I have been watching the 75th anniversary celebration - unfortunately presented by that slimy Joe Scarborough on MSNBC (not my choice) - and it is amazing how many vets have turned up. I keep forgetting how many of them are still alive after seventy five years.

I am old enough to have known many people who fought in WWII, including my own father who was wounded in that conflict. He was not involved directly in the Normandy landings, but he was involved in some of the "mopping up" operations that took place after the bridgehead was established.

Anyway, thank you to all the boys from the USA, Canada, the UK, Poland etc who helped deliver Europe from the clutches of National Socialism.

What a nightmare for us all and for our friends if we had lost! And what a sacrifice we had to pay for that win losing so many heroes.

My father was in the navy shortly at the end. My mother was also a rosy the riveter for a short while.

My grandparents generation really knew how to throw a party.

I was 9 years old and Yes!! I do remember it

It is good to remember the many people who died for our freedom.

Germany produced TWO world wars within less than 40 years and
now it has become the real power in EU .

We need to be ever vigilant not to allow (or foolishly keep funding) another rise of a potentially sinister force in Europe.

Germany is definitely a friendly nation these days, although it has many social problems (not for this thread!!!). Germany is unlikely to start a major war ever again. It is also one of the least likely European nations to go Fascist again (my bet would be on Hungary if it ever happens again. Maybe one of the ex-Soviet states which are not in the EU.). Even so, Germany can't entirely shoulder the blame for WWI - that was the Austrians. (Hitler was an Austrian too - so maybe we should watch out for them!)

On the flipside, Germany hasn't been a major problem for Europe during most of its history. Not during medieval times, not during most of the 1800s. Germany gave us the Reformation and Enlightenment, which led to scientific developments etc, as well as boogeymen like Hitler (actually an Austrian) and Marx. It's not a one sided thing. Germany did some bad things in Africa etc, but less so than tiny Belgium and nearby England and France.

> Germany can't entirely
> shoulder the blame for WWI - that was the
> Austrians. (Hitler was an Austrian too - so maybe
> we should watch out for them!)

Austria? A bit reductive, no?

You don't think Russia's intervention through Serbia into Bosnia-Herzogovina was a precipitating factor? What about the Germans urging Austria to retaliate against Serbia even in the event of war because Germany wanted an excuse to attack Russia? How about the unconditional British and French guarantees of Russia in any fight with Austria-Hungary?

World War One resulted from a series of mistakes by all the major powers starting with Bismark's rejection of the Reinsurance Treaty with Russia in 1890. The notion that it was the Germans, or the Germans and Austrians, that caused the war is seriously flawed.


----------------
> On the flipside, Germany hasn't been a major
> problem for Europe during most of its history. Not
> during medieval times, not during most of the
> 1800s.

You realize, I presume, that the country of Germany didn't exist until 1871. Right? The reason it didn't threaten Europe before then was because there was no German state, no German government, no German army, no German foreign policy.

"Germany" or "the German lands" were terms used for the culture region long before Prussia and Co. decided to swallow the rest up. Like "Greece", which was an idea long before any united Greek state emerged.

If you go to Germany today, you'll find that, not unlike the UK, Spain or Italy, there are numerous "national" identities which are much deeper than those between US states. There is a clear north-south divide for one, and many people self-identify primarily as Bavarians, Saxons, Franconians etc as much as Germans.

The idea that Gavrilo Princip started WWI is dreck, plain and simple. It's the kind of simplistic rubbish they teach in high school. The roots go deeper and even you know that. Important people were assassinated in Europe through much of the 19th century, including one of the tsars and US presidents, but nothing like WWI ever came of that.

Germany has not been a major problem over the last decades because the U.S. military is there and it was a divided country.

With the creation of EU, however, Germany has quickly become the driving force in Brussels.

It would be foolish to think that problems cannot arise again, and quickly, once EU gains the strength it desires.

