Car Hitler?

Zeeray13

Merlin Master
Expert
Veteran
Registered
Performance Tuner
#51
The rise of Hitler isn't really military history. Same with Caesar. Yes, they were soldiers and yes they started and fought in wars, but the politics and background that gave them the positions of absolute authority, the parallels you can draw between both men in their rise and demise, that is what you should have been taught.

And I beg to differ. Absolutely nothing has shaped human history like human conflict. For a start, the winners of your conflicts write the history that comes after it.

And you can take any single invention and innovation, thought, building, art or service (aside from religion, and even then it's still close and involves conflict itself), take its impact upon the globe, then watch it pale in comparison to the outcome of a large conflict.

What is the internet compared to if the Whites had won the Russian Revolution? What is the jet engine or the coliseum or the Sistine chapel to if Germany had somehow won WWII? You want to talk about the great Greek thinkers? What are they compared to what if the Persians had been victorious at Marathon or Platea?

And you can boil these down to individual moments, battles. If Patton (or someone as headstrong and loose as him) had been in the Wermarcht during Barbarossa, Germany would've won WWII. It was only because of Hitlers orders and his generals following those orders, was Moscow not taken and Stalin captured/killed, ending the Eastern Front by 1942. If Gavrilo Princip had missed 106 years and 2 days ago, the world would be a far different place than if the car hadn't been invented. Leonidas ignoring the Karneia festival that'd kept Sparta out of the Battle of Marathon and marching his bodyguard to Thermopylae (along with several thousand other greeks he'd 'persuaded' along the way) changed the face and fate of the world far more than gothic arches ever will.

Hell, even an invention as important as the wheel, or discovering fire, line that up to humans figuring out that flint actually gets pretty sharp and is surprisingly better than teeth at killing another human so you can steal his wheel.


All school is 'forced teaching'. You are forced to learn under threat of punishment or shame, be that if you're learning Pythagoras or D-Day. The difference between education and 'de-education' is delivery and attitude, not the subject being taught. One of the best lessons I've ever had was a subject as dry as the kinds of improvised explosive devices you'd find in Afghanistan. It wasn't changing the world. It wasn't even new information (I'd been there a few times), but I was riveted from start to finish because it was interesting, well taught, funny and the guy was utterly peerless in his subject matter knowledge.






It's not always nonsense. Granted, in some wars, the 'good guys' is a matter of perspective and usually is decided by the winning team. WWI is an example of this. Neither side were bad, the war was pointless in its entirety, the loss of life was unrivalled and Germany only became the bad guys because they lost. This is why WWI must be taught. Because unless you educate people on the reasons why it started in the first place, people will not understand how it happened and not recognise the signs of it happening again.

But can you honestly sit there and hand on heart say WWII was ambiguous, either side could have been the good/bad guys and the narrative of good (allies) overcoming evil (axis) is twisted facts? Again, granted there was some twisted deals going on in the background, but that doesn't push the US into being the bad guys or Japan into the plucky underdog.






And therein lies your problem. Truth and facts are not the same same thing. Objectivity is objective. As soon as it stops becoming fact and starts becoming truth, it becomes opinion and is thus subjective. Even if it isn't bullshit. Pursue facts, not truth.






And not just wars and battles, but also any sports that involve teams or scores and any game where you have an opponent. Naughts and crosses is conflict of rival powers for control. But no, you can add objective, factual reasons for starting a conflict.

Xerxes invaded Greece because he was a rival power seeking to control that state. He also wanted to burn Athens to the ground for humiliating his father at Marathon. That isn't opinion or subjective, it's a fact. And he did it as well.






It didn't go that far. 50 years after the cultural explosion in Greece which founded much of what you speak of, Athens and Sparta were right back where they were before the Persians invaded, kicking fuck out of each other and everyone around them in the Peloponnesian Wars. This era was so 'enlightened', it executed Socrates by getting him to poison himself.






Those changes never made the vehicles simpler. The other issue was many parts where hand made by craftsmen, meaning they only fitted one specific vehicle instead of an entire vehicle type. It meant you couldn't even cannabilise some parts as what fitted one Tiger, may not fit another Tiger of even the same version






The USSR had a long production run with limited models simply because they forbade improving the T-34. Not because they wanted to keep making the same version, but because the only alterations allowed were ones that made it either cheaper or quicker to manufacture which actually made the vehicles worse as quality control plummeted. The first actual upgrade of the T-34, was the -85.

And America is a really bad example of 'limited models'. Do you have any idea how many major variations of Sherman there are?! And I'm taking major changes like suspension, engines, guns, armour, turret. That's not including all the funnies and the minor modifications. The Sherman was constantly and extensively modified throughout the war to keep pace with what was happening on the battlefield.






Something the US had the luxury of since they could design, build and test things with the safety of an entire ocean between them and the enemy. Where as:



Zee Germans were having to test their vehicles in combat and make changes from reports from the front, resulting in modifications and upgrades like with the drivetrain on the Panther.






These are gun changes. Usually because (again) what they are trying has never been done before and the only way to test a Sturmtiger was to drive one to Warsaw and blow up a building with it to see how it performs. They then modify the weapons rather than leaving them at a sub-standard level.

Or



this became a thing, which is how vehicles like Jagdtiger ended up leaving factories with the wrong guns installed, simply because they didn't have any of the right guns left but they needed the tanks now to defend Berlin. As I said, the only reason this constant changing, modification and refining was an issue (and the only reasons the Germans were doing it), was because the Germans didn't have the resources and freedom to extensively test a concept out before production like the US could. Swap places with the US, and such actions would be applauded (like they are on Sherman) for the attempt to keep their equipment at the tip of line in capability vs their opponents.






I dunno, I'm not so sure the war would've been the same if the germans had made 12,000 Tiger I rather than 1247 of them. And you can insert any german AFV into that from the StuG to the Tiger II.






Mania. Hitlers mania. They could have won regardless of his genocidal thinking, promising to help the Italians / Japanese and whatever. What lost the Germans the war was Hitler taking control of the Army at a tactical and strategic level and making some really stupid decisions, especially on the Eastern Front.
God now your making me defend Hitler. Hitler made the right fucking decision going south world war two was a war on resources and ideologies. Mostly the former. Hitler did shoot himself in the foot early on though by changing the Luftwaffe focus on strategic locations to civilian locations in the UK. Even then Germany couldn't support sea lion and the only way Germany would have won was a one on one with Russia. So it would have to secure North Africa and knock the British out of the war and Hitler would have to break his promise to the Japanese to not to go to war with the U.S. , also you should know the power of the British navy at that time would have been a hell of a lot better then the German rendering sea lion mute, the only reason the U.S. could pull it off was a multinational coalition with complete air superiority, and naval superiority. Japan would always do pearl harbor as it was the best of alot of very bad options. Hitler made some good decisions it his generals who survived the war and some who were idiots put all the blame on the dead man. Yes he made poor choices but its alot less extreme then what is commonly believed. And no Germany making more vehicles would have fucked them over. Germany lacked fuel and the Romanian oil fields could only supply them for so long and in reality Russia provided Germany with oil early on in the war. Also Germany due to its situation would manufacture stuff, then mobilize, then do a blitzkrieg, send the men back to the factories, rinse and repeat until they get fucked over by the attritional war they can't possibly win. Germany was a economic powerhouse but they can't take on every other super power at once, unless you change pre war ideologies, different leaders, etc. Etc. Germany signed it's death warrant after 1941. I love germany tanks and yes they suited the defensive position they had put themselves into. Though they could of done a hell of alot better. Also on the Sherman note yes the U.S. had the luxury to do that and yes there was many models. But they used alot of common parts. Yes they did upgrade Sherman's to what they needed but the reason why they did as long as it's a Sherman it's a Sherman. Name how many main tank types/chassis the U.S. made: M24, M4, M26 now let's look at Russia: T34, IS now let's look at Germany: Panzer 35T-38T, Panzer III, Panzer IV, Panther, Tiger I, Tiger, II, (Porches Mistakes: IE the worst tank ever tye Firdinand Lmao).
 

