and roasting them alive (7). These records may include those related to Iran’s Great Famine. Why were these records that cover the darkest secrets of the British Empire destroyed or kept secret? Simply because they might ‘embarrass’ Her Majesty’s government (8).

    A famine occurred in Ireland from 1845 until 1852 which killed one fourth of the Irish population. This famine was caused by British policies and faced a large cover up attempt by the British government and crown to blame it on ‘potatoes’ (9). The famine, even today, is famous in the world as the “potato famine” when, in reality, it was a result of a planned food shortage and thus a deliberate genocide by the British government (10).



    The true face of this famine as a genocide has been proven by historian Tim Pat Coogan in his book The Famine Plot: England’s Role in Ireland’s Greatest Tragedy published by Palgrave MacMillan (11). A ceremony was planned to take place in the US to unveil Coogan’s book in America, but he was denied a visa by the American embassy in Dublin (12).

    Therefore it becomes obvious that Britain’s role in Iran’s Great famine, which killed nearly half of Iran’s population, was not unprecedented. The documents published by the British government overlook the genocide, and consequently, the tragedy underwent an attempted cover-up by the British government. The Foreign Office “handbook on Iran” of 1919 mentioned nothing related to the Great Famine.

    Julian Bharier, a scholar who studied Iran’s population, built his “backward projection” estimation of Iran’s population (13) based on reports from this “handbook” and, as a result, ignored the effect of the Great Famine on Iran’s population in 1917. Bharier’s estimations were used by some authors to deny the occurrence of the Great Famine or to underestimate its impacts.

    By ignoring Iran’s Great Famine in his estimations, Bharier’s work faces four scientific deficiencies. Bharier does not consider the loss of population caused by the famine in his calculations; he needs to ‘adjust’ the figure of the official census in 1956 from 18.97 million to 20.37 million, and this is despite the fact that he uses 1956 census as his primary building block for his “backward projection” model. He also ignores the official growth rates and uses his personal assumptions in this regard, which is far lower than other estimates. Finally, although Bharier frequently cites Amani’s estimates (14), in the end Bharier’s findings contradict that of Amani’s; notably Bharier’s population estimate for 1911 is 12.19 million while Amani put this figure at 10.94 million.

    Despite deficiencies in the population estimates offered by Bharier for the period of the Famine and its earlier period, his article offers useful data for the post-Famine period; this is because these figures are generated from 1956 backward. That is to say, numbers generated from 1956 to 1919 are thus credible because they do not include the period of famine. Moreover, this portion of Bharier’s data are also true to that of the American Legation. For example, Caldwell and Sykes estimate the 1919 population at 10 million, which is comparitive to Bharier’s figure of 11 million.

    Gholi Majd was not the first author to refute Bharier’s figures for this period. Gad G. Gilbar, in his 1976 article on demographic developments during the second half of the 19th century and the first decade of the 20th century, also considers Bharier’s estimates inaccurate for the period.

    In an apparently biased review of Majd’s work, Willem Floor confirms Bharier’s model (15), despite its apparent deficiencies, and takes a mocking tone toward the well- documented work of Gholi Majd to undermine the devastation caused by the British-instigated famine in Iran, to the point of total denial of the existence of such a genocide. Floor also offers inaccurate or untrue information to oppose the fact that the British deprived Iranians from honey and caviar in the north, as he argues caviar was haram (religiously prohibited), while no such fatwa has ever existed in Shia jurisprudence and all available decrees assert that caviar is halal or permissible under the Islamic law. There was a rumor made up by Russians at the time, saying that Caviar was haram and Britain made full use of this rumor.

    Another criticism made by Floor was to question why Majd’s work does not use British archival sources. A more important question is why Majd should have used these sources when they totally ignore the occurrence of the famine in Iran. The fact that Majd used mainly US sources seems to be reasonable on the grounds that the US was neutral toward the state of affairs in Iran at the time, and made efforts to help by feeding them (16).

    *
    Sadegh Abbasi is a M.A. student at Tehran University. As a student in history he has also worked as a contributor to different Iranian news agencies.
    Notes
    1. Majd, Mohammad Gholi. The Great Famine & Genocide in Iran: 1917-1919. Lanham : University Press of America, 2013. p.71: https://books.google.com/books?id=5W...AJ&pg=PA71&lpg.

    2. Sniegoski, Stephen J. Iran as a Twentieth Century Victim: 1900 Through the Aftermath of World War II. mycatbirdseat.com. [Online] 11 10, 2013. [Cited: 10 12, 2015.] http://mycatbirdseat.com/2013/11/ira...-world-war-ii/.

    3. Donohoe, Major M. H. With The Persian Expedition. London : Edward Arnold, 1919. p. 76.

    4. Nelson, Michael and Briggs, Asa. Queen Victoria and the Discovery of the Riviera. London : Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 2007. p. 97: https://books.google.com/books?id=6I...4C&pg=PA97&lpg.

    5. Bower, Graham. Sir Graham Bower’s Secret History of the Jameson Raid and the South African Crisis, 1895-1902. Cape Town : Van Riebeeck Society, 2002. p. xii: https://books.google.fr/books?id=VFY...0C&pg=PR23&lpg.

    6. Ibid. p. xvii.

    7. Cobain, Ian, Bowcott, Owen and Norton-Taylor, Richard. Britain destroyed records of colonial crimes . The Guardian. [Online] 03 17, 2012. [Cited: 10 10, 2015.] http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/a...olonial-crimes.

    8. Walton, Calder. Empire of Secrets: British Intelligence, the Cold War, and the Twilight of Empire. New York : The Overlook Press, 2013. p. 15: https://books.google.fr/books?id=f2c...AJ&pg=PT15&lpg.

