Glen Beck-Reconstructing History

[Gravekeeper]

Our politics are our business, but whatever Pot, signed Kettle.

Of course its our freaking business. You affect the world yet are remarkably ignorant of anything outside of your own country. We're fighting alongside you in Afghanistan you know, and have taken more casualties per capita then any other country. So yes, it is our business and will be till you withdraw entirely inside your own borders, create a MySpace poetry page and stop interfering with other countries.

As for WW2, that's still baffling how its viewed in the US. WW2 was a Soviet war. =/

[Hobbs]

Of course its our freaking business. You affect the world yet are remarkably ignorant of anything outside of your own country. We're fighting alongside you in Afghanistan you know, and have taken more casualties per capita then any other country. So yes, it is our business and will be till you withdraw entirely inside your own borders, create a MySpace poetry page and stop interfering with other countries.

As for WW2, that's still baffling how its viewed in the US. WW2 was a Soviet war. =/

A Soviet war? Really? So all those things about the Battle of Britain, the Invasion or Normandy, Bataan, Okinawa, Iwo Jima...those were Soviet-German battles? Hmm, I don't remember that.

We tried withdrawing into our own borders after WWI. It was only after the European powers were losing severely that we decided to step out of them; and resoundly turned the tide of the war. Face it; without American involvement in WWII, Britain would have been invaded in a reverse-Normandy. I accept that all major countries were at war in WWII and each nation contributed considerably, but it's revisionist to think that the role America played was trivial.

[AdminAssistant]

A Soviet war? Really? So all those things about the Battle of Britain, the Invasion or Normandy, Bataan, Okinawa, Iwo Jima...those were Soviet-German battles? Hmm, I don't remember that.

-snip_

Face it; without American involvement in WWII, Britain would have been invaded in a reverse-Normandy. I accept that all major countries were at war in WWII and each nation contributed considerably, but it's revisionist to think that the role America played was trivial.

Soviet losses were considerably more than those on any other side and included many, many, many more civilians. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a "Soviet war", but the Eastern Front is usually severely downplayed in US history classes. The European battle would have gone on much longer without Soviet involvement. American involvement was also crucial, especially in the replenishment of soldiers and equipment. Since, y'know, Germany had been bombing the utter shit out of Britain for a couple of years. I just get very irritated by the idea the World War II didn't start until we got involved and that we won both sides of the war all by ourselves. So, in summation, the Soviets had more to do with winning the war than Americans did. Stalin, however, was still a douchebag, and the Red Army doesn't win any bonus points for camping outside concentration camps and ghettos and chilling out for a few weeks before liberating the people inside.

Besides, Hitler and the Nazi regime would have collapsed eventually. He was just damn damn lucky for a long time. We just helped reduce the amount of damage he did (of course, imagine how much better it would have been if we'd signed on board in 1939 with the Commonwealth). The Pacific War is a different ball o' wax, although we 'won' by such abominable means that I can't consider it a victory.

ETA: We 'signed on board' because of severe European losses??? HAHAHAHAHAHA *siigghhhh* We 'signed on board' because Japan totally took us by surprise, bombed the crap out of a military base, and then declared war on us. Which, since they were all part of the Axis, caused Hitler to declare war on us. They called us out, not the other way around. I mean, we knew what a tyrant Hitler was by the mid-30's, when he started throwing Catholics in prison and torturing gays for shits and giggles. We weren't on a mercy mission; Hitler basically called us pansies and made fun of our tiny penises. That's when we got involved.

[crashhelmet]

This witch hunt is new??? The speculation and/or out right lies are new??? Currently I'm not worried about any firearms/ammo restrictions because it seems to finally have gotten through the demos thick skulls that anti-Second Admendment will cost they elections. I do worry about taxes going up because I know with the deficites of the past few years taxes will have to be increase and new taxes laid on. My wife and I would like to expand our businesses and hire more folks but we're not going because while I'm far from rich the liberals are their ilk are raring to stick it to me because I have "more than I need."

Other than his alleged prior knowledge and/or involvement in 9/11, give me a list of lies told about Bush by the Liberal media and the rest of the Anti-Bush front?

Meanwhile, there are still people spreading lies about where Obama was born, where he went to school, YouTube videos made editing speeches to make it sound like he's admitting to being a Muslim and/or supporting terrorism, emails circulating that he's going to implement a new tax on everyone that owns a gun if he doesn't take them away first. Lies that the Health Care bill he's pushing for is going to result in the government deciding whether or not it's cost effective to let you live as well as strip Military veterans of their continued insurance. A new one is circulating that he he ordered former President Bush removed from Ft. Hood. Others are saying that when he visits the hospitals, he only visits the families and not the soldiers.

