Disney blocks next Michael Moore film

[DGMacphee]

Another recent article from Ebert:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-moore18.html

[Robert Eric]

He is absolutely right.

[Andail]

I don't know what americans learn in school, but I can very well imagine how the outcome of ww2 is presented.

Here are some random quotes you probably won't find in your textbooks.

On the European Front the most important development of the past year has
been the crushing offensive of the Great Armies of Russia...
- President Franklin D. Roosevelt

History knows no greater display of courage than that shown
by the people of the Soviet Union. - Henry Stimson.

The gallantry and aggressive fighting spirit of the Russian
soldiers command the American army's admiration. - George C. Marshall,
Chief of Staff, U.S. Army

The scale and grandeur of the Russian effort mark it as the
greatest military achievement in all history. - General Douglas Macarthur,
Supreme Allied Commander of South-West Pacific


We and our allies owe and acknowledge an ever-lasting debt of gratitude
to the armies and people of the Soviet Union. - Frank Knox, secretary of the Navy

[Sutebi]

Not to split hairs or anything, but those weren't really "random."

[shbaz]

I don't know what americans learn in school, but I can very well imagine how the outcome of ww2 is presented.

You can imagine, but in my case, you're wrong. No, I don't remember those quotes in my textbooks (I hardly remember any quotes, actually), but I certainly knew their importance and suffering. I had great history teachers, if the major events had American involvement we learned about them. There's a lot I don't know because of the lack of broader world history, but your insinuations that our textbooks are tainted with propaganda are frankly rude. Our mistakes are more well-known to us than you realize. I think you selectively pick the fools to base your generalizations on.

If Americans are somehow trying to magnify their importance, what are you doing that's more noble?

[Las Naranjas]

The Swedes could diminish their profiteering.

[juncmodule]

You can imagine, but in my case, you're wrong.

You are one of the very few.

but your insinuations that our textbooks are tainted with propaganda are frankly rude

NO! Wrong. It's not rude, it is true. As you said, in your case he is wrong. American textbooks are filled with propaganda. Take a look at other text books, not just the ones you were privilaged enough to read. My text books in High School were filled with American Propaganda, and even more in college are filled with it. I think you are being a little harsh and close minded there Shbaz . Perhaps I've missed some other part of the conversation, and if so, just ignore me. The topic has strayed a bit from Michael Moore.

Speaking of which, didn't c.leks lock this!?

Thanks for that article DG, it was pretty cool to read that. Good stuff.

later,
-junc

[DGMacphee]

Anytime.

And Junc is right. Rude as it may seem to shbaz, it's true that American textbooks contain propaganda. In fact, most countries have high school textbooks that contain propaganda.

I know Australia definately does.

[Nacho]

I think that the people in Warsaw wouldn't agree with the words "Gallant", "courage", "grandeur", "admiration" refered to the Soviet Army.

I know the importance of their performance during the world, but that feeling of "How good the Russians are, how evil the Americans!" that I am seeing in the latest posts is totally out of context.

You only must take a look to the reaction of the people of Eindhoven (liberated by the Americans) or Warsaw ("liberated"? by the russians. Whereas in Holland they salluted the troops with orange flags, in Poland they started a suicide rebellion against the germans to call the international attention about the incoming red army. That polish guys prefered to be killed by the germans than "liberated" by the Russians. That's a show of bravery.

I know that being antiamerican is cool, Ok? But  before freely posting againt it, think in the alternatives we have or you'll fall into ridiculuosly, no offense... I still prefer the inmoral yankies before the brave, gallant, great russian army.

Maybe I am the only crazy guy on the forum who prefers to FREELY pay a commercial toll for being liberated (Drinking Coke, eating McDonald's) than seeing how my mother or my sister is violated by some guy of the armenian forestal troops.

Excuse me guys for having such low moral concept for prefering ,if asked, to be in the depravated un inmoral west part of the steel wall than in the social and free west side. I am weak... My idealism is not enough strong to sacrifice my freedom for it.