    9. Warfield, Brian. History Corner: The Great Irish Famine. wolfetonesofficialsite.com. [Online] [Cited: 10 12, 2015.] http://www.wolfetonesofficialsite.com/famine.htm.

    10. Britain’s Cover Up. irishholocaust.org. [Online] [Cited: 10 12, 2015.] http://www.irishholocaust.org/britain’scoverup.

    11. Coogan, Tim Pat. The Famine Plot: England’s Role in Ireland’s Greatest Tragedy. New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

    12. O’Dowd, Niall. Proving the Irish Famine was genocide by the British. IrishCentral. [Online] 08 06, 2015. [Cited: 10 12, 2015.] http://www.irishcentral.com/news/pro...238161151.html.

    13. Bharier, Julien. A Note on the Population of Iran, 1900-1966 . Population Studies. 1968, Vol. 22, 2.

    14. Amani, Mehdi. La population de l’Iran. Population (French Edition). 1972, Vol. 27, 3: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1529398.

    15. Floor, Willem. Reviewed Work: The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia, 1917-1919 by Mohammad Gholi Majd . Iranian Studies. Iran Facing the New Century, 2005, Vol. 38, 1.

    16. Fecitt, Harry. Other Theatres of War. westernfrontassociation.com. [Online] 09 29, 2013. [Cited: 10 12, 2015.] http://www.westernfrontassociation.c...ce-part-1.html.

    The original source of this article is Khamenei.ir
    Copyright © Sadegh Abbasi, Khamenei.ir, 2019


    Related:
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  10. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (5th June 2019), avid (2nd June 2019), BMJ (3rd June 2019), Constance (3rd June 2019), Dennis Leahy (2nd June 2019), Franny (1st July 2019), Intranuclear (2nd June 2019), Jayke (2nd June 2019), Joe (2nd June 2019), Sophocles (2nd June 2019)

  11. Link to Post #67
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,231
    Thanks
    57,251
    Thanked 90,499 times in 14,925 posts

    Default Re: Debunking Romantic Ideas About the Past

    Soviets say Allied version of D-Day is a 'distortion' of history

    Gary Thatcher Christian Science Monitor
    Tue, 05 Jun 1984 15:09 UTC

    Note: This article was written on the 40th anniversary of the D-Day landings in Normandy, France. 35 years later, the Russian version of WW2 is still the correct one, while the Western version is being propped up with ever-grander ceremonies...


    D-Day, 6 June 1944

    Tomorrow, the leaders of many Western nations will gather on the shores of Normandy to observe the 40th anniversary of the Allied invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe.

    But the Soviet Union, meanwhile, is engaged in a major effort to belittle the contribution of Western countries during World War II.

    The campaign, involving many organs of the government-controlled press here, holds that Western powers delayed the invasion in order to allow the Germans time to inflict more damage on the Soviet Union - and only belatedly mounted the Normandy invasion to grab part of the credit for defeating Hitler.

    "The outcome of the war had already been decided'' before the June 6, 1944, invasion, according to a retired Soviet general interviewed by Tass, the official government news agency. Those who see history in a different way are, according to Soviet writers, ''falsifiers'' or representatives of ''bourgeois'' mass-information media who blend ''deliberate distortions of history together with ill-intentioned lies.''

    The Soviet Union has long held that the Red Army bore the brunt of World War II (which is known here as the ''Great Patriotic War'') - and that it played the major role in defeating the forces of Adolf Hitler. But lately the campaign has become louder and shriller in an obvious effort to counter the planned observances of the 40th anniversary of D-Day, the first day of the Allied assault on the European mainland.

    On June 6, President Reagan will join French President Francois Mitterrand, Queen Elizabeth, and Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau at ceremonies in Caen, France, to mark the occasion.

    But an official journal of the Soviet Defense Ministry has already dismissed the ceremonies as a ''pompous propaganda campaign.'' And Izvestia, the official government newspaper, recently carried an article that drew crude parallels between Hitler and President Reagan, implying that the two men share the ''distorted consciousness of a maniac killer.''

    For years, the Soviet Union has complained that its contributions in World War II have been consistently understated by contemporary historians. The claim is, according to some military analysts, not without some justification.

    In fact, this country suffered grievous losses during the war: Some estimates run as high as 20 million people. The losses in a single Russian city - Leningrad - were calculated at nearly 1.5 million people. That, according to one account, was at the time equal to ''the entire war losses suffered by the United States in the whole of its history.''

    Wartime losses of young Russian men are still felt in this country, notably in the form of a male-female population imbalance that will persist for several more generations. The country is studded with war memorials and statues, and memories of the conflict can even now provoke emotional responses, especially for Russians.

    A kerchiefed Russian babushka, for example, interviewed on a Moscow street, broke down into tears when recalling, ''I lost two brothers during the war.'' Then, she added as she hurried away, ''and now look what Reagan is doing. . . .''

    That is precisely the connection the Soviet leaders would like more people to make.

    During the current press campaign, the Soviet government is suggesting that today, as in 1944, the US is no real friend of Europe. The current observances of D-Day, the Defense Ministry's ''military-historical journal'' argues, are aimed at trying to ''dispel the anxiety of Europeans who, according to Washington's strategic plans, are to be the first to be burned in a 'limited' nuclear war in Europe.''

    Pravda, the official Communist Party newspaper, recently carried an article by a former war correspondent identified as Daniil Kraminov. In it, he wrote that ''moral preparations'' are under way ''for a new, this time, nuclear war, which dooms Europe and the European civilization to destruction.''

    That, of course, dovetails with Moscow's ongoing propaganda efforts against the stationing of new American-supplied nuclear missiles to Europe.

