PDA

View Full Version : Interesting article in Life magazine (from 1946)


Jerrek
18-10-2003, 21:11
Keep in mind all the drivel you get on the Baathist Broadcasting Corporation's news channel (BBC):

Below are two links to two articles from the January 7, 1946 issue of Life magazine.

http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page01.htm

http://www.kultursmog.com/Life-Page02.htm

We have swept away Hitlerism, but a great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease."

So, I wonder. Was it worth it Europe? Would you have preferred to "Hail Hitler" a few times today?

And what a loss it was!!

http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/LifePostGraphic.jpg

downquark1
18-10-2003, 21:15
We have swept away Hitlerism, but a great many Europeans feel that the cure has been worse than the disease."

So, I wonder. Was it worth it Europe? Would you have preferred to "Hail Hitler" a few times today?

And what a loss it was!! Would you have found it comfortable having an entire contenant of Nazi's across the ocean

Jerrek
18-10-2003, 21:17
Of course not, but it seems Europeans, in 1946, felt that the cure (war) has been worse than the disease (Naziism).

Defiant
18-10-2003, 21:27
Of course not, but it seems Europeans, in 1946, felt that the cure (war) has been worse than the disease (Naziism).

So did the yanks after they had all our gold reserves. We were the richest country in the world until the US drained everything we had

Well after the first but they were slow again in the second lol

Ramrod
18-10-2003, 21:28
Very interesting Jerrek. It seems that people don't change. It is in our nature to continually question, doubt and complain.
......and we don't seem to learn from history either. Of course, 'history is written by the victors' but I think that maxim is not as true these days, what with on the spot reporting and the internet.

Jerrek
18-10-2003, 21:28
And rebuilt Europe. That is beside the point though.

Do YOU think us getting involved was a bad idea?

Defiant
18-10-2003, 21:30
And rebuilt Europe. That is beside the point though.

Do YOU think us getting involved was a bad idea?

Well you did have a choice didn't you. You could have waited till the whole of europe and its colony's were on your doorstep lol

Jerrek
18-10-2003, 21:33
Hitler wasn't interested in the United States.

And you very conviently avoided my question. What do YOU think should the United States have done?

downquark1
18-10-2003, 21:34
And rebuilt Europe. That is beside the point though.

Do YOU think us getting involved was a bad idea?

Nope of course not, are you intending on comparing this to iraq some where along the line?

Defiant
18-10-2003, 21:38
Hitler wasn't interested in the United States.

And you very conviently avoided my question. What do YOU think should the United States have done?

I think they should have been their from the start and I think your wrong about Germanys interest in the US. If they had Europe their next logical step would have been any potential threats to them. By this time however they'd have their secret weapons ready. The US would have had no defence against them either.

Ramrod
18-10-2003, 21:39
And rebuilt Europe. That is beside the point though.

Do YOU think us getting involved was a bad idea?Of course the US should have got involved!
....where are you leading us with this?

Jerrek
18-10-2003, 21:46
Defiant: Have you read Mein Kampf? Hitler was never interested in North America.

And the United States did not wish to become involved in European internal politics. Europe has had more civil wars in the last century than anyone can count. We can't step in and maintain control all the time.


But we are digressing. Yes, I am trying to contrast this to the Iraq war.

downquark1
18-10-2003, 21:56
Defiant: Have you read Mein Kampf? Hitler was never interested in North America.

And the United States did not wish to become involved in European internal politics. Europe has had more civil wars in the last century than anyone can count. We can't step in and maintain control all the time.


But we are digressing. Yes, I am trying to contrast this to the Iraq war.Well if hitler personally wasn't interesting in the US what about the person after him or after him. Can you expect an emperor to ignore that lovely rich continant after conquering russia as well.

The difference from that and Iraq is germany was actively invading countries and winning, iraq was not.

Ramrod
18-10-2003, 21:58
The difference from that and Iraq is germany was actively invading countries and winning, iraq was not.Iraq was however involved in genocide....

Jerrek
18-10-2003, 21:58
Ever heard of the Gulf War?

Defiant
18-10-2003, 22:07
Defiant: Have you read Mein Kampf? Hitler was never interested in North America.

And the United States did not wish to become involved in European internal politics. Europe has had more civil wars in the last century than anyone can count. We can't step in and maintain control all the time.


But we are digressing. Yes, I am trying to contrast this to the Iraq war.

