WW2 education is obviously partisan

[MORON]

Currently accepted WW2 education favors the Allies over the Axis, this is obviously partisan as it is anti-Nazi. The pro-allied bias is strong. Simply pointing out those events are truth does not change the fact that they are presented in a unfavorable manner designed to sway minds. Most of the sources used by the pro-allied camp are also highly biased, often coming from nations that have outlawed alternative interperations altogether. The said ideas have also obviously been repeated too many times and is a waste of time.

I say we need fair and balanced coverage so the whole truth can be presented.



+0

[Dinner]

Well said. It basically sums up the position taken by several on this board about any criticism of the current Congressional leadership or the President.

[Nubclear]

The pro-allied bias is strong.

Originally posted by Oerdin
Well said.

Oerdin is a closet Nazi, and therefore everything he says is a lie.

[Dinner]

Indeed. Tas catches on to their party line well.

[SlowwHand]

How do you make gassing Jews and bombing a nation not in the war, while their diplomat is a guest of the president, sound good?

If you can spin that into a good thing, my hat is off to you.

[Dinner]

Right over sloww's head.

[RGBVideo]

Re: WW2 education is obviously partisan

Originally posted by MORON
Currently accepted WW2 education favors the Allies over the Axis, this is obviously partisan as it is anti-Nazi. The pro-allied bias is strong. Simply pointing out those events are truth does not change the fact that they are presented in a unfavorable manner designed to sway minds. Most of the sources used by the pro-allied camp are also highly biased, often coming from nations that have outlawed alternative interperations altogether. The said ideas have also obviously been repeated too many times and is a waste of time.

I say we need fair and balanced coverage so the whole truth can be presented.

Welcome back

or are you one of those semi-perma lurkers? good copycat

[Chemical Ollie]

Oerdin has a lurker DL from 2001?

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Oerdin has a lurker DL from 2001?

Pfft. Who doesn't?

[BeBMan]

Partisans were important in WW2, but regular troops should count as well.

[Ecthy]

Well I'm not sure how much of what is said here is irony or not, but I'd like to add that history is not written by the victor of any war but rather always presented in the light of the values prevailing at a time. So we favour the allied side over the German not because the Allies won but because the war crimes as well as crimes against the humanity committed by most parts of the German military-industrial complex of the time oppose our values. Allied war crimes are not ignored, they're just less interesting because they're more likely to be caused by soldiers' boredom or overstress than by adhrence to an ideology that diametrically opposes our values. And no, values are not imposed by the victor of any war.

As far as Iraw goes, no parallel can be drawn because we're not judging that conflict as a part of our history. Lacking hindsight and political as well as emotional distance, there can be no evaluation of that scene. Hence any historical context is unsuitable for comparison with a current event.

[Arrian]

Etchy, this is all about Oerdin's recent threads in which people have noted he's turned politically partisan to the point where he's having trouble making a good argument (again, I put this down to utter fury at the current government, and I have a great deal of sympathy because I feel similiarly). This is the cutsie response to cries of "partisan hack."

5/10.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Right over sloww's head.

No. I was talking to you, nitwit.

[Arrian]

*whoosh*

[Dinner]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


No. I was talking to you, nitwit.

Read what you wrote again. You took the OP serious when it was meant to be an ironic and slightly sarcastic take on a different thread.

Arrian: Moron got this one 100% correct. That is exactly the side which you took in the other thread when you claimd that article was partisan. The article did not endorse the other side nor did it promote the other side yet you rushed out and claimed that it was partisan because it honestly catologued recent abuses by the Congress. You are acting COMPLETELY like the OP. You are claiming that anything which is critical of one side is partisan even if that critique is completely accurate and true; just like the review of the Nazis in the OP.