    Another theme of the current press campaign is the suggestion that Western leaders were culpable for their encouragement of Hitler's ambitions. Kraminov, in the Pravda article, argues not only that US banks financed Hitler's wartime mobilization, but also that the US blocked early efforts by the Soviet Union to provide for a ''collective defense'' of Europe from Hitler's advance. (Notably, there is no mention in any of the articles about the Aug. 23, 1939, Soviet-German nonagression pact, which many historians view as having paved the way for the subsequent Nazi invasion of Poland.)

    Kraminov further argues that ''without that aid and open encouragement from reactionary circles of the USA, Great Britain, and France . . . Hitler would not have dared and could not have possibly undertaken the military adventures which brought untold suffering, sacrifices, and destruction to Europe.''

    The current press campaign also makes much of alleged ''foot-dragging'' by the Allies in opening the ''second front'' against Germany in 1944. The military-historical journal claims that ''published documents make it clear'' that the Soviet Union pushed the Allies to open up a front in Europe as early as July 1941 and that the Allies agreed to do so in 1942.

    Why the delay until 1944?
    In an interview with Tass, Col.-Gen. Ivan Kuzovkov, identified as a wartime commander, argues that subsequent events have made it clear that the West ''deliberately made the Soviet people shoulder the hardships of war and hoped to see the Soviet Union bled white.''

    In fact, he continues, the advance of Soviet troops actually forced the Germans to divert troops away from Normandy and thus paved the way for the successful Allied landing there. But, he said, as a practical matter the Normandy invasion ''was an important but auxiliary factor'' in the war effort because the Soviet Army had already doomed Hitler to defeat.

    ''Why was the second front opened in 1944 and not later?'' the military-historical journal asks. Because, according to the journal, the prospect of a Soviet victory without Allied help ''frightened the monopolistic circles of the US and Britain and made them hurry up with the opening of the second front in Normandy.''

    Indeed, pro-Soviet, Australian-born author James Aldridge writes in Izvestia, ''The opening of the second front was partially caused by fear. In Western political circles they understood that the Red Army in its victorious offensive was far from being exhausted and could rout the enemy on its own.''

    In a similar vein, Tass rebukes Ronald Heiferman, author of ''World War II,'' for ''falsifying historical events.'' Heiferman, according to Tass, suggests that the Russians pressed the allies to open a second front in Europe to prevent the collapse of the Red Army ''under a Nazi onslaught.''

    This is simply another example of how ''falsifiers are rewriting history for the sake of political objectives,'' says Tass.


    More: From a 2004 article ('D-Day and the truth about the Second World War'):
    In August 1942, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up a document that said:
    "In World War II, Russia occupies a dominant position and is the decisive factor looking toward the defeat of the Axis in Europe. While in Sicily the forces of Great Britain and the USA are being opposed by 2 German divisions, the Russian front is receiving the attention of approximately 200 German divisions. Whenever the Allies open a second front on the Continent, it will be decidedly a secondary front to that of Russia; theirs will continue to be the main effort. Without Russia in the war, the Axis cannot be defeated in Europe, and the position of the United Nations becomes precarious." (quoted in V. Sipols, The Road to Great Victory, p. 133.)
    These words accurately express the real position that existed at the time of the D-day landings. Yet an entirely different (and false) version of the war is assiduously being cultivated in the media today.

    The truth is that the war against Hitler in Europe was fought mainly by the USSR and the Red Army. For most of the war, the British and Americans were mere spectators...

    Related:
    Rothschilds/John D. Rockefeller, Sr. funded the Bolshevik Revolution
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  12. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    A Voice from the Mountains (5th June 2019), BMJ (11th June 2019), Deux Corbeaux (10th June 2019), Franny (1st July 2019), Ivanhoe (9th June 2019), Merry Mom (10th June 2019), Sophocles (10th June 2019), Valerie Villars (5th June 2019)

  13. Link to Post #68
    England Avalon Member
    Join Date
    29th May 2019
    Posts
    14
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 80 times in 13 posts

    Default Re: Debunking Romantic Ideas About the Past

    D-Day distortion?

    I always appreciate an alternative view on history, but I did find this quite upsetting on a day when I always reflect on my parents and grandparents who lived through the war, especially my grandfathers, one of whom was in the RAF and the other in the army.

    One thing that I noted is that there is a strong pro-Soviet bias by the writers. I would say that I grew up knowing full well about the massive losses of the Soviet forces; I watched The World at War when it was first aired (I think most households did in Britain, it was a very good series); that topic was fully covered in that series and I have never forgotten it.

    Now I've never had military training, but surely the aim of engaging in battle is to aim to win with inflicting as much damage on your enemy whilst minimising damage to your own forces? I have read about D-Day in detail, it was a massive operation against a heavily fortified coastline and had to set off with the Germans not twigging that it was on its way. There had already been a raid on Dieppe in 1942 which was an unmitigated disaster. British forces were thinly stretched until the arrival of US troops, so surely it makes military sense to attack when the bulk of your enemy's forces are engaged elsewhere?

    The planning logistics were an enormous operation, in a pre-computer age when everything was written or typed. There needed to be all the materials assembled, at a time when equipment sustained losses in operations and needed to be replaced, and war production factories were being bombed. They had to assemble almost 200,000 troops and all the necessary equipment in the south of England without them being detected. There was also an elaborate double-cross spy system, with the double agents feeding false information over a period of time. Add to that the weather had to be right (I've had quite a few very choppy Channel crossings in my time), D-Day was nearly called off due to storms and only a brief lull in the bad weather allowed it to go ahead.

    So, that's not the sort of thing that you can knock up in a couple of weeks. There never was any certainty about D-Day being a success and Churchill feared that the casualties would be far greater than what they were.

