/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18812706]

>pro-Vietnam protests were as large if not larger than anti
>the Rockefellers sponsored commie terrorists in Russia and the founder of Slavic studies in the US was one of the people working on it according to his own autobiography
>Allied pre-WWII propaganda doesn't mention the holocaust at all
>Dr. Seuss literally made agitprop cartoons for USG
>'progressive' was a term used by the KGB as a codeword for 'commie symapthizer' in written communications
>FDR is quoted as saying ,' the US' frontier ends on the Rhine'

Bruh... My mind is blown, what the fuck else was I lied to about?

[Anonymous No.18812733]

>Allied pre-WWII propaganda doesn't mention the holocaust at all
Why would it? The Final Solution didn't commence until late 1941, and the full details wouldn't emerge until after the war.

[Anonymous No.18812755]

read Rothbard's Conceived in Liberty (Vols 1-4), it's Moldbug-approved.

[Anonymous No.18812778]

>>18812733
Explain to me why every camp liberated by the allies is designated a "work/concentration camp" and every camp liberated by the Soviet Union is designated a "Death Camp."

[Anonymous No.18812792]

>mencius moldbug
Into the trash it goes.

[Anonymous No.18812795]

>>18812778
Irrelevant to the point that one wouldn't expect propaganda pre-WWII to mention the holocaust.
But I'm sure you have some jpegs which will answer your rhetorical question for me

[Anonymous No.18812822]

>>18812795
>Irrelevant to the point that one wouldn't expect propaganda pre-WWII to mention the holocaust.
I'm not OP. This point is irrelevant to me

[Anonymous No.18812829]

>>18812795
OP here, let me clarify - I shouldn't have said 'holocaust', what I meant was mistreatment of Jews, etc.

[Anonymous No.18812848]

>>18812829
>I shouldn't have said 'holocaust', what I meant was mistreatment of Jews, etc.

>Allies don't fearmonger about Fascist treatment of Jews
>Commies DO fearmonger about Fascist treatment of Jews

>Allies free camps, tell the word they are work camps
>Commies free camps, tell the word they are death camps

[Anonymous No.18812853]

>>18812848
Guess which group had a 90% Jewish leadership

[Anonymous No.18812857]

>>18812829
It's not like the biggest movie star in the world made a whole film about the nazi mistreatment of Jews or anything.
But its a retarded point. Why would it be a part of the propaganda *before* the war?
Or even during the war, you want soldiers to think 'the nazis are a threat to me personally' rather than 'the nazis are mean to some people in a foreign country'

[Anonymous No.18812866]

>>18812755
Triple the cringe

[Anonymous No.18812869]

>>18812857
>you want soldiers to think 'the nazis are a threat to me personally' rather than 'the nazis are mean to some people in a foreign country'
The point is that this contradicts the predominant modern narrative about US involvement in the war.

[Anonymous No.18812871]

The Rockefellers were also pivotal in popularizing contraception in the west. They were intending for it to be used by the poor and minorities but it ended up be used predominantly by white affluent people, contributing to the demographic crisis we're currently in which motivates many "replacement migration" policies in order to keep certain pyramid schemes like social security floating, as well as artificially continuing economic growth.

[Anonymous No.18812879]

>>18812869
>contradicts the predominant modern narrative
No it doesn't. The predominant modern narrative is Pearl Harbor, then US kicks Nazi ass, and maybe some Russians and Brits might have been involved somewhere.
I have never read anywhere that the US got involved in WWII specifically to rescue European Jews, or out of outrage at Kristalnacht or anything of that nature was the primary objective

[Anonymous No.18812895]

>>18812879
I guess you haven't been using Twitter then.

[Anonymous No.18812898]

>>18812706
kek neocons think this is edgy

[Anonymous No.18812910]

>>18812879
What country do you live in? The dominant narrative today doesn't even ascribe motive to the US, but brow beats our involvement and claims that we played a minor role, even though Stalin credited us with the victory.

[Anonymous No.18812912]

>>18812848
the commies made up the death camps to cover for the number of russian soldiers who never returned home.
They didn’t give a shit about jews you mongrel.
The Auschwitz number they made up was initially 4 million which long has been brought down a notch, but still in the land of make believe.

[Anonymous No.18812982]

>>18812778
Because there were a lot more Jews in Poland / Pale of Settlement, where the Russians were?

[Anonymous No.18813047]

>>18812706
Do average Americans really think that the US entered WW2 to save the Jews?
I heard Molbug say this several times, but I find it a bit hard to believe.
Even the popular American WW2 movies don't seem to promote this idea.

[Anonymous No.18813049]

>>18812895
>I guess you haven't been using Twitter then

[Anonymous No.18813086]

>>18812895
>I guess you haven't been using Twitter then.
Why isn't accfag permabanned?

[Anonymous No.18813112]

>>18812706
>progressive' was a term used by the KGB as a codeword for 'commie symapthizer' in written communications
So? It was also the name of major political movement in the US which was vastly different from communism. Woodrow Wilson classified himself as a progressive. So did Teddy Roosevelt.

[Anonymous No.18813117]

>>18813112
>It was also the name of major political movement in the US which was vastly different from communism
>vastly different

[Anonymous No.18813128]

>>18812706
>pro-Vietnam protests were as large if not larger than anti
Yes that was true in the beginning at least. It was very dangerous to oppose the Vietnam War in the United States and you could be beaten up.

[Anonymous No.18813375]

>>18813047
In most American high schools it is entirely likely that students will learn about the Holocaust in elementary school first and not touch on the other details of WW2 until Middle School.

[Anonymous No.18813679]

>>18813375
American here, I'm interested in science and philosophy but don't care at all about history. The only history I know is what I learned in school or happened to pick up here and there. On the topic of why we joined WWII, I would say that it can't have been a single event or interest which roused the entire American military. The war had been going on for years before we entered, and there were certainly endless debates in congress and between the president and his various advisers and military leaders on the merits of joining vs staying out. Ultimately the decision to join must have been based on a number of economic and geopolitical considerations, which I could not specifically enumerate. Maybe they judged that we would be less able to sell shit to Europe if a powerful self-sufficient Germany conquered the whole thing, they were wary of Germany gaining too much power, we could be invaded and conquered as well, our allies were pleading for help and it would look bad if they ended up winning and we never did anything, they thought we could gain money overall by winning and looting the losers, etc. Any historical analysis that boils it down to "pearl harbor" or "we had to save the Jews" or "Hitler bad" is just laughably retarded.