[Donna]

Well... what happened then, Qatz?

Give us your take on WWII.

[QatzelOk]

The Nazis wanted to nationalize their central bank, and also annexed Austria.

This didn't please the Azhenazi banking establishment who ran banking in many European countries, including France and Britain. So Germany paid dearly.

Hey, if the US tried to nationalize the Fed, it would be smeared in media and bombed as well. But luckily, Obama has no plans to do that. Ben Shalom Bernanke wouldn't be amused, nor would Alan Greenspan have been. Or any of the other Azhkeanazis who own the production of US currency.

This is why we read bad things about the Nazis and Hitler. Because they wanted banking democratized.

/opinion not based on historical facts

[Thunderhawk]

^ then why not begin the war with the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia?

[Truth-a-naut]

Read some Barthes, some Derrida, some Foucault, and some Edward Said, and you'll understand why political texts always lie.

Ahaha, yeah totally authorities when it comes to history and well everything under the sun. I love how you name drop in almost all of your posts.

"Yeah those historians and well records actually kept by the parties/countries in questions are just lying. If you want to get to the bottom of it read these texts! They are never wrong!"

You really don't want to have a serious discussion, just another thread detailing how far you're slipping.

Historical texts are ALWAYS written with self interest in mind. Or at least they have been for many centuries.

No shit! I've never thought about that!

"Orientalism" is particularly good at explaining why literate Europeans were "paranoid as hell" of all non-white foreigners for so many centuries. Or should I read all of Western Civilization's texts to disprove this?

Ugh more name dropping.

[Godstud]

opinion not based on historical facts

That says it all. Your opinion is that historical facts are all lies.
Many historians want things to be factually represented. History is written by the winners, but this doesn't mean they lie about historical facts.

Hitler and the Nazis were bad because they wanted to democratize banking? So starting a war and mass genocide had anything to do with it?

The people you listed are PHILOSOPHERS, not historians. Philosophers are people who offer views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields. This does not make them masters of historical accuracy nor does it make history inaccurate by virtue of them disagreeing with things. A few philosophers disagreeing with accuracy of historical texts proves nothing. While a philosopher might say that the possibility of historical inaccuracy is valid, they can't provide proof. Hence why the argument for God is theorized by philosophers who can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. This isn't the case for history.

Historical texts are ALWAYS written with self interest in mind

So reading about the Vietnam War from an American perspective I will read about how they won outright? Baloney.

Histories are not always between good guys and bad guys, as WW1 proves.
Most wars are identified as neither having a good guy nor a bad guy. To think that people are so naive as to think wars are only between good and bad guys, borders on arrogance.

I don't see the Vietnam War as being a particular high point in US history and yet, according to you, the US would adjust things to make it look like they won and just up and left in the end because they felt like it, since they have more power to write history as they see fit. Rubbish.

Orientalism" is particularly good at explaining why literate Europeans were "paranoid as hell" of all non-white foreigners for so many centuries. Or should I read all of Western Civilization's texts to disprove this?

Edward Said used the term 'Orientalism' to describe a tradition, both academic and artistic, of hostile and deprecatory views of the East by the West, shaped by the attitudes of the era of European imperialism in the 18th and 19th centuries. This 'Orientalism' could be said is in use by the East now, that has a hostile and deprecatory view of the West.
This has nothing whatsoever to do with historical accuracy and was very controversial in 1978.
By virtue of Edward Wadie Saïd, being of Eastern heritage, does not make what he wrote, fact.

[guzzipat]

The contention that all written sources should be regarded with a fair degree of caution is right.
That does not however mean that it is OK to discount all of them and create any crackpot theory you like, with no reference at all to provable physical realities.

Major events did happen, the stripping of Czechoslovakia's border defences and later occupation of the country is a fact. The use of the status of Danzig to attack Poland is a fact. The financing and support for a Coup D'etat in Austria was a fact.
Those events can't be dismissed and any attempt to constuct a viable theory on the causes of WW2 that doesn't include those events must fail.
Just as any attempt to blame only Germany by ignoring the Versailles treaty must also fail.
Any theory must be based on those facts, interpretations may vary and the conclusions drawn may legitimately be different, but some expanation of those facts must be included or any resulting theory is totally worthless.