    Furthermore, I think when someone starts to criticise the state of someone's house, they should look at their own first. Stalin was a mass murderer. It's hard to get an exact figure, but it is estimated that about 12 million Soviet peasant farmers and their family members died as a result of Stalin's agricultural collectivisation plans. Also, any Soviet prisoners who were repatriated after the end of the war were executed or sent to gulags. I knew a man years ago who had been captured by the Americans in an SS uniform (he was Latvian or Lithuanian I think). He was given the choice of repatriation to the USSR or to be sent to Britain to work in the coal mines. He chose the mines and remained in Britain until he died at an old age.

    My personal view is that there were no saints amongst the leaders of the war, and there were certainly a lot of murky dealings below the surface. I do find this increasing criticism of Britain's role quite troubling, in my immediate consciousness I know about the struggles and deprivations that my family had to deal with during the war.

    Finally - yes, there are 'ever-grander ceremonies'. You could say the same about most events nowadays. Personally I would love to turn the clock back to the dignified, low-key memorials, but everything these days has to be a 'spectacle'. I felt that a lot of the art installations for the centenary of the end of the First World War last year were distasteful and just a way for some artists to make a name for themselves. It seems to me that you can't get the attention of the young 'uns these days if it's not flashy and gaudy.
    Last edited by HikerChick; 9th June 2019 at 20:14.

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to HikerChick For This Post:

    BMJ (11th June 2019), Ivanhoe (9th June 2019), Merry Mom (10th June 2019), Valerie Villars (10th June 2019)

  15. Link to Post #69
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    28th August 2013
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    296
    Thanks
    1,536
    Thanked 1,612 times in 284 posts

    Default Re: Debunking Romantic Ideas About the Past

    This thread is a gem! I'm surprised I didn't see it before. I am definitely one who romanticizes the past. When I was little, I was really upset that I wasn't born during the pioneer days due to my obsession with Laura Ingalls Wilder's books. What's pretty super about current times is that you can live off the land like a pioneer if you choose to, but if you find yourself starving to death, you can always abandon the adventure! While we certainly have challenges in current times, I do believe that we are moving toward an awakening during which we will see how everything fit together beautifully to emerge into something better than ever before. I suppose some of our romanticism may go back to a time we remember from our genetics, a golden age that has been all but wiped out by modern history. So when we romanticize the past, we might need to go back further than we are accustomed.
    There's no time like the present.

  16. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Merry Mom For This Post:

    BMJ (11th June 2019), Constance (12th June 2019), Franny (1st July 2019), Hervé (10th June 2019), HikerChick (10th June 2019), Valerie Villars (10th June 2019)

  17. Link to Post #70
    England Avalon Member
    Join Date
    29th May 2019
    Posts
    14
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 80 times in 13 posts

    Default Re: Debunking Romantic Ideas About the Past

    I agree Merry Mom! At least we have choices these days and as you say, can move on if the adventure goes belly-up!

    It took years of doing genealogy for me to realise just how hard and precarious life was in the past. I think that is both good and bad, in the present day we take a lot for granted but at least childbirth these days in the developed world isn't something that you fear as it might kill you and medical advances can cure many conditions that used to be a death sentence. Starvation is no longer a condition to be feared in the developed world. My family were solidly working class and poor and it was a revelation to me how they managed to survive through the centuries. I would like to think too that we are moving towards an awakening, at least a lot of people are no longer blindly accepting what they are taught, though with all the distortion about our history I think it's hard to know when the golden age did occur.

    Life is still precarious in many other parts of the world though, with a lack of medical facilities, totalitarian regimes and war. We should count our blessings.
    Last edited by HikerChick; 10th June 2019 at 08:50.

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to HikerChick For This Post:

    BMJ (11th June 2019), Merry Mom (10th June 2019), Valerie Villars (10th June 2019)

  19. Link to Post #71
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    28th August 2013
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    296
    Thanks
    1,536
    Thanked 1,612 times in 284 posts

    Default Re: Debunking Romantic Ideas About the Past

    Quote Posted by HikerChick (here)
    Life is still precarious in many other parts of the world though, with a lack of medical facilities, totalitarian regimes and war. We should count our blessings.
    Great reminder! I was speaking from the perspective of the Western world, but so many humans still don’t have the things we take for granted: easy access to clean water, modern sanitation, etc.

    I enjoy genealogical research also. I particularly wonder what was going on with my ancestors in England that motivated them to immigrate to the US in 1909. What a huge risk it was, but they must have thought it was worth taking! I know that on my French side, they were part of the Acadian migration. There were such huge upheavals in their lives. I feel like sometimes we modern folks create unnecessary drama in our lives, because we just aren’t genetically used to being content.
    There's no time like the present.

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Merry Mom For This Post:

    BMJ (11th June 2019), HikerChick (10th June 2019), Valerie Villars (10th June 2019)

  21. Link to Post #72
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    21st July 2010
    Age
    33
    Posts
    573
    Thanks
    267
    Thanked 2,611 times in 483 posts

    Default Re: Debunking Romantic Ideas About the Past

    Quote Posted by HikerChick (here)
    D-Day distortion?

    I always appreciate an alternative view on history, but I did find this quite upsetting on a day when I always reflect on my parents and grandparents who lived through the war, especially my grandfathers, one of whom was in the RAF and the other in the army.

    One thing that I noted is that there is a strong pro-Soviet bias by the writers. I would say that I grew up knowing full well about the massive losses of the Soviet forces; I watched The World at War when it was first aired (I think most households did in Britain, it was a very good series); that topic was fully covered in that series and I have never forgotten it.

    Now I've never had military training, but surely the aim of engaging in battle is to aim to win with inflicting as much damage on your enemy whilst minimising damage to your own forces? I have read about D-Day in detail, it was a massive operation against a heavily fortified coastline and had to set off with the Germans not twigging that it was on its way. There had already been a raid on Dieppe in 1942 which was an unmitigated disaster. British forces were thinly stretched until the arrival of US troops, so surely it makes military sense to attack when the bulk of your enemy's forces are engaged elsewhere?