Elyse Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Germany has not been a major problem over the last
> decades because the U.S. military is there and it
> was a divided country.
>
> With the creation of EU, however, Germany has
> quickly become the driving force in Brussels.
>
> It would be foolish to think that problems cannot
> arise again, and quickly, once EU gains the
> strength it desires.

The EU (and its predecessors) has had some sinister forces in it from the beginning like the Prince Bernhards and Kalergis that most ordinary Europeans are never educated about. I don't see the EU as a big threat to the US though, more a danger when it starts interfering in Russia and its former colonies.

The British were a bigger force in the EU than they ever gave themselves credit for, and are now leaving. The French are the other members of the main trio, but they lost the language war. Many European countries have a historical resentment of Germany, and with good reason. It came out recently, when Germany tried to spank Greece economically. Italy comes out no. 4, but their politics is a joke.

The biggest German danger in the EU is that it is modeled after the 19th century Prussian takeover of Germany through the Zollverein. Customs unions leading to a state. Switzerland is a better model. A similar process happened in Italy with disastrous results. I suspect the object of the EU is to expand into North Africa (Morocco) and the Middle East (starting with Turkey). Other regional trade blocs along the same lines will merge with the EU creating an international hyperstate which will span most if not all of the world.

Jordan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Germany" or "the German lands" were terms used
> for the culture region long before Prussia and Co.
> decided to swallow the rest up.

Precisely. That's why Germany didn't exist as a country and could not threaten anybody else before 1871.


--------------
> If you go to Germany today, you'll find that, not
> unlike the UK, Spain or Italy, there are numerous
> "national" identities which are much deeper than
> those between US states. There is a clear
> north-south divide for one, and many people
> self-identify primarily as Bavarians, Saxons,
> Franconians etc as much as Germans.

Yes. But irrelevant.


-----------
> The idea that Gavrilo Princip started WWI is
> dreck, plain and simple.

Did I say that Princip or his movement started WWI? I did not. What I said was that the great powers set into motion a crisis that was looking for a trigger. If it wasn't the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, it would have been something else.


----------
> It's the kind of
> simplistic rubbish they teach in high school. The
> roots go deeper and even you know that.

Yes, "even I know that." Which is why I explained how mistakes in Berlin, Vienna, Moscow, Paris and London were far more important than Sarajevo.


------------------
> Important
> people were assassinated in Europe through much of
> the 19th century, including one of the tsars and
> US presidents, but nothing like WWI ever came of
> that.

Yes, it was not Sarajevo. It appears that you have finally grasped my point that events in Bosnia and in Vienna were not the driving force behind WWI.

There you go again...

>Germany didn't exist as a country and could not threaten anybody else before 1871.

Irrelevent nonsense and also untrue: Study up on Frederick the Great. 1871 saw the estabishment of "Germany" as a country, but otherwise your claim reduces to something indefensible.

Wiki is sufficient for this one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia

>>At the Congress of Vienna (1814–15), which redrew the map of Europe following Napoleon's defeat, Prussia acquired rich new territories, including the coal-rich Ruhr. The country then grew rapidly in influence economically and politically, and became the core of the North German Confederation in 1867, and then of the German Empire in 1871. The Kingdom of Prussia was now so large and so dominant in the new Germany that Junkers and other Prussian élites identified more and more as Germans and less as Prussians.

SLC
Hoping this isn't seen as an attempt to derail the thread that justifiably seeks to honor WW II veterans

> >Germany didn't exist as a country and could not
> threaten anybody else before 1871.
>
> Irrelevent nonsense and also untrue: Study up on
> Frederick the Great. 1871 saw the estabishment of
> "Germany" as a country, but otherwise your claim
> reduces to something indefensible.

Uh, Prussia was not Germany. Some might consider the fact that they were different countries "relevant."

Frederick the Great was king of Prussia 140 years before Germany even existed as a country. At the time of his death, Prussia had more territory in Poland than in Germany. For the next century Prussia would continue basically irrelevant in Europe. The great powers were France, Austria, Germany, and Britain. Germany was a vacuum in the center of Europe. It's "threat" to Europe laid in tempting other countries to intervene--witness the 30 Years War and the Napoleonic Wars--in ways that destabilized the continent.


