48 Liberal Lies About American History

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Revmitchell, Sep 15, 2008.

  1. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    .........FP: The atomic bombing of Japan?

    Schweikart: Some of the texts make it very clear the view the atomic bombing of Japan as “atomic diplomacy,” designed to frighten or intimidate the Soviets, not to force Japan to surrender. It’s silly. We know now from internal Japanese documents that the Japanese government wasn’t even close to surrendering prior to Hiroshima, and still hesitated after Hiroshima.

    FP: The Rosenbergs?

    Schweikart: Another clear example of blatant bias. The textbooks state that they were innocent, and the ones that admit the Rosenbergs were guilty go on to excuse what they did by saying, “It wasn’t that bad. What they provided wasn’t important.” I guess this means if a traitor gives away the army’s position, then the army moves and isn’t wiped out, everything is fine. In fact, none other than Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev said his top spy told him the information provided by the Rosenbergs was crucial to building the Soviet a-bomb.

    FP: Almost all American history books identify John Wilkes Booth as a “Confederate” and more than half identify Lee Harvey Oswald as a “Marine.” What does this say exactly?

    Schweikart: I think it’s one of the clearest messages in the book. Oswald shot Kennedy because he was a Marine---because of his “Marine-ness.” Only one mentions the fact that he was a communist, and in fact that is why he shot Kennedy, because as a communist he disliked Kennedy’s hard line against the Cubans and the Soviets. Booth didn’t shoot Lincoln because he was an actor! So it displays a rather stunning insight into how these historians view the military. In fact, in most of the books, there are very few---if any---“heroic” images of our soldiers. Some wounded soldiers in Vietnam appear, but you are almost never shown American military success.

    FP: Watergate?

    Schweikart: Watergate is a small part of incredibly negative and downright nasty chapters on Richard Nixon, usually interspersed with words such as “paranoid,” “disturbed,” “dark,” and so on. The evidence emerging from several trials in the 1990s, in which G. Gordon Liddy was sued by John Dean or his surrogates over claims Liddy made that put Dean behind the Watergate break in were all resoved in Liddy’s favor. That suggests that his version of the events---not Dean’s---is the right one. That doesn’t mean, nor do I write, that Nixon was not guilty of obstruction of justice. He most certainly was, but it came after Dean likely planned and directed the operation for some time.

    FP: Popular textbooks often state that it was Gorbachev, not Reagan, that ended the Cold War.

    Schweikart: This lie is prominent, and in some form appears in most of the textbooks. In fact, the ink given in American history textbooks is greater than that given to most other foreign leaders, ever. Gorby is portrayed as this good-hearted, wonderful reformer who had to convince that evil Ronald Reagan that nukes were bad. It’s absurd. Gorbachev had no intention of getting out of Afghanistan until the casualties mounted. He had to do something about the Soviet economy because contrary to what another U.S. historian, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., said at the time (that the economy of the USSR was great and would surpass that of the U.S.!), it was collapsing like a house of cards. Reagan kept the pressure on, especially with “Star Wars,” and the evidence is overwhelming from the former Soviet archives that this was what happened. Reagan forced Gorbachev to change, not vice versa.

    FP: Students are told that the Reagan economy was characterized not by high economic growth, but by deficits. What is the true historical record?

    Schweikart: Unemployment plummeted under Reagan; interest rates dropped from double digits to under one percent; Americans became homeowners like never before; income rose; and the economy added a stunning 14 million net new jobs in eight years---at a time when all of Europe added . . . zero.........


    More Here
     
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780
    bump...................
     
  3. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0

    This guy is seriously disturbed. He doesn't seem to be able to handle anyone with different ideas than his own. He shares that with most radical rightists.
     
  4. North Carolina Tentmaker

    North Carolina Tentmaker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    0
    He may be "Right" but he is also correct.:applause:
     
  5. Bob Alkire

    Bob Alkire
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2001
    Messages:
    3,134
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree with you!!!
     
  6. ktn4eg

    ktn4eg
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    3,517
    Likes Received:
    1
    Another bleeding heart liberal take on this is that how terrible the US was for dropping the bomb on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that we somehow need to apologize and ask Japan to forgive us for being so cruel and heartless for doing this.