Zeeray13

Merlin Master
Expert
Veteran
Registered
Performance Tuner
#52
Well, a rebellion against the Treaty of Versailles, and all that it entailed. Mixed with an utter hatred of communists and Jews. I genuinely think if France and the UK hadn't declared war after the invasion of Poland, Hitler wouldn't have invaded Europe. He'd have consolidated and smashed the USSR.

And then invaded Europe haha.






Yeah. They did pick the wrong friends. The Italians were an absolute hindrance at best and allying with Japan did nothing except give the US legal justification to join in the European Theatre officially.






Yep. Now imagine what they could've done without a blockade, a borderline genocidal bombing campaign and a 3 front war...






Certainly. There was a time when the Chinese were invented everything. Or the British. Whoever has got the cash, prosperity and need.






This is more like it. The Peoples Car Mark I, yours for only 35 RM payments.




Don't ask the word count. I think I've cracked my own record with this one...
The U.S didn't declare war on Germany, Germany declared war on the U.S. as a promise he made to the Japanese. In essence the suicide pact that all axis members signed. Germany would never be in any scenario where they are in a 3 front war Hitler wasn't in charge and the entirety of Germany decided that they wouldn't blame anyone for the rape they received after the treaty of Versailles. As far as I'm concerned the British and French were the ones out for blood on that one making it how it was. I understand why they had lost millions of men compared to the U.S. tens potential hundreds of thousands of men. So Britain and France made their own enemy.
 

Horus Lupercal

Mother of the of F**k - Piece of D**ks
Professor
Expert
Registered
Elon who?
Performance Tuner
#55
Hitler made the right fucking decision going south
Debatable. Fuel shortages has always been a thing for the Germans, so securing resources to continue the war is fine, but knocking an enemy out of the war by taking the capital and capturing / killing its leader gives you not only less people to fight, but also access to those same resources, for less cost. That's the entire point of Blitzkrieg. Hard, fast and get it done before the enemy can react.
Hitler then compounded that mistake by constantly switching priorities between Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad and the oil fields because of shifting focus from military objectives to political grandstanding and back again. If he had chosen to go south and stuck with that decision then that would've been fine. If he had decided straight away that he wanted Stalingrad and stuck with that decision, then it would've been fine.
Instead, he directed resources away at just the wrong times and single-handedly allowed the Russians to hold on until General Winter arrived.
His buffoonery didn't end there. The 'not one step back' order effectively destroyed the German Army.

And I disagree with the kid in the video. Taking Moscow would've made a huge difference for the one reason he fails to mention. Stalin is still in the Kremlin. He never leaves. Surrounding and taking Moscow, capturing Stalin and forcing his surrender (or murdering him, whichever suits) effectively ends the Soviet leadership (in the same way, which he weirdly mentions but under the wrong context) as what happened in Germany at the Fall of Berlin in 1945.
And even if the Red Army does continue to fight. So what? They're leaderless, the central communications, transportation and political hub is now in German hands. They control the important parts of the country and can consolidate, swing south, take the Kiev fields and mop up the rest of the country whenever they feel like it later.
Exactly what they did in France.


Hitler did shoot himself in the foot early on though by changing the Luftwaffe focus on strategic locations to civilian locations in the UK
Even before then, by allowing the British Army to escape at Dunkirk by holding back the panzer divisions and trying to destroy the beachhead from the air. Again, political grandstanding over-shadowing sound military tactics. If Guderian had got his way, the BEF (which made up the bulk of the UKs professional standing army and equipment) would've been destroyed in France by 1940. And absolutely, if he'd kept the pressure on the RAF for another fortnight, he'd have destroyed British airpower entirely. Politics (and the genuinely ridiculous efforts put in by the RAF) got in the way, Hitler lost faith in the Luftwaffe at the wrong time and that allowed the RAF the breathing space they needed to re-build.


Even then Germany couldn't support sea lion
also you should know the power of the British navy at that time would have been a hell of a lot better then the German rendering sea lion mute
I disagree. Granted, the Germans could never have supported Overlord. But they weren't doing Overlord, they were doing Sealion. And you can't compare SeaLion to Overlord. The tactical, strategic and motivational differences are polar.
Overlord required the largest seaborne invasion force in human history. Months of reconnaissance, planning, hundreds of thousands of men, thousands of tanks, one of the largest naval flotillas ever assembled, the creation of artificial harbours, swimming tanks, air superiority etc etc etc.
Because they were invading mainland Europe against an a defensive position 4 years in the making. Elite german divisions (including panzer forces in reserve), aircraft, bunker networks, dug in and pre-sited artillery positions sitting behind the minefields and beach defences of the most heavily fortified section of coast on the planet.

The UK had none of this in 1940.

Britain ended Operation Dynamo better than it could ever have hoped and nearly 300,000 men had been saved. However, it had lost all of its heavy equipment. If it couldn't be carried, it was left in France. There was no tanks, trucks, field guns, ambulances, nothing. There was no bunker network. No artillery emplacements. Few modern coastal defence guns. Almost no armour, artillery, AT guns etc of any kind. Also, the BEF had failed to stop the Germans when it had all its toys. Without them, if the Germans made landfall, then they were fucked.
So, what stood in the way of Sealion making landfall?
The RAF and (apparently) the Royal Navy. So lets explore these.
The point of the Battle of Britain was to remove the RAF as a force and assert air superiority over Southern England. And if the politics hadn't hit in, the Luftwaffe almost managed it. I've heard reports of the RAF being down to the last dozen fighters. Another week, 2 weeks, and the RAF would've been finished.
Lets assume that happened, and Sealion is on. What is the 'power of the Royal Navy' going to achieve?
Nothing.
Except become target practice for Luftwaffe Stukas as they sail up the Channel 30 miles off the coast of France without any air cover whatsoever.
Granted, the German surface navy isn't a match for the RN Home Fleet in a fair, ship to ship scrap, but the Luftwaffe and U-boat wolf packs (remember, its 1940. U-boats were sinking british ships for fun back then) would've made short work of that idea.
And then what? You think the British Army and the Home Guard would've been able to throw the German war machine back into the sea without heavy weapons, armour, aircraft or naval support?
Not a chance.