------------
> Wiki is sufficient for this one:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia
>
> >>At the Congress of Vienna (1814–15), which
> redrew the map of Europe following Napoleon's
> defeat, Prussia acquired rich new territories,
> including the coal-rich Ruhr. The country then
> grew rapidly in influence economically and
> politically, and became the core of the North
> German Confederation in 1867, and then of the
> German Empire in 1871. The Kingdom of Prussia was
> now so large and so dominant in the new Germany
> that Junkers and other Prussian élites identified
> more and more as Germans and less as Prussians.

As I was saying, Germany came into existence as a state in 1871. It was united by the Prussian victory over Austria in 1865, the triumph over France in 1871, and the subsequent decision of the lesser German powers to join in the creation of a new Prussian-dominated state. In short, you have just explained what I wrote above.

Thank you for that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2019 03:52PM by Lot's Wife.

Did you really need to name-call Scarborough for this? Sheesh.

This is a day I feel profound reverence for what was accomplished and the cost. I hope future generations can also carry "Never Again" in their hearts with gratitude.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did you really need to name-call Scarborough for
> this? Sheesh.

I despise the man. He is a lizard. Surprisingly, Trump, who I'm *not* normally a fan of, gave a pretty reasonable speech and stayed on message. For a change.

> This is a day I feel profound reverence for what
> was accomplished and the cost. I hope future
> generations can also carry "Never Again" in their
> hearts with gratitude.

If there ever is a big world war again, it shall probably be nuclear and nothing like the previous ones. :(

Two days ago some in the media noted the 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre. With the mostly peaceful fall of the USSR and the Warsaw Pack nations, the Chinese thought they could accomplish the same in Bejing.

They failed, as we know. Local Hun commanders would not act on the demonstrators, so Mongolian units were brought in, who gunned the demonstrators down and ran over them with tanks and vehicles. Two days later every victim, living and dead, was yanked out of hospitals, never to be heard from again.

I bring this up because in 1939 the Allies said, "enough!" abandoned their hopes for peaceful resolution, and faced the necessity of confrontation. Nowadays, all too many in the West want to pursue profits in the China trade, notably the "Lords of the Universe" -- Alphabet/Google/Youtube, Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, etc. All have cooperated with the Red Chinese in purging media of Tiananmen Square content.

If you want to be squared, look into the Chinese Social Credit System. "1984" is neanderthal in comparison. And the "Lords" indicate they are amenable to using their power to control American thought.

Who says they failed? Nonviolence succeeds because of state violence. Look at the progress China has made in the last 30 years. Granted, they have a way to go in terms of individual freedom. The right to be stupid is more curtailed in China, which has consequences for prosperity.

The state as God offends our sensibilities, which I think is why we ignored them for so long. Our dogmas had us thinking it couldn’t possibly work.

China is an export nation, as is Germany.

The days when they could throw their wares cheaply onto the U.S. market ,thus pulling $ money out to enrich their own nations, are over.

We can be grateful to have a govt which now insists on fair tariffs for the U.S.

Was just reading today that the U.S. trade deficit has shrunk down to around $ 50 trillion.
May we continue along that line!

The U.S. is not obligated to build up other nations into competitors while impoverishing our own nation.

And if they hate our govt for wising up, so be it.

You are ill-informed. Let's start with your quantitative claims.


------------
> Was just reading today that the U.S. trade
> deficit has shrunk down to around $ 50 trillion.
> May we continue along that line!

You are off by 1,000%. The current account deficit is not $50 trillion but just under $500 billion.

Moreover the trend in recent years is not downward, as you claim, but upward. In 2016 the deficit was $433 billion, in 2017 it was $449 billion, in 2018 it was $489 billion. And the numbers are up still further in 2019.


----------------
> The days when they could throw their wares
> cheaply onto the U.S. market ,thus pulling $ money
> out to enrich their own nations, are over.

