Comments on: Having Fun Falsifying History

By: Republican Nate Bell adornes facebook page with fabricated Hitler quote « Arkansas Media Watch

Mon, 25 Jul 2011 22:25:16 +0000

[...] Much more widespread was propaganda based on national security, racial fears, and family values. 2. The alleged Hitler quote is a fabrication. Not of Bell’s making, heaven forbid – he just copied and pasted it from one of [...]

By: Syd Walker

Syd Walker — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 09:59:36 +0000

I love that one Colin. Missed it at the time.

Someone should set up a website for bogus historical quotations and encourage contributions. Ther’s a lot of talent out there

By: Sven

Sven — Sat, 10 Jul 2010 02:45:26 +0000

Syd Walker: I’m guessing the ‘far worse outcome’ would be a few billion dead, such as the majority of non-Aryan peoples.

By: Colin Jacobs

Colin Jacobs — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:27:41 +0000

But didn’t (imaginary) Franklin D. Roosevelt say:

“We hold these things sacred and inviolable. The right to choose our leaders; to determine the direction of our own future; and to say what we please, how we please, without fear of government sanction. If, in the struggle to preserve these holy liberties, excesses and misquotations occur, then we repent of them – but only when the battle is ultimately won.” – F. D. Roosevelt, Fireside Chat, May 22 1943

So, according to imaginary Roosevelt, it’s ok to use the quote from fictional Hitler.

By: Mr. Anon

Mr. Anon — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 01:28:05 +0000

hey mate, thanks for your article.

i’m a closet ww2 history studier, just fascinates me and i love reading about it, all of it, every tidbit…

anyways, i tried to reference the hitler quote to an online copy of mein kampf…

nada.

thanks for your article, i’m glad to see some people are on the ball

big respect.

By: Jinjirrie

Jinjirrie — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:57:10 +0000

Arrghh … erroneous quote (which was obtained from Wikipedia as I recall) redacted from my site – thanks for the sleuthing.

By: Syd Walker

Syd Walker — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:19:06 +0000

Thanks for your comment keza, although I could scarcely disagree more.

Condoleezza Rice seems to be on the same wavelength as you are. She regards Iraq as a Strategic Achievement

Regarding World War Two, what ‘far worse outcome’ do you have in mind, I wonder?

The actual outcome – ~60 million dead – seems a rather bad outcome to me.

By: keza

keza — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 06:02:53 +0000

I enjoyed this. Thanks.

Most of what leaders have said historically (and what they say in the present) needs to be seen as spin. However, that’s not enough. Even when we can discern the hypocrisy, a decision about whether to support or oppose the policies of one side or another, requires us to focus on the likely outcome. Your “quote” from Churchill is interesting in this respect. He would never have actually said that of course, but we know that he was in fact motivated, (at bottom) by the interests of British imperialism. Nevertheless as far as WW2 was concerned, siding with Churchill over Chamberlain was necessary. Chamberlain’s appeasement policy would have produced a far worse outcome. And in the end it is outcome which counts.

I supported the US overthrow of Saddam Hussein for that reason. I didn’t believe it was really about weapons of mass destruction at all. For various reasons (which I don’t have space/timeto outline in a simple comment), I believed that in the case of Iraq, US policy was driven by a recognition that a democracy in Iraq (rather than a US puppet) was in its interests.

Despite the death toll, I continue to believe that the outcome in Iraq will be (already is) an infant democracy, and that if the fascist regime there had been left alone, the coming years would have seen the implosion of the regime, followed by the sort of blood bath that I don’t even want to imagine.

That doesn’t mean that I just believe US rhetoric. One takes sides on the basis of likely outcome, which requires making an effort to work out where history is headed.