You want to know the real reason why Sealion was turned off? Motivation. Overlord went ahead because the western Allies needed to invade Europe, if only to finally take the pressure off the Russians. Hitler however had never really wanted to invade the British Isles. He never got into the planning like he did for Poland, France and especially Russia. He held no particular ill-will towards the British (if Mein Kampf is anything to be believed, he rather liked the UK). But if there's one thing he hates more than Jews, it's Communists. He really really wanted to invade Russia, exterminate communism and re-populate the land with Germanic peoples.
That's why Sealion was shelved, not because it wasn't do-able.


Hitler made some good decisions it his generals who survived the war and some who were idiots put all the blame on the dead man. Yes he made poor choices but its alot less extreme then what is commonly believed
Your boy in the video fails to mention the 'not one step back' rule he imposed. At best, it effectively removed the ground commanders ability to react to the conditions as he saw fit. Hitler micro-managed this policy to such an extent that there was a joke amongst senior Eastern Front commanders that they'd need to ring up and get permission to move the sentry from the front to the back door on the HQ. These static positions (called hedgehogs) were ordered to stand and fight til the last, regardless of casualties, situation or enemy strengths. Because it had worked once, Hitler believed it would work every time. Instead, it meant that when the Red Army broke through, the German Army (traditionally a tactically very flexible force which placed emphasis on lowest level initiative) couldn't withdraw, take the energy out of the assault and then counter attack once the push had run out a bit and had to sit there, become surrounded and either destroyed or starved at leisure.
The eventual fate of Von Paulus' 6th Army in Stalingrad highlights this point sufficiently well and of the nearly 1 million men sent to Stalingrad and the surrounding area, only 5,000 would ever see Germany again (in the 50s) because Hitler refused to allow them to withdraw before the noose was tightened.
How much more extreme do you want, than losing nearly a million men!? To put that into context, the British Army lost less than 900,000 men throughout the entirety of WWI.


And no Germany making more vehicles would have fucked them over. Germany lacked fuel and the Romanian oil fields could only supply them for so long and in reality Russia provided Germany with oil early on in the war
Very possibly. This goes back to what I said earlier though. Stop fucking about, get the conflict finished early and then you won't need so much fuel. The Romanian fields could supply the Germans for as long as they held them. The problem was holding them whilst they were mucking about in the north.


Germany was a economic powerhouse but they can't take on every other super power at once, unless you change pre war ideologies, different leaders, etc. Etc
No, and the army hadn't intended on fighting everyone at once. Blitzkrieg was designed specifically so that didn't happen. Hitler and his party of clowns fucked that idea up.


Germany signed it's death warrant after 1941.
1942. Again, you're viewing this from the year 2020, knowing the outcome. End of 1941, Germany and Japan were the 2 of most powerful nations on the planet. One owned Europe, the other was about to own Aisa and both had a problem with the US, Russia and the UK. Neither had lost a battle, neither looked likely to lose a battle (Japan had just started its expansion across the pacific, Germany still hadn't fucked up too badly at this point).
So why wouldn't they ally with each other?!
 

Horus Lupercal

Mother of the of F**k - Piece of D**ks
Professor
Expert
Registered
Elon who?
Performance Tuner
#56
Also on the Sherman note yes the U.S. had the luxury to do that and yes there was many models. But they used alot of common parts. Yes they did upgrade Sherman's to what they needed but the reason why they did as long as it's a Sherman it's a Sherman. Name how many main tank types/chassis the U.S. made: M24, M4, M26 now let's look at Russia: T34, IS now let's look at Germany: Panzer 35T-38T, Panzer III, Panzer IV, Panther, Tiger I, Tiger, II,
Oh so now the goalposts have changed. First it was modifications to an existing model, and now its numbers of models overall. Again, you've backed the wrong horse here.

Name how many main tank types/chassis the U.S. made
Off the top of my head, I can think of 2 models you have missed out. The M3/5 Stuart and M3 Grant/Lee tanks.
Then, we do some research. You have the M22 and M24 light tanks (Locust and Chaffee. Then the M6 medium and there could be a discussion about the Hellcat as being not a Sherman. But we'll leave that out.
So for America, we have 7 production chassis types, not including derivative assault gun/SPG/Tank Destroyer versions.

Next,
let's look at Russia: T34, IS
Yes, lets. Cos again, I can think of another 2 versions you've forgotten about. The BT and KV series.
Again, some research reveals the T-26, T-28, T-50/T60/70/80, T-45 and the initial T-54.
So that's 9 production chassis, again not including variations or derivations.


And finally
let's look at Germany: Panzer 35T-38T, Panzer III, Panzer IV, Panther, Tiger I, Tiger, II
More problems with this list. Firstly, the 35t and 38t were as German as Hitler. They were Czech, designed and made in Czechoslovakia and of zero burden to the German factories. Lets replace them with German built tanks, the Panzer I and II instead. And to be fair, you could also add the Porsche Tiger I (the P) and Maus as they entered production
9 chassis types. Again, this doesn't include variations and derivations. A note on this though,
IE the worst tank ever tye Firdinand
, Worst tank ever? The Elefant/Ferdinand tank destroyer potentially (by kill to loss ratio) is the best tank destroyer the Germans ever built. Even if it isn't, it's still not even on the spectrum of worst tanks ever made.


The U.S didn't declare war on Germany, Germany declared war on the U.S
Yeah. Giving
the US legal justification to join in the European Theatre officially.

as a promise he made to the Japanese
Aah yes, Hitler was famous for keeping his word. See also the Munich Agreement, 1938.


In essence the suicide pact that all axis members signed
As I said earlier, you're looking at it with 2020 vision, not 1941 vision. It's only a suicide pact if you know you're going to die. Making the enemy of your enemy your friend isn't suicidal, especially when they've just battered the US pacific fleet and are sweeping across the pacific like a locust swarm.


Germany would never be in any scenario where they are in a 3 front war Hitler wasn't in charge and the entirety of Germany decided that they wouldn't blame anyone for the rape they received after the treaty of Versailles. As far as I'm concerned the British and French were the ones out for blood on that one making it how it was. I understand why they had lost millions of men compared to the U.S. tens potential hundreds of thousands of men. So Britain and France made their own enemy.
Yep. A lesson learned 'sort of' after WWII with both Germany and Japan, where they (rightly) took blame for their respective crimes, but were not only allowed to re-build but given a lot of 'help' (for one reason or another) in the task.
 