False. See actual data above. The present US government has adopted policies that are expanding the bilateral imbalance.


---------------
Now let's look at basic economics.

> The days when they could throw their wares
> cheaply onto the U.S. market ,thus pulling $ money
> out to enrich their own nations, are over.

That betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how markets work. Tariffs increase the cost of goods and services to consumers. Hiking tariffs accordingly impoverishes consumers. China has been subsidizing US households, enriching them, for decades. In exchange for what? For American IOU's. The US government gets to decide the value of the dollars it ultimately pays to surplus countries like China.

As for the other argument that tariffs increase US jobs, it is instructive to look at what is happening to agriculture in the upper Midwest? Don't just look at state media: look at actual soybean prices or corn prices. Or look at defaults on loans, bankruptcies, farm closures. Farmers are getting crushed. Also ask Harley Davidson or the other producers who are shutting down US production because of the loss of preferential market access in countries with whom the US used to have trade agreements.


------------------
> The U.S. is not obligated to build up other
> nations into competitors while impoverishing our
> own nation.

Hiking tariffs impoverishes Americans. Reducing growth in other countries curtails US exports and hence employment. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling snake oil.


--------------------
> And if they hate our govt for wising up, so be it.

Right. Poorer Americans are better off than wealthy ones. Unemployed farmers are better than working ones.

Brilliant policy.

We, the U.S. are lucky that we are not an export nation and do not depend on the good will of others, especially EU

Our total exports only amount to ~ 12% to 16 %, mostly within the Americas.

China, Germany on the other hand are totally dependent on exports to countries like the U.S. etc

We need to stop listening to foreign propaganda coming from China and EU etc

A "trade war " per se does not exist.
These nations are just mad that the U.S. is no longer willing

to play the patsy.

The president's insistence on tariffs that treat the U.S. fairly is right on target.

You all are, of course,entitled to your own opinions.
Just stop being so gullible when other nations run down the U.S.

> We, the U.S. are lucky that we are not an export
> nation and do not depend on the good will of
> others, especially EU

False. The US is a typically continental economy. Countries that exist in regions with other countries have higher exports/GDP ratios. That said, the US is about 16% and China is about 19%. So it is incorrect to say that the US is not an exporting nation.


---------------
> China, Germany on the other hand are totally
> dependent on exports to countries like the U.S.
> etc

False. See above.


----------------
> We need to stop listening to foreign propaganda
> coming from China and EU etc

We should just listen to domestic propaganda?


---------------
> A "trade war " per se does not exist.

Perhaps you should look that term up in a dictionary.


--------------
> The president's insistence on tariffs that treat
> the U.S. fairly is right on target.

I see you didn't understand what I wrote above. Ask farmers in the upper Midwest or workers in manufacturing industries if the president's policy is "fair."


-------------
> Just stop being so gullible when other nations
> run down the U.S.

What would you recommend that should I believe? The second-hand accounts of someone who doesn't have a clue about the size of the deficit or about trade economics? Or, on the other hand, the data?

A basic point about epistemology: facts are more important than interpretation. If your theory is belied by the data, it is not the data that are wrong.

Of great concern is this year's Harvard class inviting the Kanzler of Germany to be the speaker - and giving her a standing ovation.

These dumb kids have been taught by their leftist professors to intellectualize 2 world wars and overlook the terrible price America and its allies paid.

Those of us who understand and listen to German politicians in their native language know that it CAN happen again, given they gain enough power and opportunity.

Amerika, erwache !

Germany's "friendship" is fickle and depends greatly on how much longer the U.S. is willing to fork over $

babyloncansuckit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nonviolence succeeds because
> of state violence.

Sorry, Babylon, that's not the case, not in Tiananmen, not in Munich. Non-violence failed utterly there, as it is now failing in Venezuela, where the regime has the guns, the opposition does not (very effective gun control, there).

Look at the progress China has
> made in the last 30 years.