He wasn't going to say he was either was he. Not while he had a war in europe to deal with

downquark1
18-10-2003, 22:12
Iraq was however involved in genocide....Yes but the US can't use that 'self defense' line

Jerrek
18-10-2003, 22:13
So then, please, substantiate your opinion that he planned to expand to North America. Because that is just that, an opinion, while he himself said he isn't interested in anything more than building an empire for the Ayrian race, in Europe.

Russ
18-10-2003, 22:18
IMO the US would have had to get involved in WW2 sooner or later. Had they kept out of it then Hitler may have conquered Europe. To say he wasn't interested in the US is naive to say the least. Remember this man's ego - he wanted Germans to be the master race and have world domination which would have eventually led to an invasion of America sooner or later.

I often bring up this point whilst in US chatrooms and confront by the usual BS of "We saved your asses in 1941(or whenever), you'd all be speaking German if it wasn't for us) etc etc and am always greeted with deafen silences or verbal abuse...

downquark1
18-10-2003, 22:19
So then, please, substantiate your opinion that he planned to expand to North America. Because that is just that, an opinion, while he himself said he isn't interested in anything more than building an empire for the Ayrian race, in Europe.Can you guarantee that his successers would have had the same plans, that 50 years later the greatest military on earth won't want to practise it's power? America attacked iraq for the remote posibility of find weapons thay may have been used against them dispite the fact that iraq was hopelessly out numbered.IMO the US would have had to get involved in WW2 sooner or later. Had they kept out of it then Hitler may have conquered Europe. To say he wasn't interested in the US is naive to say the least. Remember this man's ego - he wanted Germans to be the master race and have world domination which would have eventually led to an invasion of America sooner or later.

Good point Russ, when he had created 'his race' he would have wanted to clean the world of anyone who would corrupt his genepool.

Jerrek
18-10-2003, 22:25
Can you guarantee that his successers would have had the same plans, that 50 years later the greatest military on earth won't want to practise it's power?
We were not discussing his successors. We were discussing him. Hitler.

downquark1
18-10-2003, 22:28
We were not discussing his successors. We were discussing him. Hitler.I don't see how that is revelant, just because a man dies doesn't mean his life work comes to an end.

Defiant
18-10-2003, 22:35
So then, please, substantiate your opinion that he planned to expand to North America. Because that is just that, an opinion, while he himself said he isn't interested in anything more than building an empire for the Ayrian race, in Europe.

"Ayrian race, in Europe" of which the US had allot

dr wadd
18-10-2003, 22:43
You really think Hitler wouldn`t have been interested in going after the USA if he had won the war in Europe? He may not have written it down, but I hardly think he wouldn`t have attempted it. Perhaps he knew that all he would have to wait for 50 years or so and the USA would have its own leader ready and willing to invade any and all countries that don`t share its leader's religious and political viewpoint.

Xaccers
18-10-2003, 22:44
And if he had no plans for america, then why support the japanese to tie up america's forces?
Why spend so much manpower fighting in russia when it would have made more sense to defeat the allies in western europe first, if not to get close to alaska?

Of course there were many supporters in the US, I believe one of the kenedy's had similar views on Jews.

dr wadd
18-10-2003, 22:47
The American military brass at the time certainly considered Germany to be a threat to the USA, and if these documents are genuine a sufficient threat that they felt it warranted to manipulate Japan into launching an attack on US forces.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/McCollum/index.html

Defiant
18-10-2003, 22:48
You really think Hitler wouldn`t have been interested in going after the USA if he had won the war in Europe? He may not have written it down, but I hardly think he wouldn`t have attempted it. Perhaps he knew that all he would have to wait for 50 years or so and the USA would have its own leader ready and willing to invade any and all countries that don`t share its leader's religious and political viewpoint.

Why would he have had to wait 50yrs. If that war had not finished when it did we could have lost. They had their jet engined plane's ready. Infact they had already been using a few of them in the last days!

dr wadd
18-10-2003, 22:51
Why would he have had to wait 50yrs. If that war had not finished when it did we could have lost. They had their jet engined plane's ready. Infact they had already been using a few of them in the last days!

It was a joke in the sense that the administration of Dubya's policy of storming all over the world, threatening any country that disagrees with it, illegal detention of suspects at Guantanomo Bay and general erosion of civil liberties has resulted in a country that is starting to rival Nazi Germany in terms of tyranny. He would just have to wait 50 years as the USA would have a surrogate-Hitler as president.

