[Doomhammer]

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

Or simply because the Allies did not want to go to war over something which they rationalized was essentially German.

The ones who get lucrative publishing contracts and awards do.

Not to mention greedy PhD. candidates. They do it for the glory too, you know.

People reading history should not accept everything as truths and should seek their own answers from whatever source they can. However, if we accept the idea that because all information is inherently biased and serves the interests of particular groups, and consequently assume that everything is wrong, then where does that leave us? Why bother studying history if all the sources, official or otherwise, the collections of literature and the paradigms in which they are studied are all objectionable? I don't understand what exactly you want to happen. I never understand these criticial theories or postmodernist ideas. They challenge everything we claim to know, question the nature and purpose of knowledge, denounce everything because it is somehow associated with 'elite' interest or those of other supposed 'oppressive and immoral' forces in society. They do all that, with ruthless efficiency too, but then they always fail to come up with a proper solution. How do we make history more 'prole-friendly', Qatz? How do we produce academic work that actually tells the truth?

[Godstud]

the fact is the Allies won World War Two, and were a lot stronger than the Axis countries going into the war

Absurd and totally contrary to facts. The allies had armies they could muster but they were not the trained professional soldiers that Germany fielded.
France had 5 million soldiers(more than the 2.5 million that Germany fielded in 1939) and look how well that helped them against the Germans.

Germany had been building it's army up and even getting experience for their air force in the Spanish Civil war(1936-1939). Germany's Navy was really the only part of their forces that was ill-prepared.

There are FACTS to back this up.

[Ombrageux]

Godstud is just making stuff up.

[Godstud]

I suppose if you are French then this isn't exactly a high point in your country's history and so it's nice to try to erase it from your memory, BUT...
France had a large army at the start of World War 2 and their units were fairly well supplied with tanks and other, at least semi-modern, equipment. Their major problem was that the French generals had a World War I mentality. They were prepared for trench warfare but not for the German Blitzkrieg.

You too can look up this information. It's available all over the place. Books, internet(reliable sources), etc.

[Doomhammer]

France had a large army at the start of World War 2 and their units were fairly well supplied with tanks and other, at least semi-modern, equipment. Their major problem was that the French generals had a World War I mentality. They were prepared for trench warfare but not for the German Blitzkrieg.

The topic was discussed at length in other threads. You could also point to the psychological condition of the French army, its insistence on spreading out its armored divisions over the entire front, partially to static defense and partially to dumb-luck of the German army. The Germans and Western Allies (including Benalux) had about 150 divisions each on the front but the French vastly outnumbered the Jerries in tanks - and French tanks were better.

In any case, Britain and France emerged from WWII as bankrupt and devastated countries and lost their colonial possesions thereafter. That is enough to disprove Qatz's assertion.

[Smilin' Dave]

They wrote about the relationship between text and power.

Perhaps you should relate it to the topic then, rather than just drop names in. Its been a while since I studied post-modernism, but do any of these philosophers actually prove their theories?

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

Why would it take time? Munich was an excellent opportunity to stick the boot in with relatively little risk had that been the sole driver of Allied policy at the time. If we assume that the allies needed to wait, what do you think they were doing in the meantime, since mid 1938 wasn't characterised by massive rearmament by France or Britain?

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

Assuming I accept this, why would something that is less autocratic by default be classed as democratic? Would you say work in a Nazi state bank might be limited for non-party members or sympathisers?

Seizing the stolen riches of the elite and giving it back to social programs is what Robin Hood would have done.

Actually, it was for re-armament. Germany used up its gold in foreign exchanges for key inputs for its expanded heavy industry, at the expense of things like agriculture. Statistics kept by the German government actually confirm this.

And yet Hitler doesn't have the same reputation as Robin Hood in our texts.

Robin Hood didn't attempt to exterminate anyone if memory serves, or invade other countries.

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

So your original thesis, that all wars are started by winners, is clearly false by your own admission.

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.

The text you quoted does relate to movies, but popular memory in general which is built on a number of information flows. As a side note Apocalypse Now quite prominently features a scene of civilians being bombed, straffed and even napalmed IIRC.

Only a snapshot, in a more innocent media age, made it under the censorship radar of the US media-gatekeepers.

How can there be an innocent media age if you would have us believe that narrative has always been dominated by the elites?

Only the elite have access to classified information.

Information is declassified every day under freedom of information provisions etc. It takes time, but then history generally does. Given that records relating to WWII are widely available today, that would seem to be a good point to start at. The only barrier to your actually providing facts to endorse your theory is your own excuses it seems.