Only if you're talking about military and economic progress, which has been enabled by forced regimentation and obedience. People with "poor social credit" cannot get jobs, open bank accounts, buy intercity tickets, get internet access. Joining the Party is the pinnacle of achievement. "Conform--or else" is what it's all about. Silicon Valley is a major player in this.

Granted, they have a
> way to go in terms of individual freedom.

An understatement of the first order. Over 1 million Uighur Muslims are being held in detention centers in the far western province of Xinjiang, subject to torture, brainwashing, family separation, and executions.

> Our dogmas had us thinking it couldn’t possibly work.

Not our dogmas so much as our lust for power and profits, especially the high-tech titans, but also the extensive network of importers (Amazon, Walmart, apparel merchandisers, etc.) who have made America dependent upon a massive supply chain of cheap goods.

With China, we're at a similar psychological and political point the West was at with Hitler in 1935 or 1936. The evil was finally being recognized, but most people held out the hope that somehow "things will work out."

“With China, we're at a similar psychological and political point the West was at with Hitler in 1935 or 1936. The evil was finally being recognized, but most people held out the hope that somehow "things will work out."”

I think my sphincter just shrunk.

But seriously, there’s a difference. China hardly ever invades other countries. It’s not like they need bullets to win, even if a hot war would work for either side. It would make a few at the top very rich, which may be what this trade war is about. And WWII, which could be considered a defect of capitalism.

They know exactly who’s pillaging America, and it’s not the Chinese.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2019 04:17PM by babyloncansuckit.

It's those cursed Huns again.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's those cursed Huns again.


I think they mean Han Chinese. Which is different.

The Chinese government is still unapologetic about murdering thousands of its people at Tianamen for a peaceful protest and told the west to "mind its own business". Most young Chinese are unaware of the Tianamen Massacre, because it is hidden from them.

The PRC is superficially more open but it is still a dictatorship which is not a republic let alone a people's one.

An important point, Jordan--how the tech titans are involved in the rewriting of history. And yes, "it can happen here."

Joe Scarborough is one who has the Trumpfsky sychophants upset--and reduced to puerile namecalling--because he's a Republican who hasn't succumbed to "Koolaid poisoning."

I'm glad he and Mika appear to have found some happiness together, and she's "tempered his conservatism" nicely.

I hope most are ignoring Jordan's obvious attempts to derail his own thread.

SLC
Watching some History Channel programs with a lump in my throat
And trying to remember which drive-in my folks took us to
To watch "The Longest Day."

My uncle landed at Utah beach.

Too many died that day.

We often forget the brave men, women and even children that gathered and passed intel to the allies so they could be successful.

75 years later, it terrifies me that I’ve noticed some high schoolers have Fascist beliefs and believe Hitler was a great ruler. I’ve even seen some of the edgier Mormon Young Men draw swastikas on the church whiteboards. People need to pay closer attention to history!

I have so much respect for the World War 2 fighters sacrificing their lives to fight fascism.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2019 01:05PM by redskittle.

redskittle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 75 years later, it terrifies me that I’ve
> noticed some high schoolers have Fascist beliefs
> and believe Hitler was a great ruler. I’ve even
> seen some of the edgier Mormon Young Men draw
> swastikas on the church whiteboards. People need
> to pay closer attention to history!

I'm afraid to say this is nothing new. I saw it back in the seventies and eighties, and they were as near in time to the war as we are to them.

Even so, there is a difference between drawing swastikas (which is edgy - unless you're Asian, in which case it's a trad symbol.) and being an out-and-out National Socialist.

The term "fascist" is overused though, which has diluted its threat level. Someone tries to stop another person from letting their dog poop on the sidewalk and they're called a "fascist". Someone tells their neighbor to turn down their music at four in the morning and they're "fascist". Most of the people who get called fascist today are nothing of the sort.

I know how some people think of me, but I do not consider Hitler a great leader. I think the man was a friend of no one, or hardly anyone - maybe his wife, his dog and the Goebbels. Other than oratory, his only trick was war. And even in that he was better at attack than defense. He was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, not just the Holocaust itself, but countless other people. He was bombing Germans by the end of the war to make them fight harder.