    The planning logistics were an enormous operation, in a pre-computer age when everything was written or typed. There needed to be all the materials assembled, at a time when equipment sustained losses in operations and needed to be replaced, and war production factories were being bombed. They had to assemble almost 200,000 troops and all the necessary equipment in the south of England without them being detected. There was also an elaborate double-cross spy system, with the double agents feeding false information over a period of time. Add to that the weather had to be right (I've had quite a few very choppy Channel crossings in my time), D-Day was nearly called off due to storms and only a brief lull in the bad weather allowed it to go ahead.

    So, that's not the sort of thing that you can knock up in a couple of weeks. There never was any certainty about D-Day being a success and Churchill feared that the casualties would be far greater than what they were.

    Furthermore, I think when someone starts to criticise the state of someone's house, they should look at their own first. Stalin was a mass murderer. It's hard to get an exact figure, but it is estimated that about 12 million Soviet peasant farmers and their family members died as a result of Stalin's agricultural collectivisation plans. Also, any Soviet prisoners who were repatriated after the end of the war were executed or sent to gulags. I knew a man years ago who had been captured by the Americans in an SS uniform (he was Latvian or Lithuanian I think). He was given the choice of repatriation to the USSR or to be sent to Britain to work in the coal mines. He chose the mines and remained in Britain until he died at an old age.

    My personal view is that there were no saints amongst the leaders of the war, and there were certainly a lot of murky dealings below the surface. I do find this increasing criticism of Britain's role quite troubling, in my immediate consciousness I know about the struggles and deprivations that my family had to deal with during the war.

    Finally - yes, there are 'ever-grander ceremonies'. You could say the same about most events nowadays. Personally I would love to turn the clock back to the dignified, low-key memorials, but everything these days has to be a 'spectacle'. I felt that a lot of the art installations for the centenary of the end of the First World War last year were distasteful and just a way for some artists to make a name for themselves. It seems to me that you can't get the attention of the young 'uns these days if it's not flashy and gaudy.
    You are getting upset about facts which do not seem possible to be upset by.

    It is historical fact that the Soviet Union was a large reason that Europe did not fall the nazis. There is absolutely NO QUESTION here.

    This being the case does not make Stalin a good person. It does not make communism god tier. It does not white wash the past. It does not remove the impressiveness of organizing an invasion of that scale without computers(which if you think that is impressive then maybe you should check out the logistics system of WW1 and how they kept the lines with those millions of shells supplied. Now that is impressive. Google Der Tag preparations). This does not take away from the service of anyones ancestors. It is just recognizing the millions of Russians that went through the meat grinder to defeat Nazi in europe.

    In case you are not aware( and I am aware of how awful this is to the humans having to do it and for the government to tell them to do this), at times there were not enough arms for the Russian soldiers so one would get a gun and the next would get ammo. THe job of the ammo dude was to follow the gun dude to then pick it up and recycle.

    What is offensive and upsetting is your attitude quite frankly. You are ignoring a great many peoples sacrifice because you have a knee jerk reactions to political philosophies. One does not have to become communist to appreciate what Russian people did for the world. Yes D day was important and impressive. Yes we should be grateful for your parents service and if they died sacrifice. But if you forget to be thankful for the Soviets enormous and main part in the winning of the war, then I dont know what to say to you other than, go look at numbers of people dead in the war and rethink.

    For the record, I hate the soviet union. I dont see communism as positive. I am not trying to defend anything but the sacrifice of people who are now starting to be forgotten because people dont know history, often many were forced into that situation at gun point.

  22. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Praxis For This Post:

    avid (10th June 2019), BMJ (11th June 2019), drneglector (11th June 2019), Hervé (10th June 2019), silvanelf (17th June 2019), Sophocles (11th June 2019)

  23. Link to Post #73
    United States Avalon Member Strat's Avatar
    Join Date
    27th April 2010
    Location
    Florida
    Age
    33
    Posts
    971
    Thanks
    1,839
    Thanked 5,319 times in 823 posts

    Default Re: Debunking Romantic Ideas About the Past

    Hell, it's just her opinion. I'm not upset or offended in the slightest.

    My grandfather had a small squad or whatever in WW2. There's a pic of him in a half trac full of people and on the other side he wrote that only 1 guy out of all them survived. He fought in the Battle of the Bulge and got a purple heart (shot in leg) amongst other medals. He either gave them away (to my mom and uncle), or trashed them. One of them he mailed to somebody as a sort of a middle finger but that's another story. I forget all the details -I have all his info, pics etc- but I remember he was part of 'Roosevelts Butchers'.

    I never realized the truth of the matter till I was in my mid to later 20s when I became increasingly interested in American history. I don't feel bad or anything that the Russians shut down the Nazi's, it's just kinda the way the mop flops.

    I'll load up some pics from my grandpa if I can find my damn flickr password. He had lots of great stories. RIP 'Fox'.
    Just as every cop is a criminal
    And all the sinners saints

  24. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Strat For This Post:

    BMJ (11th June 2019), Franny (1st July 2019), HikerChick (10th June 2019), Ivanhoe (10th June 2019), janus (10th June 2019), Merry Mom (11th June 2019)

  25. Link to Post #74
    England Avalon Member
    Join Date
    29th May 2019
    Posts
    14
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked 80 times in 13 posts

    Default Re: Debunking Romantic Ideas About the Past

    Quote Posted by Praxis (here)
    What is offensive and upsetting is your attitude quite frankly. You are ignoring a great many peoples sacrifice because you have a knee jerk reactions to political philosophies. One does not have to become communist to appreciate what Russian people did for the world. Yes D day was important and impressive. Yes we should be grateful for your parents service and if they died sacrifice. But if you forget to be thankful for the Soviets enormous and main part in the winning of the war, then I dont know what to say to you other than, go look at numbers of people dead in the war and rethink.

