Text 1932, 113 rader
Skriven 2009-12-27 17:00:54 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
   Kommentar till text 1893 av Lee Lofaso (3:800/432.0)
Ärende: The Evil That Men Do
============================
25 Dec 09 09:11, Lee Lofaso wrote to Roy Witt:

 >> LL>You missed the entire point.  Who caused "such death and
 >> LL>destruction"? Was it really "leaders such as Hitler, Goering and
 >> LL>Himmler"?  Or was it those who brought war to Germany?  Remember,
 >> to
 >> LL>Germans, Germany was fighting a defensive war (on three fronts).
 >> We
 >> LL>were the aggressors. Not them.

 RW>> All I can say is that you're not a very good student of historical
 RW>> facts.

 LL> Spouting propaganda does not make for "historical facts".

Then I must ask; why do you do it?

 RW>> To answwer your question: The Nazi' caused death and destruction and
 RW>> that's a fact.

 LL> Of course they did.  There was a war going on.  Remember?

Between 1933 and 1939?

 LL> Here is what I wrote, very clearly and concisely -

Yes, and even though you wrote it very clearly and you did it concisely,
it was not based in fact.

 LL> "Remember, to Germans, Germany was fighting a defensive war
 LL> (on three fronts).  We were the aggressors.  Not them."

Which isn't true.

 LL> What is it about that statement you do not understand?

I understand it completely. However, it isn't a true enough statement. It
wasn't we who were the aggressor, as we didn't start the war, the
aggressor nation of Germany did. What part of that statement don't you
understand?

 RW>> The Nazi' started WW2 by invading, get that - invading, Poland.
 RW>> Because Britain and France had a mutual agreement with the Poles
 RW>> to support them (and others) in case of an invasion, that caused
 RW>> Germany to invade France and begin an air war over Britain.  We
 RW>> were never the aggressor and never could have been with an isolation
 RW>> policy of 'keep it over there'.  Nor were Britain, France and
 RW>> especially Poland an aggresssor, but instead defenders of Nazi
 RW>> aggression toward them.

 LL> That is propaganda, not historical fact.

That is historical fact that you ignore.

 LL> Each side has its own POW.  And each side was swayed by propaganda.
 LL> Germans clearly believed they were in the right, and had no choice
 LL> but to defend their homeland from those who wanted to take their
 LL> freedom away.  Germans were told by their leaders what Germans
 LL> believed to be the truth.  Russians were told by their leaders what
 LL> Russians believed to be the truth.  Britons were told by their
 LL> leaders what Britons believed to be the truth.  Americans were told
 LL> by their leaders what Americans believed to be the truth.  And so on
 LL> and so on.

BS

 LL> It is said that histories are written by the victors.  But histories
 LL> are also written by those who lost the war.  What are the real
 LL> historical facts?  All histories are interpretations of history.
 LL> And every historian distorts history to his/her own liking or way
 LL> of presentation.

The victors can distort to their hearts content, but those who lived it
tell it like they saw it. Some say that the Germans were the aggressor
when they invaded Poland. Others, like Dossche claim that the Brits and
the Americans were the aggressor, as they bombed Germany all to hell.
Seems to me that if you start something and you start it with someone who
isn't inclined to lay back and take it, you should be ready for the
consequences. i.e. if your aggression gets you a black eye and a bloody
nose and a good ass kickin', perhaps you picked on the wrong person.

 LL> To Yankees and those who supported the North (victors in the War for
 LL> Southern Independence), the period just after the War (Southerners
 LL> never refer to the War as the "Civil War") was one of
 LL> "reconstruction" - in which the North helped the South to rebuild.

You mean the northern carpet baggers weren't there to steal everything in
site?

 LL> To Southerners and those who supported the South (losers in the War),
 LL> that same period was one of military occupation - in which Yankees
 LL> raped, pillaged, and stole everything Southerners had, leaving the
 LL> region destitute and poor. Almost all histories of the War have been
 LL> written from a Northern POV.  Only recently have historians begun to
 LL> pay more attention to histories of the War as told from a Southern
 LL> POV.  So what are the historical facts?  The *real* historical facts,
 LL> rather than propaganda as told by Yankees?

My GGGrandfather fought in that war, as did his brother. Both fought for
opposing sides. However, most people thought the war was about freeing the
nigger slaves, when it was really about yankee political aggression
towards the southern industrys. Which was the downside of the southern
effort because they didn't have the industry that the north had. Even with
European help (see Rothchild - a European Jewish banker), they lost due to
the ability of the yankee navy to blockade European shipping. Frankly, as
an engineer, I don't see how the south could have hoped to compete with
the north while using equipment of inferior design.

                R\%/itt

    You can put lipstick on a pig, but the pig still stinks!
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:387/22)