This protects them from scrutiny from disinterested parties like myself.

Someone with 35000+ posts in disinterested?

So by setting up this "requirement" for refuting their claims, you have given them free reign to lie.

Is the requirement unreasonable? If you don't know something for sure, maybe you shouldn't insist that your theories are correct in the absence of information.

The ones who get lucrative publishing contracts and awards do.

What percentage would you say that is Qatz, and how does it relate to the general population of academics?

Well, the fact is the Allies won World War Two, and were a lot stronger than the Axis countries going into the war,

The allies were not stronger in 1939 with the benefit of hindsight, which explains the string of significant defeats from 1939 to 1941.

and coming out of it.

Britain and France came out of WWII significantly weaker than when they started, which was an important factor in the later era of decolonisation. Your broad generalisation is thus incorrect.

Neither of these points regarding strength prove that the Allies started WWII. So far you seem to have been unable to prove anyone but Germany sparked off the conflict by invading Poland. It seems you started this discussion aiming to win, but opted to change the subject when defeat became inevitable.

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?

Really? Show me some examples. Lets discuss the matter at hand rather than dance around the issue, as you seem so determined to do.

It seems likely that in this very discussion you have avoided inconvenient facts for the sake of your own narrative.

[QatzelOk]

Robin Hood didn't attempt to exterminate anyone if memory serves, or invade other countries.

I'm sure if you read the texts of the rich people he robbed, they'd tell you Robin and Little John were genocidal maniacs hellbent on world domination. They'd say this to divert attention from their own genocidal behavior and attempts to dominate the world.

So your original thesis, that all wars are started by winners, is clearly false by your own admission.

Both you and Doomy make the mistake of assuming who "started" WW2. As I said, the winners started it. And France and Britain didn't really win anything, did they?

But the financial elites certainly did. They even got a new colony in the Middle East near all of that oil!

[Truth-a-naut]

But the financial elites certainly did. They even got a new colony in the Middle East near all of that oil!

The Germans would have won if it weren't for that stab in the back by those November criminals (Jews).

The Kaiser really said it best.

On 2 December 1919, Wilhelm wrote to General August von Mackensen denouncing his abdication as the "deepest, most disgusting shame ever perpetrated by a person in history, the Germans have done to themselves", "egged on and misled by the tribe of Juda…. Let no German ever forget this, nor rest until these parasites have been destroyed and exterminated from German soil!". He advocated a "regular international all-worlds pogrom à la Russe" as "the best cure" and further believed that Jews were a "nuisance that humanity must get rid of some way or other. I believe the best would be gas!"

What you're saying Qatz is really not new, welcome to the 1920's I guess?

[QatzelOk]

What you're saying Qatz is really not new, welcome to the 1920's I guess?

Nice use of Godwin's Law to shut down a conversation you don't have the mental or emotional resources to have, Tru.

But to engage your texts: There are a lot of parallels between 20s Germany and 00s America: the stock market collapsed, which means it's time for a war to kill millions of non-elites. And the public has watched in horror as its "democratic" government elected to give all their tax dollars to the corrupt and incompetent elites.

And I can't wait to see how big the elites' colonies get after they've killed everyone. It should be really exciting to see how long these new colonies last before they're flooded, frozen or burned by climate change and residual pollution from all the weapons that the elites will use to "teach their sheep a lesson."

Oh yeah, that's one important change from the cycle of fabricated historical narratives: our elite messiahs have steered the entire planet towards ruin, including their own.

[Truth-a-naut]

Nice use of Godwin's Law to shut down a conversation you don't have the mental or emotional resources to have, Tru.

Nah, just used quotes prior to that whole Nazi thing - so this is really proto-Godwin. The idea that Jews destroyed Germany and egged on the powers to kill themselves in order to turn a profit is old hat. What you're discussing isn't new or revolutionary, it's tired. Really what do you mean by "Financial Elites".

But to engage your texts: There are a lot of parallels between 20s Germany and 00s America: the stock market collapsed, which means it's time for a war to kill millions of non-elites. And the public has watched in horror as its "democratic" government elected to give all their tax dollars to the corrupt and incompetent elites.

History is cyclical, yadda yadda. How deep and insightful. I'm sure there's been no such parallels in the combined history of our species ever. It is awesome though how you can have the intellectual dishonesty to convolute history (but Derrida said!) in order to validate your comical view of history.