    Hmmm... so what I said was 'offensive'? I said, if you missed it, that I grew up being well aware of the massive losses of the Soviet forces and I am also aware that this did make a major contribution to the outcome of the war. I don't see how this belittles the massive effort of the Allied invasion, whereas the original post stated that the British and Americans were 'mere spectators'. Don't forget as well that the British and Americans were fighting on many fronts, not just in northern Europe.

    Where are my "knee jerk reactions to political philosophies"? I have no political leanings whatsoever as they are all as bad as each other.

    Jeez, I joined this forum because it seemed so well mannered and I've been trolled within days.
    Last edited by HikerChick; 10th June 2019 at 18:52.

  26. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to HikerChick For This Post:

    BMJ (11th June 2019), Joe (10th June 2019), Kryztian (17th June 2019), Merry Mom (10th June 2019), RunningDeer (17th June 2019), Tintin (11th June 2019)

  27. Link to Post #75
    United States Avalon Member
    Join Date
    28th August 2013
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    296
    Thanks
    1,536
    Thanked 1,612 times in 284 posts

    Default Re: Debunking Romantic Ideas About the Past

    Quote Posted by HikerChick (here)
    Jeez, I joined this forum because it seemed so well mannered and I've been trolled within days.
    Dear Hiker Chick, I am sorry to hear that you are having a rough time here. I am glad that you joined. Different perspectives are enlightening.
    There's no time like the present.

  28. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Merry Mom For This Post:

    BMJ (11th June 2019), Constance (10th June 2019), drneglector (11th June 2019), Franny (1st July 2019), Hervé (10th June 2019), janus (10th June 2019), Joe (10th June 2019), RunningDeer (17th June 2019), Sophocles (11th June 2019), Tintin (11th June 2019)

  29. Link to Post #76
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    21st July 2010
    Age
    33
    Posts
    573
    Thanks
    267
    Thanked 2,611 times in 483 posts

    Default Re: Debunking Romantic Ideas About the Past

    Quote Posted by HikerChick (here)
    D-Day distortion?

    I always appreciate an alternative view on history, but I did find this quite upsetting on a day when I always reflect on my parents and grandparents who lived through the war, especially my grandfathers, one of whom was in the RAF and the other in the army.

    One thing that I noted is that there is a strong pro-Soviet bias by the writers. I would say that I grew up knowing full well about the massive losses of the Soviet forces; I watched The World at War when it was first aired (I think most households did in Britain, it was a very good series); that topic was fully covered in that series and I have never forgotten it.

    Now I've never had military training, but surely the aim of engaging in battle is to aim to win with inflicting as much damage on your enemy whilst minimising damage to your own forces? I have read about D-Day in detail, it was a massive operation against a heavily fortified coastline and had to set off with the Germans not twigging that it was on its way. There had already been a raid on Dieppe in 1942 which was an unmitigated disaster. British forces were thinly stretched until the arrival of US troops, so surely it makes military sense to attack when the bulk of your enemy's forces are engaged elsewhere?
    First, No one is trolling. You got upset at the article that Herve posted. I just disagree with your being upset at the article for stating what I believe to be fairly accurate.

    The bulk of the enemy forces were there because the Soviets forced all the manpower to be there. I.E. They won the war for the allies as they sucked up all of the Reichs real military attention.

    You literally just agreed with the article. The Soviets forced the Nazis to put a bulk of their forces there. Although, I should point out that Hitlers obsession with obliterating the slavs and their states also contributed to this outcome, just like keeping troops at concentration camps instead of sending to the front line. If you havent, you should look into the plans for moscow post WW2 had the Germans won.

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Praxis For This Post:

    BMJ (11th June 2019), Hervé (10th June 2019), Sophocles (11th June 2019)

  31. Link to Post #77
    Australia Avalon Member BMJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th May 2010
    Posts
    1,223
    Thanks
    34,445
    Thanked 5,364 times in 1,068 posts

    Default Re: Debunking Romantic Ideas About the Past

    James Perloff presents his thoughts on the catalysts, that being false flags, for all major conflicts in the last 150 years.

    Making it evident the enemy and the evil was not on the battle front, but right in our own governments that act as an extension of the will of the elite.



    911TVorg
    Published on May 13, 2019
    James Perloff 2019 “War and Deception”

    Saturday 27 April 2019
    Watertown, Massachusetts

    From the sinking of the Maine, to the Tonkin Gulf Incident, to Saddam Hussein’s missing “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” (to name only a few examples) James Perloff will walk the audience through history and ask: Have Americans been repeatedly deceived into war?

    James Perloff's jarring conclusion is that the USA ALWAYS goes to war by deception. now who's motto does that sound like?

    he continues,

    Are our tax dollars and soldiers’ lives sacrificed needlessly?

    And if so, what is the true agenda?

    Are all wars really fought for “freedom and democracy”?
    Last edited by BMJ; 11th June 2019 at 11:02.
    In hoc signo vinces / In this sign thou shalt conquer

  32. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to BMJ For This Post:

    Franny (1st July 2019), Hervé (11th June 2019), Merry Mom (11th June 2019), Wansen (17th June 2019)

  33. Link to Post #78
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,231
    Thanks
    57,251
    Thanked 90,499 times in 14,925 posts

    Default Re: Debunking Romantic Ideas About the Past

    Romans may have 'trapped more flies' with honey says new study

    Morgan Sherburne University of Michigan News
    Tue, 25 Jun 2019 19:00 UTC

    An ancient Roman fresco from the Necropolis of Esquilino, dated c. 300-280 BC, depicts a handshake between a Roman and a non-Roman. © Public domain, Wikimedia Commons

    Ann Arbor-Romans are depicted as slashing and burning their way across countries in order to secure their empire. But a University of Michigan archeologist suggests that the Romans may have trapped more flies with honey.

