Conspiracy Theory Debate

[JayzusB.Christ]

Thanks, I'll have a look at the interview later today. Whatever else about him, he is the director of one of the best films ever made.

[milstar]

Thanks, I'll have a look at the interview later today. Whatever else about him, he is the director of one of the best films ever made.

I concur. Whitnail & I masterpiece, Jennifer 8 severely underrated thriller.

[JayzusB.Christ]

Thanks, I'll have a look at the interview later today. Whatever else about him, he is the director of one of the best films ever made.

I concur. Whitnail & I masterpiece, Jennifer 8 severely underrated thriller.

Haven't seen that one. I'll keep an eye out

[Rara Avis]

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.

You're pretty on the ball here with what happened at the end of WW2. The Cold War ramped up for two reasons -  to curb the Soviet / Communist sphere of influence and the influence of our old favourite, the military industrial complex, which wants to keep America in a continual state of war because .. money.

If you do want to read up on European history in particular the world wars I would recommend Robert Service & Max Hastings as a good place to start.

[Funt Solo]

No, no - you're absolutely right. I've never seen American Tabloid (Ellroy 1995) or
the follow-up, The Cold Six Thousand (Ellroy 2001) because I already know they're crap without even watching them.

I have to assume you're trolling me now, as you're ignoring the logical points I made and trying to equate fiction and lies. Fictional books are different from a source that purports to be news whilst perpetuating anti-Semitic tropes. Argue the point or step off.

[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.

You're pretty on the ball here with what happened at the end of WW2. The Cold War ramped up for two reasons -  to curb the Soviet / Communist sphere of influence and the influence of our old favourite, the military industrial complex, which wants to keep America in a continual state of war because .. money.

If you do want to read up on European history in particular the world wars I would recommend Robert Service & Max Hastings as a good place to start.

I will, thanks!

[Funt Solo]

Regarding the relationship between the Allies in WWII - it is certainly true that the US economy drove the success of the Allies. The lend-lease plan sent large quantities of arms and equipment to Britain and to Russia during the war. This is not a conspiracy - it was open US government policy of the time.

To provide some notion of the significance of this to the outcome of the war: "92.7% of the wartime production of railroad equipment by the USSR was supplied by Lend-Lease".

In terms of manpower, there is a strong argument that the European aspect of WWII was indeed hard-won in large part by the Russians. Their military casualties were approximately twenty-four million. For the US, it was about one million (including the war in the Pacific). This is not to downplay the sacrifice of any Allied nation (or even, at the level of front-line soldiery) that of the Axis: simply to illustrate the scale and complexity of the conflict.

If you're interested in the history of WWII, you could do worse than read The Second World War (Anthony Beevor 2012).

[JayzusB.Christ]

Thanks, Funt. Another book for the list

[The Legendary Shark]

...a source that purports to be news whilst perpetuating anti-Semitic tropes. Argue the point or step off.

Which episode was it that convinced you of this?

[Funt Solo]

...a source that purports to be news whilst perpetuating anti-Semitic tropes. Argue the point or step off.

Which episode was it that convinced you of this?

The one where he suggested that Hitler was a Rothschild. Or how about the one that denies the existence of gas chambers? You don't have to look very far to find the strong whiff of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. The global cabal you're always banging on about - always turns out (in these "news" stories) to be of a particular religion. Can you guess which one?

So, either you're a confirmed anti-Semite, or just a careless partaker at the slightly obfuscated well. In either case, please stop peddling that horrible shit in my direction, would you? I don't want to link to the videos because that will provide the horrible little Nazi man with $$$, and I don't want to financially reward him for his hate speech. For some reason, you do.

---

The idea that any source you can point to has anything new to teach me about the mythology surrounding JFK's assassination is just laughable. I've already consumed enough to know that nobody knows any more than anyone else, except that JFK was assassinated, and that Lee Harvey Oswald fired a gun at him at the same moment. Everything else is conjecture, of which I have in my life imbibed enough to be satisfied. You are offering me "just one wafer-thin mint" (without realizing that it's been poisoned).

[The Legendary Shark]

But you haven't actually seen an episode, right?

[Funt Solo]

But you haven't actually seen an episode, right?

So you're actually a Nazi, right? [I am simply playing your own game back at you here.]

[Funt Solo]

But you haven't actually seen an episode, right?

So you're actually a Nazi, right? [I am simply playing your own game back at you here.]

Sorry to double post, but the idea that I need to read Mein Kampf in order to argue against Hitler's world view is essentially the argument that you're making.

[The Legendary Shark]

Actually, the argument I'm making is that you are dismissing something based on hearsay. Not only that, but you are basing accusations of Nazism against the same source, and by extension me, based on the same hearsay. "You are a Nazi because somebody told me a podcast you listen to is made by a Nazi."

Even the example you give proves my point - you absolutely do have to read Mein Kampf, and the rest of his personal papers, if you want to honestly and accurately argue against Hitler's world-view, otherwise you're just arguing against other people's interpretations of Hitler's world-view. (And we're talking world-view, not historical impact, which is a different argument.)

Does my constant call for the right, of everyone to say "No" really sound like fascism to you? Do you think I would encourage you to sell your soul to the shade of Hitler by pointing you towards a Nazi website?

You started this "debate" thread and the first thing you did was have another tilt at some of my old posts. I didn't rise because, same old, same old. We've danced that dance before, many times. I'm as tired of it as you are, so fancied something different. I offered a proper debate, you declined.

You recognise the difference between investigation and theorising, yet somehow still see only the theorist. You mention an interest in the JFK conspiracy theory, which many share - including myself - and so I post a link to a podcast about Lee Harvey Oswald by one of the most respected "conspiracy theorists" in the field but, again, you're not interested. You know all you need to know (how did he afford that stay in a luxury hotel in Norway on his way to defect to the USSR?) and, even if you didn't, you've heard this guy's a Nazi Jew-hater so he can't know anything anyway.

I'm beginning to suspect it's me you don't like, My recommendation that's stopping you from listening to what I thought was a very interesting podcast that I think you might find interesting as well. I don't think there are any subliminal mind-control messages in there, so if you keep your skepticism about you you should be fine.

Like I said earlier, look at X. Then you'll know for sure.

[milstar]

Regarding Allies in ww2, I would appreciate if someone gives evidence that US gave Soviets money to fight Hitler as I for number of reasons find such claim ludicrous and senseless. Backing up your ideological enemy which Soviets were for Americans and vice versa (capitalist pigs and communist swines), which started before Cold War. Let alone that US suffered heavy economical crisis just a few years prior, neither it was in US interest to back up Soviets. Soviets indeed died a lot, but that was because comrade Stalin sent many men as possible through the meat grinder. But regardless, they did not won alone Hitler. And they never were considered as part of Allied faction. At least I never saw it anywhere.