Where were these emails when Bush was in office? Where were the Tea Baggers when the Bush Administration was turning our surplus into a deficit?

CH

[Gravekeeper]

The eastern front was 4 times the scale of the western front and the Soviet Union's casualties are insanely beyond the rest of us, honestly. Tragically so given how downplayed they are in American history books.

To give you a rough idea, American casualties account for about 3% of Allied casualties. Soviet casualties account for 62%. =/

Yeah, Stalin was a douche, but the eastern front certainly ground Germany down.

Oh, and Hitler was a lucky idiot for the most part.

</threadderailment>

[Hobbs]

Soviet losses were considerably more than those on any other side and included many, many, many more civilians. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was a "Soviet war", but the Eastern Front is usually severely downplayed in US history classes. The European battle would have gone on much longer without Soviet involvement. American involvement was also crucial, especially in the replenishment of soldiers and equipment. Since, y'know, Germany had been bombing the utter shit out of Britain for a couple of years. I just get very irritated by the idea the World War II didn't start until we got involved and that we won both sides of the war all by ourselves. So, in summation, the Soviets had more to do with winning the war than Americans did. Stalin, however, was still a douchebag, and the Red Army doesn't win any bonus points for camping outside concentration camps and ghettos and chilling out for a few weeks before liberating the people inside.

Besides, Hitler and the Nazi regime would have collapsed eventually. He was just damn damn lucky for a long time. We just helped reduce the amount of damage he did (of course, imagine how much better it would have been if we'd signed on board in 1939 with the Commonwealth). The Pacific War is a different ball o' wax, although we 'won' by such abominable means that I can't consider it a victory.

ETA: We 'signed on board' because of severe European losses??? HAHAHAHAHAHA *siigghhhh* We 'signed on board' because Japan totally took us by surprise, bombed the crap out of a military base, and then declared war on us. Which, since they were all part of the Axis, caused Hitler to declare war on us. They called us out, not the other way around. I mean, we knew what a tyrant Hitler was by the mid-30's, when he started throwing Catholics in prison and torturing gays for shits and giggles. We weren't on a mercy mission; Hitler basically called us pansies and made fun of our tiny penises. That's when we got involved.

Lend-Lease Act anyone? Munitions and equipment (not to mention naval vessels) used by Britain and the Allied powers prior to 1941 were from the United States. The Soviet Union even used American equipment before 1941. Besides, despite the fact that Japan declared war on us, and we did so as well, the agreement between the Allied Powers was to take out Germany first. So considering that Germany didn't attack us (but oddly declared war on the US after Pearl Harbor) and that we decided to fight them first, I would say that there was, at least in the National Command Authority, the desire to wage war against Germany. Let us also not forget the American mercenary forces in China and other countries prior to our official entry into the war.

So, an American's life is worth less than a Soviet's, is that the gist here? I recognize they had more casualties, and fought for a considerable time before we did. Despite that, we did incur losses, and I would like to argue that we paid our dues. Was it wrong for us to want to sit out the war? Maybe. But that argument is moot. We did fight, side by side with "our brave Allies and brother's in arms on other fronts..." and I can assure you suffered the same horrors of warfare.

[Fryk]

We 'signed on board' because Japan totally took us by surprise, bombed the crap out of a military base, and then declared war on us. Which, since they were all part of the Axis, caused Hitler to declare war on us. They called us out, not the other way around. I mean, we knew what a tyrant Hitler was by the mid-30's, when he started throwing Catholics in prison and torturing gays for shits and giggles. We weren't on a mercy mission; Hitler basically called us pansies and made fun of our tiny penises. That's when we got involved.

Admin, I would pay you good money to write my future children's history class book. But only if you write it just like this.

[AdminAssistant]

Admin, I would pay you good money to write my future children's history class book. But only if you write it just like this.

LOL Yeah, I like to break down history into its simplest parts. My number one pet peeve as a scholar is that so many other scholars/historians use lots of jargon and theory to make their ideas sound much more complicated than they really are. If you really get down to it, history isn't really that complicated. It's just that so many teach it in a way that's either too complex or boring for the average student (or, as we've seen here, has a strong nationalist slant).