    At its peak-about the year 117-the Roman Empire ringed the Mediterranean Sea, encompassing present-day Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Eastern Europe, Turkey, Syria and a swath across northern Africa. Since the Middle Ages, historians have described this expansion as a military conquest. But for all its reach, the Roman conquest yielded little evidence of warfare or a disruption of power within excavated settlements across Italy, according to author Nicola Terrenato.

    Instead, Terrenato thinks that elite Roman landowners and politicians offered positions of political power to non-Roman nobles in order to woo them into their empire. A wealth of recently digitized inscriptions shows local aristocrats surviving the conquest unscathed. Some of these aristocrats even thrived as politicians in Rome.
    "It seems the Romans said, 'Come quietly and be a part of this, and you will not only preserve local power, but also have the chance to play the big game in Rome,'" said Terrenato, author of the book The Early Roman Expansion into Italy.

    Nicola Terrenato, an archaeologist at the University of Michigan, contends in his new book that Romans built their empire through political diplomacy. © Nicola Terrenato
    "The violence was there, but this really wasn't what made the Roman empire. What made the Roman empire was delicate and smart back-channel diplomacy among the landed elites."
    Terrenato's research spans decades in the field across central Italy, most recently at Gabii. In the process, he realized that very few of the villages and farms in conquered regions reflected war-related destruction. Nor did the sites show a change in language or customs in local societies.

    Had the conquest been very violent, as it is generally accepted, Terrenato argues one would expect to find evidence of disruption and radical shifts in leadership. Instead, there is strong evidence that the social and economic structures within these settlements remained the same, and the same families who were in power before the Roman expansion appeared to maintain their dominant positions. For instance, says Terrenato, family tombs of the local nobility continue long after this supposedly catastrophic event.
    "Archaeological evidence allows you to see the material truth. You may have ancient historians saying that a city was sacked and destroyed, but when we excavate it, we see little destruction," Terrenato said.

    "There must have been some process of negotiation by which Romans and non-Roman elites agreed on a grand bargain to rule the empire together."
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  34. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (30th June 2019), Bill Ryan (5th July 2019), BMJ (3rd July 2019), Constance (1st July 2019), drneglector (1st July 2019), Franny (1st July 2019), IndigoSpiral (1st July 2019), Ivanhoe (30th June 2019), Merry Mom (3rd July 2019), Valerie Villars (5th July 2019)

  35. Link to Post #79
    France Administrator Hervé's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,231
    Thanks
    57,251
    Thanked 90,499 times in 14,925 posts

    Default Re: Debunking Romantic Ideas About the Past

    The US Was Created by Freemasonry to Realize NWO

    By Henry Makow, PhD
    July 4, 2019


    (George Washington, Freemason)
    You blind guides. You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!" (Matthew 23:24)

    "The people of the world and even their governments" will be "as children under-age." The Protocols of Zion (15)
    Democracy and freedom are illusions gradually dispersing like morning mist.

    Our governments ask Cabalist (Masonic) bankers for credit like children asking for their allowance.

    Governments are just a veil for these bankers. "Successful" people are their agents.

    Freemasons control every important social institution: government, media, corporations, military, justice, education and the church. They are the "Deep State." Humanity is being reengineered to serve the Cabalist bankers and their god Lucifer in a world plantation.

    As historian Bernard Fay explains below, the United States was established to implement this global agenda which explains US foreign policy.
    "Your churches will be used to teach the Jew's religion and in less than two hundred years, the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire. All religions will be permeated with Judaism without even being noticed by the masses, and they will all be under the invisible all-seeing eye of the Grand Architect of Freemasonry."
    ----General George Cornwallis 1781
    By Henry Makow, PhD

    Most Americans who scoff at the mention of conspiracy don't know their country was created by Freemasonry . Freemasons drafted the Constitution and signed the Declaration of Independence. The "Indians" who dumped the tea in the harbor were Masons. So were Paul Revere and his Minutemen, George Washington and most of his generals. The Marquis de Lafayette was shunned until he joined the Masons. At least 20 of the 42 US Presidents were "Brothers."

    Freemasonry is the Church of Satan masquerading as a fraternal mystical philanthropic order. It fronts for Illuminati (Masonic & Cabalist Jewish) central bankers who started the US as a vehicle to advance their "New World Order." In the words of Masonic elder Manley P. Hall, "we must also perfect the plan of the ages, setting up here the machinery for a world brotherhood of nations and races." ("The Secret Destiny of America," 1944, p.3)

    The Freemasons provided Americans with ideals -- civil liberties, equal opportunity and no taxation without representation -- which still are valid. But they were enticements designed to gain power. As you might have noticed, these promises were not intended to be kept. Politicians don't represent us. They are Freemasons and they represent the goals of Freemasonry, i.e. Cabalist Jewish world Tyranny.

    Most historians won't tell you this. In Upton Sinclair's words: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."



    But there was one historian who did reveal the truth. Bernard Fay (1893-1978) was a Harvard-educated Frenchman. He is considered an "anti-Mason" because his 1935 book, "Revolution and Freemasonry: 1680-1800" is one of very few to reveal the extent of Masonic participation in the US and French Revolutions.

    He had access to Masonic archives in the US and Europe. His book is actually a sympathetic portrayal of Freemasonry with no references to its occult nature. However, as a Vichy Frenchman, he subsequently helped the Nazis identify Masons during World War Two. He was imprisoned after the war but pardoned in 1952 by Charles De Gaulle.