Marmilo

Rocket Engineer
Registered
#58
Debatable. Fuel shortages has always been a thing for the Germans, so securing resources to continue the war is fine, but knocking an enemy out of the war by taking the capital and capturing / killing its leader gives you not only less people to fight, but also access to those same resources, for less cost. That's the entire point of Blitzkrieg. Hard, fast and get it done before the enemy can react.
Hitler then compounded that mistake by constantly switching priorities between Moscow, Stalingrad, Leningrad and the oil fields because of shifting focus from military objectives to political grandstanding and back again. If he had chosen to go south and stuck with that decision then that would've been fine. If he had decided straight away that he wanted Stalingrad and stuck with that decision, then it would've been fine.
Instead, he directed resources away at just the wrong times and single-handedly allowed the Russians to hold on until General Winter arrived.
His buffoonery didn't end there. The 'not one step back' order effectively destroyed the German Army.

And I disagree with the kid in the video. Taking Moscow would've made a huge difference for the one reason he fails to mention. Stalin is still in the Kremlin. He never leaves. Surrounding and taking Moscow, capturing Stalin and forcing his surrender (or murdering him, whichever suits) effectively ends the Soviet leadership (in the same way, which he weirdly mentions but under the wrong context) as what happened in Germany at the Fall of Berlin in 1945.
And even if the Red Army does continue to fight. So what? They're leaderless, the central communications, transportation and political hub is now in German hands. They control the important parts of the country and can consolidate, swing south, take the Kiev fields and mop up the rest of the country whenever they feel like it later.
Exactly what they did in France.




Even before then, by allowing the British Army to escape at Dunkirk by holding back the panzer divisions and trying to destroy the beachhead from the air. Again, political grandstanding over-shadowing sound military tactics. If Guderian had got his way, the BEF (which made up the bulk of the UKs professional standing army and equipment) would've been destroyed in France by 1940. And absolutely, if he'd kept the pressure on the RAF for another fortnight, he'd have destroyed British airpower entirely. Politics (and the genuinely ridiculous efforts put in by the RAF) got in the way, Hitler lost faith in the Luftwaffe at the wrong time and that allowed the RAF the breathing space they needed to re-build.





I disagree. Granted, the Germans could never have supported Overlord. But they weren't doing Overlord, they were doing Sealion. And you can't compare SeaLion to Overlord. The tactical, strategic and motivational differences are polar.
Overlord required the largest seaborne invasion force in human history. Months of reconnaissance, planning, hundreds of thousands of men, thousands of tanks, one of the largest naval flotillas ever assembled, the creation of artificial harbours, swimming tanks, air superiority etc etc etc.
Because they were invading mainland Europe against an a defensive position 4 years in the making. Elite german divisions (including panzer forces in reserve), aircraft, bunker networks, dug in and pre-sited artillery positions sitting behind the minefields and beach defences of the most heavily fortified section of coast on the planet.

The UK had none of this in 1940.

Britain ended Operation Dynamo better than it could ever have hoped and nearly 300,000 men had been saved. However, it had lost all of its heavy equipment. If it couldn't be carried, it was left in France. There was no tanks, trucks, field guns, ambulances, nothing. There was no bunker network. No artillery emplacements. Few modern coastal defence guns. Almost no armour, artillery, AT guns etc of any kind. Also, the BEF had failed to stop the Germans when it had all its toys. Without them, if the Germans made landfall, then they were fucked.
So, what stood in the way of Sealion making landfall?
The RAF and (apparently) the Royal Navy. So lets explore these.
The point of the Battle of Britain was to remove the RAF as a force and assert air superiority over Southern England. And if the politics hadn't hit in, the Luftwaffe almost managed it. I've heard reports of the RAF being down to the last dozen fighters. Another week, 2 weeks, and the RAF would've been finished.
Lets assume that happened, and Sealion is on. What is the 'power of the Royal Navy' going to achieve?
Nothing.
Except become target practice for Luftwaffe Stukas as they sail up the Channel 30 miles off the coast of France without any air cover whatsoever.
Granted, the German surface navy isn't a match for the RN Home Fleet in a fair, ship to ship scrap, but the Luftwaffe and U-boat wolf packs (remember, its 1940. U-boats were sinking british ships for fun back then) would've made short work of that idea.
And then what? You think the British Army and the Home Guard would've been able to throw the German war machine back into the sea without heavy weapons, armour, aircraft or naval support?
Not a chance.

You want to know the real reason why Sealion was turned off? Motivation. Overlord went ahead because the western Allies needed to invade Europe, if only to finally take the pressure off the Russians. Hitler however had never really wanted to invade the British Isles. He never got into the planning like he did for Poland, France and especially Russia. He held no particular ill-will towards the British (if Mein Kampf is anything to be believed, he rather liked the UK). But if there's one thing he hates more than Jews, it's Communists. He really really wanted to invade Russia, exterminate communism and re-populate the land with Germanic peoples.
That's why Sealion was shelved, not because it wasn't do-able.




Your boy in the video fails to mention the 'not one step back' rule he imposed. At best, it effectively removed the ground commanders ability to react to the conditions as he saw fit. Hitler micro-managed this policy to such an extent that there was a joke amongst senior Eastern Front commanders that they'd need to ring up and get permission to move the sentry from the front to the back door on the HQ. These static positions (called hedgehogs) were ordered to stand and fight til the last, regardless of casualties, situation or enemy strengths. Because it had worked once, Hitler believed it would work every time. Instead, it meant that when the Red Army broke through, the German Army (traditionally a tactically very flexible force which placed emphasis on lowest level initiative) couldn't withdraw, take the energy out of the assault and then counter attack once the push had run out a bit and had to sit there, become surrounded and either destroyed or starved at leisure.
The eventual fate of Von Paulus' 6th Army in Stalingrad highlights this point sufficiently well and of the nearly 1 million men sent to Stalingrad and the surrounding area, only 5,000 would ever see Germany again (in the 50s) because Hitler refused to allow them to withdraw before the noose was tightened.
How much more extreme do you want, than losing nearly a million men!? To put that into context, the British Army lost less than 900,000 men throughout the entirety of WWI.




Very possibly. This goes back to what I said earlier though. Stop fucking about, get the conflict finished early and then you won't need so much fuel. The Romanian fields could supply the Germans for as long as they held them. The problem was holding them whilst they were mucking about in the north.




No, and the army hadn't intended on fighting everyone at once. Blitzkrieg was designed specifically so that didn't happen. Hitler and his party of clowns fucked that idea up.




1942. Again, you're viewing this from the year 2020, knowing the outcome. End of 1941, Germany and Japan were the 2 of most powerful nations on the planet. One owned Europe, the other was about to own Aisa and both had a problem with the US, Russia and the UK. Neither had lost a battle, neither looked likely to lose a battle (Japan had just started its expansion across the pacific, Germany still hadn't fucked up too badly at this point).
So why wouldn't they ally with each other?!
This is a VERY long post
 

Roger Jolly

Astronaut
Expert
Registered
#61
Re:Horus
Your definition of evil really seems to imply that there is no such thing as evil, which I totally agree, it’s pure subjectivity;
I can’t think of any instance when anyone would do something with the intent of being knowingly evil, even at our cruelest people presume they are acting through justice with revenge merely being an extreme and desperate measure

It takes an outrage to drive evil and there is always water to wash the hands clean, whether self defense or just for hunger’s sake

Maybe you had a better public education than I did but there was no balanced reporting on WWII or “the Cold War”, it was all the great good will of the US overcoming the immoral enemy, even when the Soviet Union fell it was all ‘and now maybe they’ll understand the error of their ways and beg our acquaintance’;
It wasn’t all written in the text, it was the attitude of the teachers and fellow students, the text never called Hitler and the Soviets evil or wrong but that is what we learned in class,
Adam Smith was the “Father of Capitalism” and socialism is wrong, that was all we got, nothing inspiring, just a fact to try and remember for a quiz and forget, nothing interesting whatsoever...