All historical theories must bear some relationship to those provable facts. Any attempt to ignore them with the simplistic statement of "victors accounts" and create elaborate theories based on nothing but opinion, can never be anything but worthless. They serve no usefull basis at all for the discusion of history.

[sploop!]

Tan: Ahaha, yeah totally authorities when it comes to history and well everything under the sun. I love how you name drop in almost all of your posts.

Godstud: The people you listed are PHILOSOPHERS, not historians. Philosophers are people who offer views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields. This does not make them masters of historical accuracy nor does it make history inaccurate by virtue of them disagreeing with things.

I think you may be missing the point Guys. It isn't that the philosophers mentioned have an alternate history to offer, it is simply that they question the very concept of history as we understand it. It's been a very long time since I read much deconstruction, but I think the gist of it is that you simply cannot trust that the history you are reading is a true and objective account of what happened. Inevitably, all accounting of history, all 'text' is contaminated by the narrative structures of (usually) the victor. The victor wins both the war, and the rights to the history of the war.

In reality, there is no 'true' history, just versions of history, some of which are successful and dominate the political/historical landscape to the point where they simply cannot be questioned without provoking a major struggle and may even be protected by law, whilst others which are less embedded in the landscape, perhaps by virtue of an indefinite end to a conflict, find themselves open to re-interpretation and re-telling.

No single version of history is 'true'.

The problem is, you could spend several lifetimes explaining why a particular history is questionable - which is where it all gets a bit difficult. How much time do any of us have to pull accepted narratives to shreds and, even were we to do so, how likely is it that the narrative already in place will be threatened?

[QatzelOk]

So reading about the Vietnam War from an American perspective I will read about how they won outright? Baloney.

Not at all.

If you want to see a Vietnam War movie made in the USA, you will be treated to images of American soldiers suffering the horrors of war, suffering the indignities of the military industrial complex, suffering under the existential weight of all that pointless death.

Meanwhile, the Vietnamese experience in all of these movies is unrepresented. Why? Because any acknowledgement that the Vietnamese people also "suffered" during that aerial-delivered mass murder campaign would reveal America for the murderous parasite that it is. So this - the most important lesson of all from the Vietnam War - is lost on the consumer of Hollywood History.

Books are no different. They are just the 2D version of Hollywood History.

Publishers and school boards play the role of gatekeepers and make sure no one learns the correct lessons of the West's Elite's many mass murder campaigns. I mean, our elites decide what we read/ see in movies/ learn in school. Why in the world would they confess to being useless murderers?

[Suska]

this all seems a little pointless to me, but I don't blame people for selling the story they like. Anyways school isn't really about the content but the ritual and route to obedience through humiliation and repetition. Thats how all institutions are including our government - they condition everyone into thinking we're unrecoverably trapped inside the system. Who cares if the system boasts it also whines and bitches and the truth is still obvious; on the matter of Vietnam in particular this is an interesting version. Qatz you need to lay off the sweet n low.

[QatzelOk]

Suska, before we go any further, I want to remind everyone what this thread boils down to.

Can we use Western-Elite-written texts to determine who started wars?

Will these texts ever demonstrate that it was Western elites who started them?

[Suska]

Can we use Western-Elite-written texts to determine who started wars?

Of course not, if you want to ignore it the situation will obviously seem very simple and you will probably accept some superficial version which may be factually incorrect. I don't think the case for WWII is as clear as the case of Vietnam or Iraq or several others especially in South America, but I grant that if you don't look into the matter they have a story prepared for you to accept in a defacto manner. If you DO look into the matter usually the question 'who started the war' doesn't have a simple answer. In the case of Vietnam its pretty clear that a lot of lies were taken as fact so yeah, in that case there is even a fairly simple version we could have used instead; Vietnam wanted its freedom, America wanted a base in Indochina -> conflict. But even there you have to see the context for all this; French allies in a World War, spheres of influence in a Cold War, economic ideologies... So the question is asking for a simple answer and the simple answers are not all that correct even when they are factual.