Ramrod
18-10-2003, 22:52
Yes but the US can't use that 'self defense' linebut we/they were stopping genocide

downquark1
18-10-2003, 22:54
It was a joke in the sense that the administration of Dubya's policy of storming all over the world, threatening any country that disagrees with it, illegal detention of suspects at Guantanomo Bay and general erosion of civil liberties has resulted in a country that is starting to rival Nazi Germany in terms of tyranny. He would just have to wait 50 years as the USA would have a surrogate-Hitler as president.Good, I thought it was just me

Defiant
18-10-2003, 23:02
It was a joke in the sense that the administration of Dubya's policy of storming all over the world, threatening any country that disagrees with it, illegal detention of suspects at Guantanomo Bay and general erosion of civil liberties has resulted in a country that is starting to rival Nazi Germany in terms of tyranny. He would just have to wait 50 years as the USA would have a surrogate-Hitler as president.

One of the lessons we/they never learnt in ww1 was to make sure it never happen again. The League of Nations never worked hence WW2. After WW2 though no one wanted anything like that to happen again. Lesson learnt.

Some country's need to be firm. The US as the most powerful gets allot of stick for this but hey it could have been another country. Where would we be if they were not firm with the USSR!

dr wadd
18-10-2003, 23:02
but we/they were stopping genocide

That may be true, but it doesn`t mean that we have the right to go stomping into a foreign country to effect a regime change. That is against international law if done without UN backing.

Further, it is precisely this attitude of certain Western countries that causes certain groups to hate us so much. If we assume for the moment that the US government had no involvement in 9/11 (which I am not convinced about), it is clear that it is precisely the attitude of the West that it can dictate terms and conditions to other countries regarding their internal policies that provokes such action in the first instance.

dr wadd
18-10-2003, 23:06
Some country's need to be firm. The US as the most powerful gets allot of stick for this but hey it could have been another country. Where would we be if they were not firm with the USSR!

These things don`t exist in a vacuum. The USSR and the USA were allies when it suited the USA. When they were no longer needed the USA suddenly decided that Communism was a "bad thing" and started to portray the USSR as the evil enemy kicking off a cold war that lasted the best part of 50 years. If America hadn`t gone on the rhetorical offensive at this point there is no guarantee that the USSR would have become so insular. Besides, it is now becoming apparent that the true might of the Russia military machine was somewhat less than their propoganda would have led us to believe, so it is far from clear that they would have been in any position to launch a full scale invasion of Western Europe.

Defiant
18-10-2003, 23:11
These things don`t exist in a vacuum. The USSR and the USA were allies when it suited the USA. When they were no longer needed the USA suddenly decided that Communism was a "bad thing" and started to portray the USSR as the evil enemy kicking off a cold war that lasted the best part of 50 years. If America hadn`t gone on the rhetorical offensive at this point there is no guarantee that the USSR would have become so insular. Besides, it is now becoming apparent that the true might of the Russia military machine was somewhat less than their propoganda would have led us to believe, so it is far from clear that they would have been in any position to launch a full scale invasion of Western Europe.

One of the reasons the russians lost millions in that war is because they wouldn't give up. But then again would you give up if you knew your own side had machine guns at your rear ordered to mow you down if you retreated. Think about it...

dr wadd
18-10-2003, 23:22
One of the reasons the russians lost millions in that war is because they wouldn't give up. But then again would you give up if you knew your own side had machine guns at your rear ordered to mow you down if you retreated. Think about it...

It's not as though we didn`t take the same attitude with our troops. It has recently come to light how many of our own soldiers were executed for desertion, when they were actually suffering from the trauma of being on the front lines.

Theodoric
20-10-2003, 20:33
Defiant: Have you read Mein Kampf? Hitler was never interested in North America.

And the United States did not wish to become involved in European internal politics. Europe has had more civil wars in the last century than anyone can count. We can't step in and maintain control all the time.


But we are digressing. Yes, I am trying to contrast this to the Iraq war.
If we're talking 20th Century I can, offhand, only think of about 4 European civil wars.

1) Russia ca 1919 - 1922

2) Spain 1936 - 1939

3) Greece 1947('48?) - 1950 (??)

4) Hungary ca 1919 (not really a civil war, more the overthrow of Bela Kun)

All governments are totally amoral. If the USA sided with us at the beginning of WWII it was because it thought that its vital interests were at stake.

Th USA did not declare war on Germany; Germany declared war on the USA in December 1941; America entered the war in Europe whether it wanted to or not.