My aforementioned teacher was old and fed up with droning on to a class that didn’t listen to a word he said, so he sensibly vowed to change that when he gained his tenure;
His chosen text book was Bronowski’s Accent of man, a sort of anthropology version of Sagan’s Cosmos, 13 part series with an accompanying book, if I remember we were supposed to read a chapter over the weekend, watch the video on Monday to catch up the illiterates, discuss and chapter quiz on Tuesday...this was half the grade
The rest of the week, including most of Tuesday was open discussion, say anything;
Current events, social concerns, history or whatever all with eye for critical thinking and more or less reined by his proper conservative wisdom...students were engaged and we all learned a great deal in our own way, so yes, we did have plenty of constructive war talk and was the only forum in all my public education where reasons were analyzed and opinions formulated with no one right answer
...and by this I learn some counterpoints between the capitalism of Adam Smith and the system of the US, no great depth in this sloppy unplanned class, but something to think about and remember and pursue in further reading for the rest of my life;
The US does not follow the rules of Smith, there is trouble in the tea leaves

Truth is relative and objectivity is something that can only be aspired to, whatever the subject is the number of facts are unfathomable so there is no choice but to pick and choose

A journalist or historian must then make some attempt to assemble chosen facts into an as objective review as possible, but no matter how they go about it there will be some slant which is fine as long as it is understood;
Writing to defend the ‘poor people’ or national interests or whatever is fine to allow readers to weigh things and in a democracy move forward, people are people so there are no final authorities just as best we can for now...or badly, maybe it will get set strait later

Course the problem now I’m sure you hate as well as I is the ‘equal time to all’ attitude which has ‘serious’ journalists treating the flat Earthers and creationists as legitimate counterpoints to, can I say, reality?
 

Horus Lupercal

Mother of the of F**k - Piece of D**ks
Professor
Expert
Registered
Elon who?
Performance Tuner
#62
Your definition of evil really seems to imply that there is no such thing as evil, which I totally agree, it’s pure subjectivity;
I can’t think of any instance when anyone would do something with the intent of being knowingly evil, even at our cruelest people presume they are acting through justice with revenge merely being an extreme and desperate measure
Yeah. Very, very very few people believe themselves the villain in their own story. Ted Bundy lost not one single nights sleep over what he did. He could justify every single act he committed, same with Himmler, Pol Pot, Bomber Harris, whoever. It takes a real cold heart to willingly, without reason and with full acknowledgement, commit true evil to another living creature. Most humans can't do it to other humans, which is why animal cruelty is viewed so abhorrently.
You can justify to a country exterminating a race, and not only get them to accept it but also get them to help you, but no one can justify torturing a dog or setting fire to a bin full of cats to themselves or anyone else.
Fun Fact, the Nazis where really, really big into animal rights, passing some of first and most in-depth animal cruelty legislation whilst simultaneously destroying 5 million people for being on the wrong side of a very similar faith.


Maybe you had a better public education than I did but there was no balanced reporting on WWII or “the Cold War”, it was all the great good will of the US overcoming the immoral enemy, even when the Soviet Union fell it was all ‘and now maybe they’ll understand the error of their ways and beg our acquaintance’;
It wasn’t all written in the text, it was the attitude of the teachers and fellow students, the text never called Hitler and the Soviets evil or wrong but that is what we learned in class,
Adam Smith was the “Father of Capitalism” and socialism is wrong, that was all we got, nothing inspiring, just a fact to try and remember for a quiz and forget, nothing interesting whatsoever...
Nah man, I went to statistically the worst school in the worst area in the worst country in the UK for attaining grades. I just enjoyed learning and got lucky that against the dross and glue sniffers, there was someone willing to make an effort of it.
Growing up in the UK helped, we had nothing in particular against the Russians so we never quite went down the US route of 'we won the war single-handedly, Russia helped the Nazis, only changed sides cos they were betrayed and they're still the enemy today'. Being educated on the back end of the Cold War was also helpful as they weren't even an actual 'enemy' any more. It was more terrorism when I was a kid, first from N. Ireland and later the middle east.
I did (and still do) hate learning for a test, rather than learning for knowledge. I don't (and never will) teach that way either and I see it as the big failing of at least how things are done here in the UK with the GCSE system rewarding accuracy, word count and mock-test regurgitation over analytical thought and effective intelligence.
Granted, you have a mandated topic set. But make it interesting and when the exams come, don't look for buzzwords. Look for the understanding.


His chosen text book was Bronowski’s Accent of man, a sort of anthropology version of Sagan’s Cosmos, 13 part series with an accompanying book, if I remember we were supposed to read a chapter over the weekend, watch the video on Monday to catch up the illiterates, discuss and chapter quiz on Tuesday...this was half the grade
I take some of it back. I've not seen this but looking at the content it looks rather interesting. May need to acquire this series. I do like the blended learning technique as well.


The rest of the week, including most of Tuesday was open discussion, say anything;
Current events, social concerns, history or whatever all with eye for critical thinking and more or less reined by his proper conservative wisdom...students were engaged and we all learned a great deal in our own way, so yes, we did have plenty of constructive war talk and was the only forum in all my public education where reasons were analyzed and opinions formulated with no one right answer
That I don't think you can do these days. 'Say anything', in a school forum in 2020 is terrifying for a teacher. They don't enjoy the trust and respect of students anymore and call out / cancel culture means that a teacher must stick within mandated guidelines so that if he says something, the educational organisation he works for should back him up, rather than throwing him under the bus.
A discussion like that these days would require trigger warnings, garner complaints. Especially as I can assume most opinions expressed may be conservative, slightly right leaning, common sense which tends to be pretty offensive these days.
And that's the mild stuff.
Imagine something more controversial.
I used to do the same with my recruits in rehabilitation. They had a lot of time on their hands waiting for injuries to heal and rather than wallowing in their rooms, I showed them how to think and research critically, how to deliver a lesson properly then would every single week tell them to prepare a lesson or a discussion about whatever they liked. As long as they could back up what they said, because I would be the Devil and challenge them, even if I agreed with whatever they said.
Now, by controversial, I mean thus. Imagine a room full of young men, potential paratroopers. Now throw in something like gun ownership, females in the infantry, rules of engagement, 'enemy' ideologies, conspiracy theories (and even deeper rabbitholes I won't go into on a public forum) and my particular favourite 'what would you give your life for'. Now they trusted me utterly, so we could have these discussions and no one would be offended and would take the points as they're intended.
Imagine having those, or one of your discussions today, in a school, college or university. It's why I'd never ever teach civilians.
You were lucky. Your teacher was even luckier.