> The term "fascist" is overused though, which has
> diluted its threat level. Someone tries to stop
> another person from letting their dog poop on the
> sidewalk and they're called a "fascist". Someone
> tells their neighbor to turn down their music at
> four in the morning and they're "fascist". Most of
> the people who get called fascist today are
> nothing of the sort.

I couldn't agree more. It is sloppy, misleading, and often dangerous when people ignore the meaning of words and use them as politically-motivated bludgeons. "Fascist" is perhaps the best example of such misuse, followed closely by terms like "cultural Marxist" and "socialist."

Orwell would be appalled.

This thread is about National Socialism, which is Fascistic. That ideology did have some socialist elements, and also lifted elements directly from Bolshevism while opposing it publicly. (Still - Molotov-Ribbentropp etc). Even Mussolini started off by editing the socialist newspaper "Avanti!".

One of the terrible ironies of D Day is that Stalin's forces in the east helped our boys retake western Europe by pinning down most of the German military there. There was little mercy for Eastern Europe which had both the Wehrmacht and Red Army raping and pillaging their way across them. Most Poles are still bitter about this in my experience. They were under continuous totalitarian rule from the late 1930s to the late 1980s, well into my lifetime.

> This thread is about National Socialism, which is
> Fascistic.

The thread was not originally about National Socialism. Perhaps you would like to reread the OP, OPie? Otherwise you are vindicating Dave's conclusion.

And you just turned the thread to political rhetoric. Perhaps you should reread your post about the word "fascist."

Ignoring that, you are now using "fascist" the way you just condemned. "Fascism" was an Italian phenomenon. Nazism was distinct, and the use of "fascism" for German politics is a sloppy confusion of two different systems.


----------------
> That ideology did have some socialist
> elements, and also lifted elements directly from
> Bolshevism while opposing it publicly. (Still -
> Molotov-Ribbentropp etc). Even Mussolini started
> off by editing the socialist newspaper "Avanti!".

The reason that "Fascism" had some socialist elements was because Mussolini was a leftist, elected as such in 1922. Correct? He represented the danger of mass populism. When a people throw away their liberties for a cause, they don't really care about the cause as much as the charismatic leader. So it is entirely possible for an opportunistic charlatan to take power at one end of the spectrum and then move to the other.

Mussolini is the best example on the right, but we see the same thing on the left with post-Soviet Russia and contemporary China, which are now effectively right-wing dictatorships.

"Anyway, thank you to all the boys from the USA, Canada, the UK, Poland etc who helped deliver Europe from the clutches of National Socialism."

My final paragraph. Enough said.

We agree on that.

Lenin's faction in the (Marxist)Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party was never a "majority-ist" group, not when they appropriated the term in the 2nd (Russian) Socialist Party Congress (Brussels, 1903), or during the 1917 Revolution or Lenin's putsch in October of that year.

I see Bolshevism as this:

"We are the 'majority,' in spite of what our numbers indicate."
"We speak for the majority ('the people'), whether you like it or not."
"You are psychologically suspect if you disagree with our ideology."
"Disobey us at your peril."
"Resist us, and we will ruin you--or worse."

There are shades of Mormon history about that... After all one group of LDS led by Brigham Young pulled a similar trick. (I see BY as more an American Stalin than a Lenin though).

What happened was that the Bolsheviks picked a single meeting, sent all their people to that event so that they had a majority, and then claimed that status ever after. It was a good tactical move, giving themselves a propaganda edge over the actual majority party, the Mensheviks.

Yes. And like what Stalin did after Lenin.

Acknowledging this as a simplistic analogy, can we say that Stalin was to Lenin as Brigham Young was to Joseph Smith? -- theMetaphoricFiend

PS I was wondering where you were, Madame Lot--these threads draw you like bees to nectar!

Yes, caffiend. I have often thought of BY as Stalin to JS's Lenin.

The political machinations, ruination of rivals, assertion of superior understanding of the Founder's doctrines: very similar. Let no one ever underestimate the power of the apparently lowly bureaucrat.