[Godstud]

Will these texts ever demonstrate that it was Western elites who started them?

Do they need to be? Someone needed to start them and this doesn't mean there is a western bias. This seems more like someone who dislikes the West ranting on about how the West is so bad, rather than providing any real argument for history to be biased. History books are not TV and we all know TV is aimed at entertaining, often at the expense of truth.

Everyone is West if you go far enough. History is written by everyone and so implying that what possibly happened in the 18th and 19th century still applies now is inaccurate. When they write history they gather information from all sources. Information is far more available to everyone and even the views of the eastern people are being seen and the history is being recorded accurately.

When people look at what caused the 6 Day War they are treated to information about what happened on both sides and not just on the side of the victors. Your Western-Elite-written text theory doesn't hold water in this century, and as we continue to sift through and find out more information of the past we a slowing getting rid of any previous bias that may have existed. Historians are out to find the actual truth even if it might not be that pleasant and not show the west or east in a bright cheery way.

Good points Suska.

[QatzelOk]

Everyone is West if you go far enough.

You'd have to go back to before written history for that to be true. And we're talking about written history here, so that wouldn't make sense.

History is written by everyone

Currently, History is written by everyone with an Internet connection.

The History you read in school was written by carefully selected national scholars. Not everyone. If it was really written by 7 billion people, and all those texts were given equal weight, than you could make this claim. Otherwise, you have actually demonstrated the problems with your argument by stating a clear falsehood.

History is, in fact NOT written by everyone. And that is the problem. Only the select few who write it (and their sponsors) are represented in a positive way. Along with the audience they are trying to manipulate into being loyal to them and their eliteness.

[Godstud]

Along with the audience they are trying to manipulate into being loyal to them and their eliteness.

Really.
And you base this on the ramblings of a couple philosophers?

[QatzelOk]

And you base this on the ramblings of a couple philosophers?

Philosophers love knowledge.

Western Civilization has been documented by people who love money and power.

Who do you trust?

[Godstud]

Historians over philosophers.

Your elitist theory holds no water.

[QatzelOk]

Godstud, do you really think that you can understand reality better by reading the texts of those who love money and power better than by reading the texts of those who love knowledge?

If so, please explain why lovers-of-money/power are more willing to share their knowledge than lovers of knowledge.

[Godstud]

Historians are lovers of knowledge.
Philosophers theorize.

[Smilin' Dave]

Read some Barthes, some Derrida, some Foucault, and some Edward Said, and you'll understand why political texts always lie.

What do these authors actually have to do with Germany pre-WWI and WWII, as discussed by Truth-a-Naut? Edward Said in particular seems a poor choice of source.

The Nazis wanted to nationalize their central bank, and also annexed Austria.

This didn't please the Azhenazi banking establishment who ran banking in many European countries, including France and Britain. So Germany paid dearly.

Hey, if the US tried to nationalize the Fed, it would be smeared in media and bombed as well. But luckily, Obama has no plans to do that. Ben Shalom Bernanke wouldn't be amused, nor would Alan Greenspan have been. Or any of the other Azhkeanazis who own the production of US currency.

This is why we read bad things about the Nazis and Hitler. Because they wanted banking democratized.

- If the annexation of Austria was so pivotal, why didn't the Allies swing into action earlier? Particularly during the Munich conference, which was later that year?
- In what sense was a Nazi state bank democratic? Hitler didn't come to power through democratic means and consolidated it through authoritarian powers.
- Nazi Germany seized the gold deposits held by every country they invaded (or attempted to). Now, remember some of this gold was held by the state, not just the banks. In what sense was this democratic, or an acceptable practice in the late 1930s?
- Pick a spelling for Ashkenazi and stick with it

/opinion not based on historical facts

As I demostrate above, they arn't even logical. So what exactly is the point here?