Truth is relative and objectivity is something that can only be aspired to, whatever the subject is the number of facts are unfathomable so there is no choice but to pick and choose
A journalist or historian must then make some attempt to assemble chosen facts into an as objective review as possible, but no matter how they go about it there will be some slant which is fine as long as it is understood;
I agree mostly, but just because you don't have all the facts doesn't mean you should select which facts you want. The best way to true objectivity is present all facts without your own filter or bias. Then you haven't subjected it to your bias.
Journalists in the main have forgotten this and will present truths and selective facts to push their own opinions clothed in 'objectivity'.
I'm totally aware true objectivity without bias is an impossible standard for humanity as we are selective on everything and always should be under some conditions (you want the best for yourself and your circle. That is selective bias and a key part of survival) but wilful mis-interpretation of facts to avoid offence or (much worse) skew opinions is wrong.


Course the problem now I’m sure you hate as well as I is the ‘equal time to all’ attitude which has ‘serious’ journalists treating the flat Earthers and creationists as legitimate counterpoints to, can I say, reality?
Yes and no. As much as I agree they (and many other things like this) shouldn't be humoured as much as they do, but I do believe they need a voice to be heard, if only so they can be looked at and discounted in a fair, measured and objective way.

One thing I've always tried to teach both here and back then is the ability to look beyond the what and into the why. My favourite counter to conspiracy theorists, irrespective of what the theory is, is 'why?'. And I use the same question for pretty much any thinking, reasoning and reading I do.
For example, I have always been curious to read Mein Kampf, for the same reason as why I have read the Bible. I am as much a fascist as I am religious, but to be a true atheist you need to have looked at the other-side otherwise your opinion hasn't been objectively formed through your own reasoning. But also thanks to experience and research, I understand the why of religion and have absolutely nothing against real practitioners of any faith.
In the same way you can not be truly against Fascism until you understand what exactly it is you are standing against. You simply haven't done the research which has lead to the current over and incorrect-use of the term. Unfortunately in this era, obtaining a copy as a white, male, conservative member of the british army tends to cause a lot of problems.
Interestingly because of bias and ignorance.

This also works great for conspiracy theories. Area 51, chem trails, 5g, the World Trade Centre, Flat Earth, Coronavirus, whatever. My first and usually last question is why. And not Why as in the motives of the government or the CIA, but why at the coal face. The NASA employee guarding the ice wall around the disc. The CIA operative setting the demolition charges in the WTC. Why are they in on this. What is their motivation. Why would someone back in the 50s convince the government to create an organisation whose sole function is to centralise 'Space' exploits and global communications in order to willingly mislead an entire planetary population (with the aid of every other nations equivalent) into believing orbits are real, the Earth is a ball etc in order to hide the fact the Earth is a perpetually accelerating disc being carried on the back of 4 elephants riding on an enormous turtle. Why would someone willingly join an organisation to guard the ice wall? Simple. To protect the public from falling off. Even if some or even most wall guards are willingly lying to the world (being 'evil), there must absolutely be some altruistic employees who joined to not protect the secret, but to protect people from going over the edge. So why wouldn't that person go public and say 'look, there's a fucking ice wall out there, stop trying to fly off the end.'?

You can't kill or silence ideas. Removing the platforms of extremists and conspirators doesn't make the problem go away, it just moves the conversations further underground where they are even less likely to be brought back into the light. Discourse is the only solution to much of the current world issues, having a long, adult conversation between civil, open minded, intelligent humans, coming to not just air grievances and point fingers or even convince one that the other is right but share experiences, learn common ground and accept each others positions.
We don't need to make each other believe the same thing. Once we finally accept that there are 7 billion assholes on this ball of rock, we each have our own opinions, all of us are wrong but that we share so much in common regardless of cultural background, social status and genetic differences, then things might go a bit better for us.

I'm not saying it'll stop us fighting. Conflict is competition. That is the natural order of things and is how it should be. But it means that maybe we'll stop taking it so fucking personally.
 

Mars Pathfinder

Test Pilot
Registered
#63
Yeah. Very, very very few people believe themselves the villain in their own story. Ted Bundy lost not one single nights sleep over what he did. He could justify every single act he committed, same with Himmler, Pol Pot, Bomber Harris, whoever. It takes a real cold heart to willingly, without reason and with full acknowledgement, commit true evil to another living creature. Most humans can't do it to other humans, which is why animal cruelty is viewed so abhorrently.
You can justify to a country exterminating a race, and not only get them to accept it but also get them to help you, but no one can justify torturing a dog or setting fire to a bin full of cats to themselves or anyone else.
Fun Fact, the Nazis where really, really big into animal rights, passing some of first and most in-depth animal cruelty legislation whilst simultaneously destroying 5 million people for being on the wrong side of a very similar faith.




Nah man, I went to statistically the worst school in the worst area in the worst country in the UK for attaining grades. I just enjoyed learning and got lucky that against the dross and glue sniffers, there was someone willing to make an effort of it.
Growing up in the UK helped, we had nothing in particular against the Russians so we never quite went down the US route of 'we won the war single-handedly, Russia helped the Nazis, only changed sides cos they were betrayed and they're still the enemy today'. Being educated on the back end of the Cold War was also helpful as they weren't even an actual 'enemy' any more. It was more terrorism when I was a kid, first from N. Ireland and later the middle east.
I did (and still do) hate learning for a test, rather than learning for knowledge. I don't (and never will) teach that way either and I see it as the big failing of at least how things are done here in the UK with the GCSE system rewarding accuracy, word count and mock-test regurgitation over analytical thought and effective intelligence.
Granted, you have a mandated topic set. But make it interesting and when the exams come, don't look for buzzwords. Look for the understanding.




I take some of it back. I've not seen this but looking at the content it looks rather interesting. May need to acquire this series. I do like the blended learning technique as well.




That I don't think you can do these days. 'Say anything', in a school forum in 2020 is terrifying for a teacher. They don't enjoy the trust and respect of students anymore and call out / cancel culture means that a teacher must stick within mandated guidelines so that if he says something, the educational organisation he works for should back him up, rather than throwing him under the bus.
A discussion like that these days would require trigger warnings, garner complaints. Especially as I can assume most opinions expressed may be conservative, slightly right leaning, common sense which tends to be pretty offensive these days.
And that's the mild stuff.
Imagine something more controversial.
I used to do the same with my recruits in rehabilitation. They had a lot of time on their hands waiting for injuries to heal and rather than wallowing in their rooms, I showed them how to think and research critically, how to deliver a lesson properly then would every single week tell them to prepare a lesson or a discussion about whatever they liked. As long as they could back up what they said, because I would be the Devil and challenge them, even if I agreed with whatever they said.
Now, by controversial, I mean thus. Imagine a room full of young men, potential paratroopers. Now throw in something like gun ownership, females in the infantry, rules of engagement, 'enemy' ideologies, conspiracy theories (and even deeper rabbitholes I won't go into on a public forum) and my particular favourite 'what would you give your life for'. Now they trusted me utterly, so we could have these discussions and no one would be offended and would take the points as they're intended.
Imagine having those, or one of your discussions today, in a school, college or university. It's why I'd never ever teach civilians.
You were lucky. Your teacher was even luckier.