    As a part of my graduate studies for my MA in history, I did some research into this.

    FACT: The fire bombing of Tokyo and other cities killed many more Japanese than both the atomic bombs combined did.

    FACT: Both American and captured Japanese intelligence projections tell us that the dropping of these 2 atomic bombs not only shortened the war by some 3-4 years, but also, by doing so, it saved probably many more Japanese lives than those that were lost in both of the atomic bombings combined (not to mention the American lives that it also saved).

    The closer that the Allied forces got to the Japanese mainland, the fiercer the Japanese fought. This was one of the reasons why the fighting on Iwo Jima was so intense. That island was considered by the Japanese to be part of the their home land.

    Both American and captured Japanese intelligence estimates very closely agree upon:
    1) Where the Allied forces would be landing on an invasion of the Japanese mainland islands,
    2) The number of lives on both sides [including Japanese civilian lives] that would have been lost, and
    3) How long it would take for this invasion of the Japanese mainland islands to be completed.

    FACT: In deciding which cities ought to be targeted for the dropping of atomic bombs, the US ruled out several Japanese cities for various reasons. (Did you ever wonder why Tokyo itself wasn't the site any of the atomic bombs?)

    Should the US have dropped the atomic bomb on Japan?

    When a nation is at war, vital decisions have to be made that will invariably mean that people (and, sad to say, often times that includes innocent civilians) will be killed. This is a tragic but real fact of war time military planning.

    In this case I firmly believe that President Truman (who'd only been President for 4 months and knew nothing about the atomic bomb prior to his swearing in as President upon FDR's death in April, 1945) made the right choice in authorizing the atomic bombing of Japan.

    IMO, when the Japanese government apologizes to the US for the bombing of Pearl Harbor and pays us full reparations for the loss of American military and civilian lives and material that was on American soil, then (and only then) should the US government even think about possibly apologizing for what happened at Hiroshima and Nagaski.

    (NOTE: This does not mean that I harbor any hatred for the Japanese people because I do not. I'm indeed thankful for God calling to the mission field of Japan such men as our BB friend John of Japan and wish him only God's continued blessings and success there.)
     
  7. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    He seems reasonable to me!
     
  8. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,503
    Likes Received:
    40
    There are none so blind as those who WILL not see!
     
  9. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    An alternative view point...
    www.lewrockwell.com/raico/raico22.html
     
    #9 Doubting Thomas, Sep 16, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 16, 2008
  10. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,287
    Likes Received:
    780

    The truth can hurt sometimes.
     
  11. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,894
    Likes Received:
    294
    This goes on even in everyday news now.

    Former Marines who commit violent crimes are almost always identified as former Marines. Soldiers are identified only if they were a member of some kind of elite force and swabbies are identified only if they were SEALS. Former Airmen seem to get a pass.
     
  12. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    The entertainment industry is largely responsible for creating the mythical images of current and former warriors. The Viet Nam war movies seem to have set the tone. The latest Iraqi war movies are just as bad. People see this and they believe the stuff. Some very few veterans even try to adapt to fit the image so as to be accepted - in a negative sense - by the rest of society. Studies, however, show that the percentages of misconduct among the military population is lower than among the corresponding non-military population. Therefore, a person is less likely to be harmed by a current or former warrior. That must be why the term is "going postal" - not "going military"! But, on that subject, at a conference I attended some years ago, a high ranking postal service special agent told me when we were kidding around about things that in a population of some 800,000 workers - I think that's the number he quoted - there's going to be some crazies and few employers have more workers than that. Since there is now only one postal worker per post office - or so it seems from the lines - this is less of a problem than it once was. The government knows how to fix problems - just ask the Democrats.
     
    #12 Dragoon68, Sep 17, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 17, 2008
  13. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Imagine that: someone from this website who is complaining about Liberals. Of course, his proof is simply that he says so.

    Notice that none other than David Horowitz is a contributor to this site. For all of you who attacked Obama for his associations in the past, adhering to guilt by association, Horowitz must also be at the top of your list for his past associations. Or do you hold those on the right to the same standard?
     

Share This Page

Loading...