Tell us something new.

If you were really serious about having a discussion concerning this and not a wholly political one, why would you put it in the WW2 forum? Doesn't your thesis apply to all of human history? Why pick WW2 (your posting history aside)?

Link us to some of those relevant articles on JSTOR from those philosophers you love to quote.

[QatzelOk]

Tell us something new.

Hey, if you want to be stimulated by a series of new revolutionary products, you can just look at the rapidly changing styles around you. There are a lot of NEW things out there for you to buy, Tru. Commercial media will provide you with books on "new" movements as well. Businessmen are married to the concept of novelty, unlike real thinkers and philosophers who are in search of timeless and eternal.

I'm offering personal insight, which is very, very old. Some even say it died a few generations ago and was replaced by fashion.

[Godstud]

the financial elites certainly did

Identify some of these "elites".
Are you talking about the Illuminati? The Freemasons? Who?

Even then they aren't the people who actually started the war, or if they are, tell me who did what on a specific date to start the war they "won". I think you are being purposefully vague about it because it's just a conspiracy theory.

[Smilin' Dave]

I'm sure if you read the texts of the rich people he robbed, they'd tell you Robin and Little John were genocidal maniacs hellbent on world domination.

I'm sure you will be able to point in the direction of some examples of that. You have read them yourself right, since you seek to correct me?

Both you and Doomy make the mistake of assuming who "started" WW2. As I said, the winners started it.

I know you said it, but it is demonstrably false, and further it has been established you don't know anything about the period, and can't claim any kind of authority. You apparently can't even be bothered justifying you attempts to drag post-modernism into this, something you might conceivably be considered knowledgable about.

And France and Britain didn't really win anything, did they?

This would contrast with your earlier statement:

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.

Strong nations are the winners... right?

But the financial elites certainly did.

Here you have quite clearly contradicted your opening statement in the OP:

World War Two was started by the Allies because they knew they had a huge military and political advantage, and they were afraid of Germany and Japan becoming too powerful. Britain, the US didn't want any competition, and they made an allilance with Russia - who they hated - just to ensure their hegemony over the earth.

So first you blame nation-states, then shift to "financial elites". You are obfuscating in an attempt to change the subject (lets call it changing the narrative to suit your Qatz narrative) and hide the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Let us ignore your change of subject for the moment and see if you can explain how these elites actually started the war. The common approach would be Germany started WWII by invading Poland. What specifically did these individuals do to start the war, contrary to Poland theory? I refuse to continue discussions unless you address this point, unlike so many others.

They even got a new colony in the Middle East near all of that oil!

Israel isn't that close to any major oil source, and in 1947-48 they had no strategic power to influence the nations that did have large oil reserves. Once again you logic does not stand up to scrutiny.

[QatzelOk]

it has been established you don't know anything about the period, and can't claim any kind of authority.

My point is that if you read the historical texts from that period, that you know even less about what happened than someone who hasn't. Our war-texts are manipulative, not informative.

Common sense contradicts our historical war texts. So if you have common sense, you can deduce what happened better than someone who's been manipulated by the texts of the cults of hegemony.

Here you have quite clearly contradicted your opening statement in the OP:

Smilin Dave, I don't think you understand the narrative structure of threads. They're not novels that get published once and have to prove the author is some kind of demigod of knowledge. They're interactive, which means that the opinions expressed in them often - even ideally - morph as the thread develops. The point of the OP gets refined and articulated better. This is a characteristic of the best threads.

To say that I've altered the OP statement as the thread progressed is to say that the thread is enriching my personal understanding of history.

If your opinions haven't changed at all since the thread began, you really ought to reconsider your own contribution to it. What are you learning from threads? Debating tricks? Is that really all?

[Godstud]

Common sense contradicts our historical war texts. So if you have common sense, you can deduce what happened better than someone who's been manipulated by the texts of the cults of hegemony.

That's utter rubbish. Unless you have information to reference you can't make any logical deduction even with copious amounts of common sense.

How does common sense contradict historical war texts?

What are these "cults of hegemony" you speak of?

Where are these rich & famous historians who have so manipulated history?

A Conspiracy theory is all you propose but with no evidence.

[QatzelOk]

Unless you have information to reference you can't make any logical deduction

Well, most of us have this.

I have a grandfather and uncles who "fought" in World War Two.

And I heard stories from "elders" about World War One. So I, like most people, have a basic sense of the primary changes and stresses that people were dealing with. This is the base we all have.