On the other hand... How can be Europe so dare to judge the United States? The supposed to be moraly superior Europe has been close to destroy itself twice, with no external help, as far as I know. Maybe we can blame the first world war to some obscure american affaire to rule the world? Maybe Hitler really wasn't from Lindz, maybe he was from Alabama? My text books may be wrong...

The longest great conflict in the world was created by the Brits and the French. They agreed to divide Arabia for them both, whereas they were promising the Jewish in Europe to create an Jewish state there after the War, and a united Muslim state for the Arabians... How brave and moral!

Some other conflicts I can think in which the Europeans are seriously involved? India and Bangladesh, Pakistan, Rwanda, Côte D'àvory, Argelia... All of them examples of how well we the Europeans manage with our former colonies, another show of our bravery and galantry.

Excuse me for not having such moral concepts as you, Antiamericans people, but if I'd have to choose to be under the wing of an Empire, something tells me I'd rather preffer to be from Puerto Rico (Under the U.S. protection) than in Somalia (Formerly under British protection).

[Las Naranjas]

I think you severely misinterpreted the posts Farlander.

Read again and try to show where people have "how good the Russians are". The express point of bringing up the Soviets was because of the wide recognitions of the problems with the Soviet State and it's actions, despite the fact that it was the greatest military factor against the Nazis.


And the people who have pointed out the role of the Soviets, namely myself and Baz, couldn't be said to have been anti american in this context. Baz is refuting somewhat unfounded perceptions of American ignorance, and I'm made a long post in which I was saying that teh American state is only doing what big states do.

I appreciate you have language problems, but I dislike sanctimony when you haven't chosen to absorb what has been said, instead accepting a face value interpretation. You seem to be responding to arguments you expect, rather than what anyone has actually said.

[Primus]

Between the same deathly illnesses, it's a hard choice..., as the policies of those countries was (and is): if you're not for us, you're definitely against us. And that's all. I preferred the US didn't try so hard being the police of the world (besides, no one has asked them to become that), based on oil interests. Personally, I prefer when the US are under a democrat president, as their foreign policy has never been so deathly idiot and stupid. All foreign US "disasters" have been done during Republican governments. Check any history chronology to confirm that.

Anyway, Disney is now a too "big" company (replace big by microsoft). It has even beenÃ,  accused of introducing subliminal messages into their movies: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdisneyperv.html
Well, I really preferred Disney was still under the managing of its creator.

[Nacho]

I haven't misinterpreted. the "spirit" of the post was totally that one, specially one of them, and it hasn't been yours or Baz's... It's been the post including the words "Gallantry, courage and grandeur" which IMO can't be applyied to the red army.

But I don't want this to go "in crescendo", I'll make a resumed version.

I have passed with A+ my tests of "History of the XXth century" subject. I am not a person with lack of culture who wants to deffense the americans at any cost, but IMO the performance of the americans was very important.

We spent several weeks at uni with a great historician who liked "history-fiction". He showed us how close was the Nazi army to archieve a major victory in the URSS, and the cause of failing were having troops deffending the west of Europe, the Ameican supply aid and the change of direction of Hitler's main offensive (First to Moscow, then the Caucassus, Moscow, and the Caucassus again) As you can see, in tow of the facts, the americans are involved (Assuming that the UK wouldn't have been able to resist without the supplies coming from the US).

So, you say the Russians won in 1944 and 1945? I say the russians wouldn't have resisted without the americans in 1941-42.

And  they avoided the whole continent to be conquered by the Russians, which could have been a hell. I think that makes them deserve a little of praise.

So, I keep my post.

[Las Naranjas]

I'm afraid you may have taken up fencing with phantoms. I don't question your thought or knowledge, but you seem to be engaged against some party in the thread that I can't see, and may only truly exist in your expectations of rebuttal. It felt like you were trying to put me on the otherside of an ideological divide, when all I was trying to do was clear away wooly thinking [wooly thinking that is on both sides and, indeed, is the cause of there being "sides"]

But to look at it to get things slightly more one track. You are right, European states have no moral basis for criticising the actions of the US state. But this is not because of any debt that should be owed because of the events of the second world war. It's simply because states are bastards, always will be, and are amoral, and moral standards can't be applied, at least not by one to another.