I agree mostly, but just because you don't have all the facts doesn't mean you should select which facts you want. The best way to true objectivity is present all facts without your own filter or bias. Then you haven't subjected it to your bias.
Journalists in the main have forgotten this and will present truths and selective facts to push their own opinions clothed in 'objectivity'.
I'm totally aware true objectivity without bias is an impossible standard for humanity as we are selective on everything and always should be under some conditions (you want the best for yourself and your circle. That is selective bias and a key part of survival) but wilful mis-interpretation of facts to avoid offence or (much worse) skew opinions is wrong.




Yes and no. As much as I agree they (and many other things like this) shouldn't be humoured as much as they do, but I do believe they need a voice to be heard, if only so they can be looked at and discounted in a fair, measured and objective way.

One thing I've always tried to teach both here and back then is the ability to look beyond the what and into the why. My favourite counter to conspiracy theorists, irrespective of what the theory is, is 'why?'. And I use the same question for pretty much any thinking, reasoning and reading I do.
For example, I have always been curious to read Mein Kampf, for the same reason as why I have read the Bible. I am as much a fascist as I am religious, but to be a true atheist you need to have looked at the other-side otherwise your opinion hasn't been objectively formed through your own reasoning. But also thanks to experience and research, I understand the why of religion and have absolutely nothing against real practitioners of any faith.
In the same way you can not be truly against Fascism until you understand what exactly it is you are standing against. You simply haven't done the research which has lead to the current over and incorrect-use of the term. Unfortunately in this era, obtaining a copy as a white, male, conservative member of the british army tends to cause a lot of problems.
Interestingly because of bias and ignorance.

This also works great for conspiracy theories. Area 51, chem trails, 5g, the World Trade Centre, Flat Earth, Coronavirus, whatever. My first and usually last question is why. And not Why as in the motives of the government or the CIA, but why at the coal face. The NASA employee guarding the ice wall around the disc. The CIA operative setting the demolition charges in the WTC. Why are they in on this. What is their motivation. Why would someone back in the 50s convince the government to create an organisation whose sole function is to centralise 'Space' exploits and global communications in order to willingly mislead an entire planetary population (with the aid of every other nations equivalent) into believing orbits are real, the Earth is a ball etc in order to hide the fact the Earth is a perpetually accelerating disc being carried on the back of 4 elephants riding on an enormous turtle. Why would someone willingly join an organisation to guard the ice wall? Simple. To protect the public from falling off. Even if some or even most wall guards are willingly lying to the world (being 'evil), there must absolutely be some altruistic employees who joined to not protect the secret, but to protect people from going over the edge. So why wouldn't that person go public and say 'look, there's a fucking ice wall out there, stop trying to fly off the end.'?

You can't kill or silence ideas. Removing the platforms of extremists and conspirators doesn't make the problem go away, it just moves the conversations further underground where they are even less likely to be brought back into the light. Discourse is the only solution to much of the current world issues, having a long, adult conversation between civil, open minded, intelligent humans, coming to not just air grievances and point fingers or even convince one that the other is right but share experiences, learn common ground and accept each others positions.
We don't need to make each other believe the same thing. Once we finally accept that there are 7 billion assholes on this ball of rock, we each have our own opinions, all of us are wrong but that we share so much in common regardless of cultural background, social status and genetic differences, then things might go a bit better for us.

I'm not saying it'll stop us fighting. Conflict is competition. That is the natural order of things and is how it should be. But it means that maybe we'll stop taking it so fucking personally.
Wow that's must be a long one story (i mean reply) :3
 

Roger Jolly

Astronaut
Expert
Registered
#64
Yeah. Very, very very few people believe themselves the villain in their own story. Ted Bundy lost not one single nights sleep over what he did. He could justify every single act he committed, same with Himmler, Pol Pot, Bomber Harris, whoever. It takes a real cold heart to willingly, without reason and with full acknowledgement, commit true evil to another living creature. Most humans can't do it to other humans, which is why animal cruelty is viewed so abhorrently.
You can justify to a country exterminating a race, and not only get them to accept it but also get them to help you, but no one can justify torturing a dog or setting fire to a bin full of cats to themselves or anyone else.
Fun Fact, the Nazis where really, really big into animal rights, passing some of first and most in-depth animal cruelty legislation whilst simultaneously destroying 5 million people for being on the wrong side of a very similar faith.




Nah man, I went to statistically the worst school in the worst area in the worst country in the UK for attaining grades. I just enjoyed learning and got lucky that against the dross and glue sniffers, there was someone willing to make an effort of it.
Growing up in the UK helped, we had nothing in particular against the Russians so we never quite went down the US route of 'we won the war single-handedly, Russia helped the Nazis, only changed sides cos they were betrayed and they're still the enemy today'. Being educated on the back end of the Cold War was also helpful as they weren't even an actual 'enemy' any more. It was more terrorism when I was a kid, first from N. Ireland and later the middle east.
I did (and still do) hate learning for a test, rather than learning for knowledge. I don't (and never will) teach that way either and I see it as the big failing of at least how things are done here in the UK with the GCSE system rewarding accuracy, word count and mock-test regurgitation over analytical thought and effective intelligence.
Granted, you have a mandated topic set. But make it interesting and when the exams come, don't look for buzzwords. Look for the understanding.




I take some of it back. I've not seen this but looking at the content it looks rather interesting. May need to acquire this series. I do like the blended learning technique as well.




That I don't think you can do these days. 'Say anything', in a school forum in 2020 is terrifying for a teacher. They don't enjoy the trust and respect of students anymore and call out / cancel culture means that a teacher must stick within mandated guidelines so that if he says something, the educational organisation he works for should back him up, rather than throwing him under the bus.
A discussion like that these days would require trigger warnings, garner complaints. Especially as I can assume most opinions expressed may be conservative, slightly right leaning, common sense which tends to be pretty offensive these days.
And that's the mild stuff.
Imagine something more controversial.
I used to do the same with my recruits in rehabilitation. They had a lot of time on their hands waiting for injuries to heal and rather than wallowing in their rooms, I showed them how to think and research critically, how to deliver a lesson properly then would every single week tell them to prepare a lesson or a discussion about whatever they liked. As long as they could back up what they said, because I would be the Devil and challenge them, even if I agreed with whatever they said.
Now, by controversial, I mean thus. Imagine a room full of young men, potential paratroopers. Now throw in something like gun ownership, females in the infantry, rules of engagement, 'enemy' ideologies, conspiracy theories (and even deeper rabbitholes I won't go into on a public forum) and my particular favourite 'what would you give your life for'. Now they trusted me utterly, so we could have these discussions and no one would be offended and would take the points as they're intended.
Imagine having those, or one of your discussions today, in a school, college or university. It's why I'd never ever teach civilians.
You were lucky. Your teacher was even luckier.