The deduction is required in trying to figure out who starts these mass murders, because the standard explanation - that "countries" start wars - makes no rational sense. Likewise, the notion that entire countries (or their leaders) go "crazy" is far too simplistic to explain the root causes of world wars where nothing is really accomplished for the common person, who basically is impoverished and genocided by his (democratically elected - or shadow government?) elites in every one of them.

[Godstud]

the notion that entire countries (or their leaders) go "crazy" is far too simplistic to explain the root causes of world wars

This I can certainly agree on.

The notion that certain elites are the root cause cannot be contributed to all the wars, though. Sure there are circumstances that might lead a country to war that are not made by the country's leaders, but there are very few wars where this has been caused by "elites". Trying to say a small shadow government is behind all wars is a conspiracy theory. It's not that countries go crazy, but that crazy things seem possible & reasonable under certain circumstances.

"Elites" can certainly have an influence on leaders and their decisions to go to war, but are not the root "causes". Causes are economic, religious, etc.
So really, wars are not "started" by the elites that live within a nation, but they can certainly influence things. The Iraq War is perhaps the most glaring example of a small group of elites pushing a country into a war. Is that the idea that you're trying to express, Quatz? This is a war where "elites" were probably the root cause, but saying this for most wars is probably inaccurate.

[Smilin' Dave]

My point is that if you read the historical texts from that period, that you know even less about what happened than someone who hasn't.

You don't even have to read texts from the period to know what on earth you are talking about, and you clearly haven't even done this. People have been writing about WWII since it ended, and there are distinct streams of thought that can be observed (not just one "western elitist" narrative as you claim). Further, the statistics relating to the conflict can't be waved off as 'narrative' since they are not primarily configured to convey a particular point of view, its data.

Common sense contradicts our historical war texts. So if you have common sense, you can deduce what happened better than someone who's been manipulated by the texts of the cults of hegemony.

Common sense? You haven't shown any in this thread. Consider your bizzare notion that the Nazi state bank was democratic!

Smilin Dave, I don't think you understand the narrative structure of threads. They're not novels that get published once and have to prove the author is some kind of demigod of knowledge. They're interactive, which means that the opinions expressed in them often - even ideally - morph as the thread develops.

Actually that would be good cause to start a new thread. Otherwise this effectively excludes those trying to stick to the subject of the OP, in effect allowing people to change the subject to manipulate the narrative.

To say that I've altered the OP statement as the thread progressed is to say that the thread is enriching my personal understanding of history.

I wasn't aware interactive structures abrogated the psycho-social and academic benefit of admitting error. Are you able to admit you were wrong?

If your opinions haven't changed at all since the thread began, you really ought to reconsider your own contribution to it. What are you learning from threads? Debating tricks? Is that really all?

I don't know about you, but if you can actually challenge my narrative with facts or logic, I'll re-consider my opinions. So far your facts haven't stood up to scrutiny and your logic has been faulty. You even tacitly accept this by moving the discussion away from areas where you have been proven wrong. Similarly I would have thought you would welcome an intellectual challenge in your thread, rather than shun it. Instead you have attempted to railroad my contributions to your own benefit, while decrying anything that might benefit others.

Now, since you won't address your own OP re. who started WWII, thus throwing this whole learning exercise into doubt, I won't be participating further in this thread.

[QatzelOk]

the statistics relating to the conflict can't be waved off as 'narrative' since they are not primarily configured to convey a particular point of view, its data.

Dave, all of history is written with an agenda. It's the nature of both the publishing industry and of war reporting to skew data to fit into a narrative the war's "winners" feel comfortable with.

I realize you want to believe that the numbers in our history books are simply raw data, but unfortunately, the UN hasn't discovered a machine that can count things without human involvement. And this kind of data collection and distribution requires the unlimited resources of the elite.

Meanwhile, the common sense and deductive reasoning of the non-elites have been permanently damaged by a constant stream of "entertainment" narratives that turn his brain into mush.

Meanwhile, on the Internet...

[Godstud]

And

this kind of data collection and distribution requires the unlimited resources of the elite.

Pure opinion and nothing more.

You provide no data on this and just saying so doesn't cut it.

Elites this, elites that, and yet you won't identify these elites... Maybe because they don't exist?

And then you can make the assumption that anyone who isn't a part of these elites cannot form common sense and deductive reasoning because of television?

If anything, TV has created a society that is keenly aware that not everything you see or hear is to be believed.