If you want to see a Vietnam War movie made in the USA, you will be treated to images of American soldiers suffering the horrors of war, suffering the indignities of the military industrial complex, suffering under the existential weight of all that pointless death.

You will often also see the suffering of the Vietnamese people. Vietnam also raises a problem, because the US didn't win, and hadn't won in Korea prior to it... so was it really started by the winners?

Meanwhile, the Vietnamese experience in all of these movies is unrepresented. Why? Because any acknowledgement that the Vietnamese people also "suffered" during that aerial-delivered mass murder campaign would reveal America for the murderous parasite that it is. So this - the most important lesson of all from the Vietnam War - is lost on the consumer of Hollywood History.

Yet a photo of civilians fleeing a napalm strike is one of the best known images from the Vietnam war. Probably closely followed by G.Is torching huts and a South Vietnamese officer summararily executing a prisoner.

Can we use Western-Elite-written texts to determine who started wars?

They seem reasonable starting points, even if we don't accept the narrative within. However if you can't successfully challenge the facts or logic of their narrative, you have no claim to authority for your own narrative.

Western Civilization has been documented by people who love money and power.

Few historians get into the act for the money, and I can't think of any historians with power. Only a rare few every become successful.

Godstud, do you really think that you can understand reality better by reading the texts of those who love money and power better than by reading the texts of those who love knowledge?

I think if you want to look at reality, you should start with hard facts and demonstratable logic. Logic is studied in philosophy, but facts are not important. As Godstud noted, Philosophers work with theory (which from a scientific perspective, is important because theory is not yet proven). Different interpretations exist in history, and hence multiple narratives (I'm unclear how you think the history of WWII is only a single stream, but anyway...), but at base those interpretations have to be supported by facts as they are available.

It seems to me you are the one manufacturing a false narrative here (completely with false facts and twisted logic), for a political end. You question the sources of others, but make no specific criticisms while providing little concrete support of your own. Like many conspiracy theorists you seem to see in your enemy qualities of your own.

[QatzelOk]

What do these authors actually have to do with Germany pre-WWI and WWII, as discussed by Truth-a-Naut?

They wrote about the relationship between text and power. This is relevant when discussing the texts that are used to "explain" the mass murder of modern warfare.

If the annexation of Austria was so pivotal, why didn't the Allies swing into action earlier?

These things take time. Life isn't a 26-minute sitcom.

In what sense was a Nazi state bank democratic?

Control of it wasn't limited to one particular ethnic-based caste that made up 2% of the population.

Nazi Germany seized the gold deposits held by every country they invaded (or attempted to).

Seizing the stolen riches of the elite and giving it back to social programs is what Robin Hood would have done. And yet Hitler doesn't have the same reputation as Robin Hood in our texts.

Vietnam also raises a problem, because the US didn't win, and hadn't won in Korea prior to it... so was it really started by the winners?

The US didn't win those 2 wars, but the American financial elite got what they wanted out of them.

a photo of civilians fleeing a napalm strike

In all the Hollywood movies about the Vietnam Atrocity, there wasn't one made that highlighted civilians being burned with the chemical weapons America dropped on them. Only a snapshot, in a more innocent media age, made it under the censorship radar of the US media-gatekeepers.

if you can't successfully challenge the facts or logic of their narrative, you have no claim to authority for your own narrative

Only the elite have access to classified information. This protects them from scrutiny from disinterested parties like myself. So by setting up this "requirement" for refuting their claims, you have given them free reign to lie.

Few historians get into the act for the money

The ones who get lucrative publishing contracts and awards do.

Logic is studied in philosophy, but facts are not important

Well, the fact is the Allies won World War Two, and were a lot stronger than the Axis countries going into the war, and coming out of it. Meanwhile, there are a lot of "facts" about international banking cartels and racial theorizing among the elites that are not being presented in our History books. Why do historians ignore so many inconvenient facts themselves? For the sake of presenting an elite-friendly narrative perhaps?