[Hobbs]

LOL Yeah, I like to break down history into its simplest parts. My number one pet peeve as a scholar is that so many other scholars/historians use lots of jargon and theory to make their ideas sound much more complicated than they really are. If you really get down to it, history isn't really that complicated. It's just that so many teach it in a way that's either too complex or boring for the average student (or, as we've seen here, has a strong nationalist slant).

Excuse me, but I'm a historian. I'm merely stating things as they are.

[lordlundar]

Tragically so given how downplayed they are in American history books.

Interesting that you bring up historical perspective. Here's a fun question for everyone: What caused the end of the pacific battle? The nukes dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki right? Well, that depends on perspective.

American history books like to say that it was exclusively that which caused the end of the pacific front, but my class took a different perspective. Think about it, you are at war with a country that says death before dishonour, and they get word that several thousand of their civilians have been killed in a "cowardly" attack, the ultimate dishonour. Not likely they're gonna cower to their enemies, more likely it's going to piss them off. Reports indicate that there was actually a massive recruitment drive after the incident to continue the fight.

A Non-American perspective puts the cause of the surrender as being Allied and Soviet forces being diverted to their country which would provide a larger bolster than the Japanese could stand against and their country would have been invaded. To prevent losing territory, the Japanese had to surrender.

Why isn't this explained in American history? Because this explanation gives more credit to the Soviets for ending the war than the Americans. The bombings are strictly American involvement, and shows national pride, so any other contributions are omitted. Similar approaches were used for the Vietnam War. The American's didn't lose the war, they gave Vietnam to China as an act of goodwill. That way they get to proclaim that their country has never "lost a war." (The Korean War was called a "police action for much the same reason")

[AdminAssistant]

Excuse me, but I'm a historian. I'm merely stating things as they are.

Or the way that you would like them to be. There might have been 'desire' in the military...because, gee, when is our military command not willing to go to war? But public opinion was strongly against involvement, even in the period between Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war.

American history is just ridiculously slanted anyway, to make us always look like the triumphant heroes. Beating tremendous odds to free ourselves from a tyrant and create a land of equality and freedom (for white, male, land-owners, of course). Conquering a wild and untamed west (and killing any Injun who got in our way). And so on and so forth.

I just find it completely arrogant for us to claim total victory for WWII, when it was truly a 'world' war.

Back to the topic, this ignorance about our own history is what allows people like Beck to feed the general populace false information. They don't know what really happened, so they'll happily be spoonfed lies from someone they feel shares their viewpoints.

[Boozy]

This is the third thread here to veer off topic into discussions about WWII.

What's up with that?

Anyway, I'd like us to swing this barge back on course. Thanks.

[Hobbs]

Or the way that you would like them to be. There might have been 'desire' in the military...because, gee, when is our military command not willing to go to war? But public opinion was strongly against involvement, even in the period between Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war.

American history is just ridiculously slanted anyway, to make us always look like the triumphant heroes. Beating tremendous odds to free ourselves from a tyrant and create a land of equality and freedom (for white, male, land-owners, of course). Conquering a wild and untamed west (and killing any Injun who got in our way). And so on and so forth.

I just find it completely arrogant for us to claim total victory for WWII, when it was truly a 'world' war.

Back to the topic, this ignorance about our own history is what allows people like Beck to feed the general populace false information. They don't know what really happened, so they'll happily be spoonfed lies from someone they feel shares their viewpoints.

The military actually tried to talk down Bush before Iraq. They also advise the President and NCA on courses other than war in order to prevent armed conflict. Unlike the public thought, military commanders and advisors are taught the costs of armed conflict. All command decisions are by the NCA-civilian oversight, and once lawful orders are given, it is the duty of the military to follow those orders. The Lend-Lease Act was an act of Congress, not the military. The US Armed Forces have no power to open trade with foreign nations, especially when it comes to arms deals.

I already stated that I recognize the involvement of other nations. All I am saying is that it's revisionist to think that America's involvement was trivial/unsubstantial.

[Boozy]

The topic here is Glenn Beck. Please start another thread if you'd rather discuss something else.

[Hobbs]

Oh, my bad...I was actually going to redirect it towards historical revisionism (which is Beck's main weapon).

My thought, was simply that anyone to use revisionist history to further their agenda, including Glen Beck, shouldn't be given so much attention. History is there, it's fact. Yes we learn something new everyday, but for the most part, it is what it is.

Sorry Boozy