    MASONIC AMERICA
    Fay explains that in the1770's, the US consisted of 13 isolated colonies with different governments, religions, customs, racial profiles, and social and political structures. There were intense rivalries and longstanding antagonisms. A letter took three weeks to get from Georgia to Massachusetts.
    "Masonry alone undertook to lay the foundation for national unity in America because [as a secret society] it could spread throughout the colonies and work steadily and silently. It created in a limited but very prominent class of people a feeling of American unity without which... there would have been no United States." (p. 230)

    "In 1760, there was no town, big or small, where Masonry had not spun its web. Everywhere it was preaching fraternity and unity." (230)
    Benjamin Franklin, who was the Grand Master of a French lodge, raised millions of francs crucial to financing George Washington's army. He was the first to submit a plan for military collaboration and political federation. He established a chain of Masonic newspapers in all of the colonies. You can guess where he found the money.

    Fay says George Washington and his ragtag army kept the spirit of independence alive. He organized many military lodges and personally participated in their activities. On Dec. 27,1778, he led a parade after Philadelphia was recaptured:

    "His sword at his side, in full Masonic attire, and adorned with all the jewels and insignia of the Brotherhood, Washington marched at the head of a solemn procession of 300 brethren through the streets of Philadelphia to Christ Church, where a Masonic Divine Service was held. This was the greatest Masonic parade that had ever been seen in the New World." (246)

    "All the staff officers Washington trusted were Masons, and all the leading generals of the army were Masons: Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, James Madison, Gen. Greene, Gen. Lee, Gen. Sullivan, Lord Stirling, the two Putnams, Gen. Steuben, Montgomery, Jackson, Gist, Henry Knox and Ethan Allen were Masons. They all gathered around their Master Mason Washington and they all met at the 'Temple of Virtue,' 'a rude structure forming an oblong square forty by sixty feet, one story in height, a single entrance which was flanked by two pillars... The atmosphere which surrounded Washington was Masonic and it may be said that the framework of his mind was Masonic." (p. 250)
    Imagine if Washington had shown the same devotion to Christianity. Fay points to a "curious" degree of coordination between Masons in the US and British armies:
    "It seems even likely that the unforgettable and mysterious laxness of certain English military campaigns in America, particularly those of the Howe brothers, was deliberate and due to the Masonic desire of the English general to reach a peaceful settlement..." (251)
    SURRENDER OF CORNWALLIS
    In this context, it is pertinent to recall the confession of General Cornwallis when he surrendered to General Washington at Yorktown (Oct. 19, 1781.)
    "Jonathan Williams recorded in his "Legions of Satan," (1781,) that Cornwallis revealed to Washington that "a holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown."

    ( British General Cornwallis's surrender at Yorktown, VA. Masonic hand sign indicates he was an insider.)

    The Crown is the Illuminati (i.e. shareholders of the Bank of England.) Cornwallis went on to explain what would seem a contradiction:
    "Your churches will be used to teach the Jew's religion and in less than two hundred years, the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire. All religions will be permeated with Judaism without even being noticed by the masses, and they will all be under the invisible all-seeing eye of the Grand Architect of Freemasonry."
    In a 1956 speech, Senator Joseph McCarthy reflected on these words:
    "Cornwallis well knew that his military defeat was only the beginning of world catastrophe that would be universal and that unrest would continue until mind control could be accomplished through a false religion. What he predicted has come to pass. A brief sketch of American religious history and we have seen Masonry infused into every church in America with their veiled Phallic religion."


    CONCLUSION
    We don't recognize the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy because we are not accustomed to thinking in terms of hundreds of years. But the Illuminati bankers have been plotting the "new order of the ages" (featured on the US dollar along with the uncapped Masonic pyramid) for thousands of years.

    We may have the pleasure and pain of witnessing their design come to fruition. As we do, it is worth remembering that Americans, in fact all peoples, have allowed themselves to be duped.

    Our role is analogous to that of the French nobles who collaborated in the French Revolution and then were slaughtered. Fay writes: "All these nobles did not hesitate to side with the revolutionary party, even though it was to cost them their rank, their estates and their lives." (p. 287)

    In the words of a speaker at a secret B'nai Brith meeting in Paris in 1936:
    "Yet it remains our secret that those Gentiles who betray their own and most precious interests, by joining us in our plot should never know that these associations are of our creation and that they serve our purpose...

    "One of the many triumphs of our Freemasonry is that those Gentiles who become members of our Lodges, should never suspect that we are using them to build their own jails, upon whose terraces we shall erect the throne of our Universal King of Israel; and should never know that we are commanding them to forge the chains of their own servility to our future King of the World."
    from Feb 20, 2016

    ------
    Related:
    Last edited by Hervé; 5th July 2019 at 14:04.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  36. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (5th July 2019), Valerie Villars (5th July 2019)

  37. Link to Post #80
    United States Avalon Member Valerie Villars's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th November 2017
    Age
    57
    Posts
    2,503
    Thanks
    22,016
    Thanked 16,135 times in 2,455 posts

    Default Re: Debunking Romantic Ideas About the Past

    Well, CNN's take is already unavailable.

    https://www.henrymakow.com/002009.html

    The link above is a link in the Rothschild link above and is called "The Mardi Gras Secrets", supposedly a deathbed confession of Mimi Eustis' father.

    That is one of the most fascinating reads I've had in a while, as it delves into the Mystic Krewe of Comus' origins here in New Orleans, as tied in with Freemasonry and Freemasons Albert Pike, Judah Benjamin and John Slidell.

    I had no idea Judah Benjamin and Albert Pike had such a history in New Orleans, living and working here.

    I am familiar with the Eustis family, as I worked for Eustis Mortgage. Interesting and eye opening stuff.
    Last edited by Valerie Villars; 5th July 2019 at 14:45.
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with someone when we are uncool." From the movie "Almost Famous""l "Let yourself stand cool and composed before a million universes." Walt Whitman

  38. The Following User Says Thank You to Valerie Villars For This Post:

    Hervé (5th July 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1 4

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts