Conspiracy Theory Debate

[milstar]

One of my favourite theories I've come across in recent years is documented in this film https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4082596/

Basically Cheronbyl was caused intentionally to cover the failure of the nearby antenna which was intended to detect US missle launches.

I like the fact it ascribes the motivation to the need to cover up a failure than to the desire for power/riches. That feels like a much more plausible motivation for insane actions than greed.

A conspiracy (although I am not really sure if it really was a conspiracy as I don't have more info on it) I've heard recently is that Soviets won ww2, backed with American money. Whether it's true or not and what is the motive behind it, I have no idea. Also, I'd like to check it out, only if I know where to look at.
(Btw, this came from Bruce Robinson, writer and director, have no idea too from where it came to him, but like he said "If you don't believe me, check it out").

[JayzusB.Christ]

I'm genuinely still not sure if you're having a laugh or not.  The Soviets played a huge role in beating the Nazis - it's hardly a conspiracy theory; it's in the history books.  As for the motive, well, I'm no history expert, but I'm guessing it's because Hitler tried to invade the Soviet Union and Stalin didn't want him to.  I don't quite know where American money came into play, but given that the Americans and the Soviets were on the same side, it seems fairly logical that they'd help each other out. 

Bruce Robinson is still a legend though.

[The Legendary Shark]

Possibly a reference to the theory that the international banking system financed both sides. Again.

[Tjm86]

Most historians I've read over the years come down on the breakdown of the Ribbentrop / Molotov pact with the invasion of the Soviet Union.  The general view (IIRC) is that Germany was always gearing up towards it. 

Certainly the view that Russia played a far more significant role in the outcome of the 2nd World War is one that has existed for years.  As for checking it out, well, take your pick of pretty much any history of WW2.

As for the American 'money', that would be lend-lease which the UK benefited from as well.  A lot of effort went into the Arctic convoys that resupplied the Soviet War Machine as much as their own factories did.

My recollection is that a lot of the US/Soviet antipathy evolved more toward the end of the war as it became apparent that the Soviets were taking a serious interest in expanding their sphere of influence.

So I'm going to go with your interpretation here, this is straying into laughable territory / trolling.  Personally I can't even begin to believe that we are even thinking of defending it.

[Mikey]

Conspiracy theories used to be, for me anyway, a relatively fun way of interrogating Stuff About Things. There weren't that many well known ones but now it feels that everything people don't like is the result of a nefarious conspiracy - it's become a way of dismissing the need for actual evidence to demonstrate or explain events or phenomena and an unwillingness to accept coincidence as a real thing. This suits the Edge Lords. As Terry Pratchett put it, million to one chances happen nine times out of ten.

Young Earth Creationists claim that, obviously, the Earth is vastly younger than several billion years. This means they can claim evolution isn't real and there hasn't been enough time for it to produce the biological complexity we see on Earth. They point at, say, the intricate relationship between plants and insects as something so complex it couldn't be produced by chance.

Therefore all of life and Earth scientists both now and in the past are part of a conspiracy to keep perpetuating the lie of an old Earth. Never mind the physicists and chemists keeping schtum too.

I don't really know where I'm going with this, but it's an example of something that goes beyond any reason to maintain a worldview that's nonsense.

[milstar]

I'm genuinely still not sure if you're having a laugh or not.  The Soviets played a huge role in beating the Nazis - it's hardly a conspiracy theory; it's in the history books.  As for the motive, well, I'm no history expert, but I'm guessing it's because Hitler tried to invade the Soviet Union and Stalin didn't want him to.  I don't quite know where American money came into play, but given that the Americans and the Soviets were on the same side, it seems fairly logical that they'd help each other out. 

Bruce Robinson is still a legend though.

Jesus, man. I am laughing at these claims. While everybody knows that Soviets reached Hitler first, US and Soviets were not working together. They were allied in the same cause but were not partners. And why would Americans give money to the Soviets? Pretty logical question. Given also that they wanted to defeat Hitler first. And agree or not, they pretty much disliked each other. Besides, such claim diminishes efforts done by every country who played major role in defeating Nazis. But to Bruce's credit, he did not deny the efforts and bravery of men who died for Allied faction.

[judgeurko]

Some very odd people here to say the least.
I found this useful in any debate about conspiracy https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/conspiracy-theory-handbook/

[The Legendary Shark]

Good post, Mikey.

I'm pretty much the same. In the past, I used to enjoy the conspiracy articles in the Fortean Times, for example. Then, every now and again, some conspiracy myth proves true and spoils the fun. I am reminded of the Bilderberg meetings; when I first heard of them they were a paranoid fiction only a loon would believe existed. Turns out they're real and have been going on in secret/private since the 50s. They even have a website, for Icke's sake. Nowadays, we all knew it was real all the time and it's no big deal anyway - increasingly archaic in this interconnected world. Probably.