We agree on something. There is a definite parallel between them. Brigham Young was restricted by Washington, but things could gone the other way. The USA could have very easily had an earlier civil war which went very differently and destroyed its foothold in the west, and then Deseret could have emerged and then Briggy could have gone full Stalin.

I can't recall the reason, but the Jewish Socialists walked out of the conference in a huff. Lenin did a head count, and figured he had a majority for the next few motions. Hence--his appropriation of the term Bolshevik ("member/party of the majority") ... --the MenshevikFiend

Yes, that is right.

My grandfather landed at Arromanches on D+6, commanding a supply unit of trucks just behind the front line for the RAF and took them all the way to Germany. His was also one of the first Allied units into the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp.

We owe such people everything.

Tom in Paris



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2019 01:45PM by Soft Machine.

Soft Machine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We owe such people everything.

I agree completely.

Without "such people"....is literally unimaginable.

Given the facts as they existed at that time, we DO owe them everything--including all of the daily realities of life we are now privileged to take so much for granted.

My thanks go out to your grandfather, and to all of those who sacrificed so much on our behalf.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/06/2019 02:48PM by Tevai.

Well, I told you all what the concerns are.

The U.S. will do well to keep monitoring any quests for power by the EU
Of course they hate it when a U.S. president throws sand into their machinery and plans.

But we would hate to see history repeated.

Nothing like D Day will happen again. Not in western Europe anyway. I don't see the EU and US as particularly hostile. The danger from the EU is if the EU starts trouble up with Russia or the Middle East, but the US has proven capable of that by itself.

Future world wars if they happen will be electronic and automated. They may well finish our species off for good. A bit of food storage alone won't save us. It doesn't bear thinking about.

Why did this chat go political? It was supposed to be celebrating the 75th anniversary of D-Day!

There are a few people who will take any excuse to stretch the "No Politics unless it's related to Mormonism" rule to its limits. It's one of the reasons the rule exists in the first place. I'm actually quite surprised this thread has survived untouched this long.

redskittle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why did this chat go political? It was supposed to
> be celebrating the 75th anniversary of D-Day!

This is my question too.

How does a commemorative thread about the brave and the fallen soldiers of D-Day turn political?

The emphasis of today's observance is on the valor of the troops who, seventy-five years ago, served as part of this immensely important military action--and partisan politics (either national or international) has no place, in my opinion, in these tributes to our, and our allied, military forces.

So, will this thread be "cleaned-up"?

It's pretty clear when and how it turned political. The answer lies in the fifth and sixth posts. I would think that challenging such posts is no more illegitimate than the posts themselves.

As for D-Day, yes it is something to be commemorated with gratitude. But so too are the principles underlying the war. I, for one, will defend those principles.

I agree with Tevai here. Wait... did I just write that??


HH =)

Aren’t there other boards for this type of politically based banter? What, in Thor’s name, does this have to do with LDS/Mormon recovery?

Not sure this thread shouldn’t be deleted. Seems like a topic for another group dedicated to recovery from. Nazism, MSNBC, or WWII.

Moderators?

HH =)

This is a community, and we do acknowledge important events and commemorations: Christmas, Mother's Day, wildfires or floods or tornadoes which affect our members, national holidays (both American, and Canadian, Thanksgivings are acknowledged here), and important anniversaries of some events which changed the world.

D-Day is certainly a part of this group, and is important not only to Americans, but to many other nations as well.

As a community of people from around the world, not everything here has to do with LDS/Mormon recovery.

If OT (or O/T) is in the title, this would indicate that the thread is outside LDS/Mormon recovery.

If this bothers you (which is perfectly okay), just do not click on that OT, or O/T, thread.

> D-Day is certainly a part of this group, and is
> important not only to Americans, but to many other
> nations as well.

This is true. It is also why it is important not to forget what D-Day and the principles behind it meant to other countries and the rest of the world. It is why mischaracterizations of other countries and other peoples should be challenged.