I agree mostly, but just because you don't have all the facts doesn't mean you should select which facts you want. The best way to true objectivity is present all facts without your own filter or bias. Then you haven't subjected it to your bias.
Journalists in the main have forgotten this and will present truths and selective facts to push their own opinions clothed in 'objectivity'.
I'm totally aware true objectivity without bias is an impossible standard for humanity as we are selective on everything and always should be under some conditions (you want the best for yourself and your circle. That is selective bias and a key part of survival) but wilful mis-interpretation of facts to avoid offence or (much worse) skew opinions is wrong.




Yes and no. As much as I agree they (and many other things like this) shouldn't be humoured as much as they do, but I do believe they need a voice to be heard, if only so they can be looked at and discounted in a fair, measured and objective way.

One thing I've always tried to teach both here and back then is the ability to look beyond the what and into the why. My favourite counter to conspiracy theorists, irrespective of what the theory is, is 'why?'. And I use the same question for pretty much any thinking, reasoning and reading I do.
For example, I have always been curious to read Mein Kampf, for the same reason as why I have read the Bible. I am as much a fascist as I am religious, but to be a true atheist you need to have looked at the other-side otherwise your opinion hasn't been objectively formed through your own reasoning. But also thanks to experience and research, I understand the why of religion and have absolutely nothing against real practitioners of any faith.
In the same way you can not be truly against Fascism until you understand what exactly it is you are standing against. You simply haven't done the research which has lead to the current over and incorrect-use of the term. Unfortunately in this era, obtaining a copy as a white, male, conservative member of the british army tends to cause a lot of problems.
Interestingly because of bias and ignorance.

This also works great for conspiracy theories. Area 51, chem trails, 5g, the World Trade Centre, Flat Earth, Coronavirus, whatever. My first and usually last question is why. And not Why as in the motives of the government or the CIA, but why at the coal face. The NASA employee guarding the ice wall around the disc. The CIA operative setting the demolition charges in the WTC. Why are they in on this. What is their motivation. Why would someone back in the 50s convince the government to create an organisation whose sole function is to centralise 'Space' exploits and global communications in order to willingly mislead an entire planetary population (with the aid of every other nations equivalent) into believing orbits are real, the Earth is a ball etc in order to hide the fact the Earth is a perpetually accelerating disc being carried on the back of 4 elephants riding on an enormous turtle. Why would someone willingly join an organisation to guard the ice wall? Simple. To protect the public from falling off. Even if some or even most wall guards are willingly lying to the world (being 'evil), there must absolutely be some altruistic employees who joined to not protect the secret, but to protect people from going over the edge. So why wouldn't that person go public and say 'look, there's a fucking ice wall out there, stop trying to fly off the end.'?

You can't kill or silence ideas. Removing the platforms of extremists and conspirators doesn't make the problem go away, it just moves the conversations further underground where they are even less likely to be brought back into the light. Discourse is the only solution to much of the current world issues, having a long, adult conversation between civil, open minded, intelligent humans, coming to not just air grievances and point fingers or even convince one that the other is right but share experiences, learn common ground and accept each others positions.
We don't need to make each other believe the same thing. Once we finally accept that there are 7 billion assholes on this ball of rock, we each have our own opinions, all of us are wrong but that we share so much in common regardless of cultural background, social status and genetic differences, then things might go a bit better for us.

I'm not saying it'll stop us fighting. Conflict is competition. That is the natural order of things and is how it should be. But it means that maybe we'll stop taking it so fucking personally.
I can’t believe that fit in one post

Indeed, “why!?!”...step one of critical thinking kills most crazy talk in a moment, but critical thinking isn’t generally taught much or well and done badly is what got the crazy talk started

People are naturally inclined to fill in the gaps in knowledge which is actually a good survival skill generally, the trouble is when great gaps in important information are intentionally withheld by some authority and the fair little assumptions turn into vast unfounded stories

Here’s a great conspiracy theory:
‘They‘ are willfully driving the theories to obfuscate they truth

Like any conspiracy it’s maybe half true, but more like a billion little people doing a billion little things trying to cover their own misdeeds;
The fact that there are basically only so many corruptions to commit amounts to the perpetrators effectively creating what can look from the outside more like an organization than it really is, mostly just individuals that know how it is and what they can get away with or at most an array of loose knit tiny groups and supply chains that hardly know each other...so it goes whether for politics, tradesmen or drug cartels

This batshit crazy conspiracy nonsense is the product of boiling the electorate down to the lowest common denominator, the unintended consequence of simplifying the political platform and controlling the conversation a bit too much from the top down;
Obviously the public can’t know all about everything, but they should know that, there are ways to show us they have our better interests in mind but failing that we show up to the court house with guns and torches to protest public health measures and cast our votes for something worse

But I think the real floodgate behind all this was how ‘Nam really broke a lot of brains, not because of what happened but how veterans were expected to feel about it, rather than reconciling with their conscription and forgiving the awful nature of power they were held to justify their behavior and maintain their patriotism by stories which spiraled in all sorts of crazy...enter Rambo, the sanest of them all, the fictional guiding light who still managed to die like a terrorist (in the book), the story of the great wars was workable and could be held in the mind but Vietnam just couldn’t fit the box, but we tried so hard with a hellalotta crazy tape

I remember when Rush Limbaugh first hit the air waves, then Rupert Murdock and Fox, both of which seemed a genuine counterpoint the established media network at the time which were caught in a droning rut...but they just twisted over the years and choked reality out like invasive grapevines, now I yearn for those sure and steady networks dying in the shade
 

Roger Jolly

Astronaut
Expert
Registered
#65
Ha, mine didn’t fit...

I think the problem with religion is scientists, I see no practical purpose to proclaiming atheism but to offend those sensitive religious sorts

Hawking at least had the soul crushing tragedy thing going on but I seriously want to smack deGrasse when he opens his mouth, science communication is outreach not atheist recruitment

I don’t care about ‘religion’ but is it so damn hard to say “look at this glorious universe, this creation of God!...so fine and functional, we’ve studied it in great detail and yet we will never complete its vast mystery, come with us fellow believer and study these wonders that we might better ourselves and serve the one true purpose”
Is there anything wrong in that?
Sure work better than telling people they’re just complicated worms, god is a lie and we’re all going to die
 

Roger Jolly

Astronaut
Expert
Registered
#66
Ok, my last off topic remark to the pressing and thoroughly vetted issue of Hitler’s car

Galileo was a fool, he got what he deserved making the oldest and most common mistake in political power, a subordinate attempting to compel a powerful ally in a public way;
Given the choice to look strong or look like a stuffed cushion the Pope put Galileo away, it was the right thing to do

Here’s a brief column if your not familiar with the story beyond the ‘Church vs Science’ slogans which were never so much as half the truth:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...insulted-the-pope-not-the-church-1084369.html