The notion that any state could owe a debt to another because of a war is absurd. Any state only goes to war in it's own interests. No matter how you consider the relative importances of the war efforts, you would still accept that the USSR played a major role. Would this then make any criticism of the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan unfair?


--edit--
On another note, my old history teacher's parents met in a Labour camp in Poland in the war. 'tis interesting, that's all.

[Barcik]

Anytime.

And Junc is right. Rude as it may seem to shbaz, it's true that American textbooks contain propaganda. In fact, most countries have high school textbooks that contain propaganda.

I know Australia definately does.

It is so, but I don't think it is wrong. It has a good cause - raise and educate children on values of patriotism and national pride.

[YOke]

I agree largely with Farlander. Just want to remind you that gruesome acts are always preformed in war by all parties involved. If the nukes had been dropped before WWII the people of Warsaw might have thought twice about who they wanted in their country. Or maybe not. Who knows...
The way I understand the "facts" I have been presented with, the war had been evened out a bit already before the US came in. This largely due to supreme efforts (if this is a term that can actually be used about warfare ) by the Soviets and the Brits. Without the help of the US the war could have become a siege-war much like the previous World War, with each side digging in. That way the war could have lasted for several years more and with much greater losses. With the help of US forces a massive push was set in on the west front, forcing the Germans to move troops there, leaving them much more vulnerable of the east front, in turn allowing the Soviet to fight them back. In my country, Norway, the Soviet came in through the north and the allied forces through the south-west. They met in the middle, shook hands and left. Well... The Soviets did anyway. The US helped us getting back on our feet with humanitarian aid, in exchange for building surveilance stations here to keep an eye on the Soviets. Don't know if the help the US gave really justified making us a prime target for nuclear strikes in the event of a conflict.   
I might not be making any point here at all.

On a sidenote: I've heard that up until the Germans invaded Poland, Hitler was praised in US media for what he did. Does anyone know more about this?

And just to keep it on track: We all love Michael Moore as much as we will love the guy who tears Michael Moore down. As we all have shown before, we like to build 'em up and tear 'em down!

[Nacho]

Thanks for your reply Las... the historycal part of the thrad has been a relief for me.

About the part concerning thr forums... Don't you really have the feeling that 3 or 4 guys who love to show antiamericanism being totally wooly? I think there are. Whereas I can accept many of the bad thing the americans did, I have the feeling they won't never accept they've done something right.

And again... I accept the major USSR role, it is just that I don't think that their role was so overwhelming to put the American effort down.

and Yoke... yeah, Hitler was quite praised in many parts of the world before invading Poland, not just in the US, let's remember that the levels of acceptation of the british campaing in Europe were below 20% before the German bombing on civilians during BoB, with many of that of that percentage having hidden simpathies for the Germans. Actually, the great amount of hate the Germans received was gained while discovering extermination and concentration camps.

--edit--
On another note, the husband of my the sister of my granny died in the Adriathic flying in an American plane... maybe that's why I'd like their role not to be put in a secondary term.Ã, 

[Fuzzpilz]

It's interesting what you can learn by talking to old people, people who were actually around then. For example, the house in Lübeck where my grandmother lived was destroyed in a bombing raid. When it was over, the family grand piano was somewhere on the pile of rubble, miraculously non-smashed. She went up to it and tried to play the freaking national anthem, the silly girl. It didn't work because the piano was full of dust. The more she learned in the war and subsequently about what can happen to people (and what exactly happened with that war), the more that kind of absurdity was driven out of her, she says.