The writer in me is interested in all that kind of stuff - I don't believe it's likely that Elvis is running a CIA mind-control facility hidden inside a London bus on the Moon, but it might make for the foundation of a cracking comedic tale. Or maybe not.

I think you're spot on when you write about the term "conspiracy theory" being a label attached to anything people don't like. It's become a blatant fallacy - X is false because it is a conspiracy theory. No need to even look at X. There's nothing real to see. Move along. Move along. Conversely, it is characterised by those using this definition as meaning, X cannot be adequately explained, therefore X is a conspiracy theory. No need to even look at X. There's nothing real to see. Move along. Move along.

The solution is quite simple, of course. Look at X.

[JayzusB.Christ]

I'm genuinely still not sure if you're having a laugh or not.  The Soviets played a huge role in beating the Nazis - it's hardly a conspiracy theory; it's in the history books.  As for the motive, well, I'm no history expert, but I'm guessing it's because Hitler tried to invade the Soviet Union and Stalin didn't want him to.  I don't quite know where American money came into play, but given that the Americans and the Soviets were on the same side, it seems fairly logical that they'd help each other out. 

Bruce Robinson is still a legend though.

Jesus, man. I am laughing at these claims. While everybody knows that Soviets reached Hitler first, US and Soviets were not working together. They were allied in the same cause but were not partners. And why would Americans give money to the Soviets? Pretty logical question. Given also that they wanted to defeat Hitler first. And agree or not, they pretty much disliked each other. Besides, such claim diminishes efforts done by every country who played major role in defeating Nazis. But to Bruce's credit, he did not deny the efforts and bravery of men who died for Allied faction.

I'm still not seeing anything in Bruce's 'theory' that contradicts any historical account of it I've read, or what I said in my post. But I'll leave it at that.

[JayzusB.Christ]

Actually to be fair, he said (according to you) that the Soviets won ww2. What I said, and what I've read, was that they played a huge role in winning WW2.  If he actually thinks that they did it single-handedly then that's definitely bizarre. As for the US donations, I never claimed to know anything about that - but it does seem to me that Allies would work together in a war, whether or not they 'dislike' each other.

[TordelBack]

Young Earth Creationists claim that, obviously, the Earth is vastly younger than several billion years.

You geologists, all in the pocket of Big Magma.

[The Legendary Shark]

Magma, don't let your babies grow up to be cowboy geologists.


I'll get me chaps...

[Professor Bear]

Actually to be fair, he said (according to you) that the Soviets won ww2. What I said, and what I've read, was that they played a huge role in winning WW2.

I think the argument is that since they got to Hitler before the Americans, the Soviets were responsible for ending the Nazi threat and thus the war the Nazis instigated, but this kind of reduces the Japanese campaign that continued for months after the fall of Berlin to an afterthought.  As for "American money", this might be a reference to the Marshall Plan, though that was a pretty public initiative.

An interesting conspiracy theory was that the Americans bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima purely because they feared the Soviets might get a foothold in any ground war in Japan, but the truth turns out to be almost laughably straightforward: America was so hopped-up on its own anti-Japanese racist propaganda that the newly-installed president Truman feared for his election chances if the public ever found out he had the option to bomb Japan and didn't take it.
So basically for the first and last time in history, disaster occurred because America was very racist and there was an ambitious incompetent in the presidential office.

[JayzusB.Christ]

Cheers prof, I'm actually not that clued in on history.  I dropped it at school at the age of 15 in favour of Geography, and have spend a long time regretting it and trying to fill in the haps.  The only thing I'm not seeing is how the Soviet role in winning WW2 is being cited (not by you of course) as some kind of fringe conspiracy theory, when, afaik at least, there's nothing in the mainstream canon of history that contradicts it. Or, once again, maybe I'm being successfully trolled, in which case shame on me.

[milstar]

Actually to be fair, he said (according to you) that the Soviets won ww2. What I said, and what I've read, was that they played a huge role in winning WW2.  If he actually thinks that they did it single-handedly then that's definitely bizarre. As for the US donations, I never claimed to know anything about that - but it does seem to me that Allies would work together in a war, whether or not they 'dislike' each other.

https://youtu.be/d4rZDnRXIkg

Go to 01:13:30

Anyway, that's how I understood him  (I admit that there is a chance that understood it wrong) that Soviets won the war. Even if they did it single-handed, I can't believe it's because Americans paid them to.


Off ww2 ramblings, I generally love conspiracies, but I don't like stupid ones (like, Earth's flat). And despite my proclaimed affection at them, I don't necessarily believe in them (I said previously in which actually I believe in).
But people who exclusively do, I like to think they try to find some rationality in this, as Alan Moore put it, anarchic rudderless world. Like when Guy Pearce's character in LA Confidental tells how his father was shot and killed by unknown assailant, who apparently never was caught for his crime, so Guy Pearce decided to give the killer a name, to make him more like anonymous thug. And despite all looney theories around, i am not in favor of mocking conspiracy theorists. Oh no.