But this can work (sort of) the other way around as well. The mother-in-law of the owner of this house (I've rented a small room in somebody's basement, it's nice and cheap) comes from an area that is now part of Poland, and I'm sure there are plenty of people with similar histories. As far as I can understand: after the war, she and many other women in the area worked on a farm under various Polish people, who were very angry with Germans in general. This led to mistreatment of the workers, many of whom, like this woman, didn't (and don't) really understand what was going on. Ordinary people who didn't pay enough attention to politics, who'd seen their sons and so on forced to march off to war and whatnot, and who, now that the war was over, were spat on as well. They thought they'd never done anything wrong, it's always just them people up there in the guvmint keeping the little man down, oh, what a world, what a world, oh my. (This view was then amplified by living in the GDR through all its life.) And on the other side you had people who'd been on the receiving end of the Nazis' offensive war. I don't think there's any need to clarify why they'd be resentful - but some of them bore uniform hatred towards the Germans, that swarm of locusts that had brought so much ruin, and the ones who had to bear that had, again, mostly no idea they'd done anything wrong at all by not voting for parties and politicians that weren't insane, or not speaking out when things were done that were clearly not right, or by profiting from the initial successes of the war.
But what I was going to say is: I was talking to her this winter (or rather, she was talking at me, as some elderly people tend to do - I'm not heartless enough to just walk away), before the EU expansion, and she was afraid of it because of a prejudice about Poles which developed later, and which was exceptionally easily accepted and furthered by people like her because of the unpleasant experiences of her youth. She basically thought that now the borders would be opened, the Poles would come streaming through and steal, steal, steal.

It is so, but I don't think it is wrong. It has a good cause - raise and educate children on values of patriotism and national pride.

Going even further off-topic, I'm not sure if you're not just trolling here, but I very strongly disagree that this is a good cause. These are "values" that IMO should much rather be eliminated than elevated to the ultimate virtue (though I'm not saying you're advocating this extreme either).

This is strongly linked to what I said above, of course. National pride leads to national resentment when that pride is harmed, and national resentment tends to lead to actions (of any kind) harming the national pride of the group responsible for the previous instance of pride-harming, and it can go on like this for a long time if people don't get over their patriotism.

[Andail]

Anytime.

And Junc is right. Rude as it may seem to shbaz, it's true that American textbooks contain propaganda. In fact, most countries have high school textbooks that contain propaganda.

I know Australia definately does.

It is so, but I don't think it is wrong. It has a good cause - raise and educate children on values of patriotism and national pride.

Funny Barcik, how you can sum up exactly what I think is wrong with that one sentence.
Raising and educating children on values of patriotism and national pride is anti-intellectual, it destroys children's capability of forming their own opinions, and of relying on common sense.

Please, say what you will, but as a teacher-to-be, I'm frankly quite shocked to read things like that.

Farlander

Don't you really have the feeling that 3 or 4 guys who love to show antiamericanism being totally wooly? I think there are

It's absurd that we should have to add some praise to america after every political statement we make, just to balance it up.

I can appreciate a million things america has done, but that's not the idea here.  This isn't a game where we list insults and see who can come up with the worst.

I have taken up things I find relevant; I truly believe that young americans are exposed to more patriotic propaganda than other western countries. Schbazjinkens might find that offensive, but he should share my concerns instead. 

A common belief is that America "saved" Europe, in an act of goodwill, heroism. LasNaranjas has eagerly tried to point out how no big state would act like that without believing they could earn something in the end. There are no heroes in this world. Captain America doesn't exist.

Additionally, everybody who has studied history or social science just briefly will realise that Soviet had a bigger importance than USA in ww2.
And with this, I mean university studies by serious teachers and professors; not the internet, not your local newspaper's history column, not your buddy in school.

America played a great role as well, but as in many other cases, they happened to be on the right place in the right time, they were the straw that broke the nazi-camel's back. Without them, Europe wouldn't speak neither Russian or German by now, but the war would have lasted a bit longer, and the iron curtain would probably have been situated further west.

[Barcik]

Like any other element of the human nature, national pride has its cons and pros. We are social beings who are united in one social frame. Without national pride, there is nothing to unite, nothing between two persons. There is no glue in the complex and shaky social structure.

So, I'll rephrase.
I don't think writing propaganda in a text book is wrong. It has a good cause - raise and educate children on values of patriotism and national pride. But, it also might be misused and lead to rivalaries. So, like any other thing, it has two sides.

[SSH]

It is so, but I don't think it is wrong. It has a good cause - raise and educate children on values of patriotism and national pride.

Wasn't this also one of the aims of the Deutsches Jungvolk?