2d ago

Steve Bannon Gives Apparent Nazi Salute During CPAC Speech, Mirroring Elon Musk | Video

www.yahoo.com Steve Bannon Gives Apparent Nazi Salute During CPAC Speech, Mirroring Elon Musk | Video

The right wing activist and convicted felon's gesture was identical to the one Musk made at Donald Trump's inauguration The post Steve Bannon Gives Apparent Nazi Salute During CPAC Speech, Mirroring Elon Musk | Video appeared first on TheWrap.

politics @lemmy.world

Redditsux @lemmy.world

2d ago

Steve Bannon Gives Apparent Nazi Salute During CPAC Speech, Mirroring Elon Musk | Video

www.yahoo.com /news/steve-bannon-gives-apparent-nazi-033041080.html

236 15

You're viewing a single thread.

265 comments

I shall now remind the world that the USA didn't care all that much about nazis in WW2 until it got attacked by Japan in Pearl Harbor and felt the need to react.
- Bullshit. We supported Europe similarly to how we've been supporting Ukraine.
  We didn't have boots on the ground, but we did everything short of that. It's why Pearl Harbor happened.
  
  Pearl Harbor happened because Japan was not happy about American imperialism in east Asia. Japan wanted to have its own imperialism in that region all to itself. It didn't have much to do with America supporting European Nazi resistance.
  
  We turned away Jewish refugees, and we also had our own Nazi political party. Support for the Nazis during WW2 was at a high point among the population before the US entered the war. We did not as a nation support Europe, and in fact there were large protests across the US against FDR supporting the allies by bypassing Congress. Speaking of Congress, they specifically created and expanded the Neutrality Act to prevent FDR from providing aid to the allies.
  So no, there was much less help from Congress for supporting the allies than there is for supporting Ukraine, and it wasn't a popular move by FDR to boot.
  
  We did not as a nation
  You sure like to cherry pick what counts for "as a nation". The fact is we sent significant supplies and support to Europe throughout the war.
  I can't find a source for percentage support for the Nazis. While it existed, it seems to be pretty minor. Even the infamous Madison Square Garden rally has more to the story.
  It bears mentioning that while there were 20,000 enthusiastic American Nazis inside the venue, there were also thousands of protesters outside. The anti-Nazi contingent included everyone from veterans to housewives to members of the Socialist Workers Party. The New York Times reported that the streets of midtown Manhattan were packed, and at one point the orchestra from a Broadway musical near Madison Square Garden performed a rendition of "The Star-Spangled Banner" for the protesters. A mysterious crusader even set up a loudspeaker in a rooming house near the scene and blasted a denunciation of the Nazis out the window: "Be American, Stay at Home." The New York Police Department had deployed a record number of 1,700 officers around Madison Square Garden, enough "to stop a revolution," the police commissioner said.
  
  we sent significant supplies
  By "sent" you mean lent or sold. The US made a profit off the Lend Lease war programme. The UK was still paying them back decades later.
  You're right about the US doing the same to Ukraine. That's been touted as a Lend Lease situation as well.
  
  Let me make sure I got your argument correct before we continue. You're arguing that the country that didn't even desegregate their schools a hundred years ago had "pretty minor" support for white supremacists even before they were literally forced by the military under a progressive president to allow black people to attend their schools, because only 20,000 people attended one nazi rally in the time before the internet or interstate system, when word spread by mouth or by local newspaper.
  That's some straight up white historical revisionism.
  If you were actually interested in the truth, which I very highly doubt you are, because Americans tend to suppress any criticism of their historical racism, I would suggest you read Hitler’s American Friends: The Third Reich’s Supporters in the United States by Bradley Hart. The American history with and love of nazism is glossed over or often ignored, because the whole idea of the grand stand against fascism is the greatest story we tell ourselves. It's mostly propaganda, and people like you go along with it because it makes you uncomfortable to address the fact that the US would have willingly joined the nazis if it weren't for the president standing in the way of things.
  
  People like Bradley Hart write books like that as a cautionary tale. People like you just abuse any chance you get to shit on America.
  There's better unethical stuff in South America. You should spend your efforts there.
  
  "Better unethical stuff" than nazism? I see, so you're that sort of person.
  
  And you're the sort of person to call me a Nazi at the slightest provocation.
  
  I didn’t call you a Nazi. The implication was, you were a liberal. Fascism has historically not been much of a threat or concern for you lot.
  Which is why the US and Europe is in the predicament they’re in.
  
  What about the role of IBM in the logistics of the Reich, from military logistics to railroad and camp management for the Holocaust?
  
  Zyklon Blue
  
  I agree with your first point, but it's not the main reason why US was attacked - even if it was 100% isolationist, it would have been attacked anyway, because Japan can't really fulfill its imperial ambitions, if they have the US pacific fleet in its backside.
  
  Japanese also thought the Americans would give them better terms of surrender than the British or thr Soviets.
  
  America supported the axis and allies in ww2
  
  No, American companies continued to sell goods to the Axis until it was no longer illegal. The US federal government never supported the axis
  
  Even after setting embargo's the us didn't enforce private company's from exporting/importing. And before the embargo's the us were sending arms. The one of the countries America didn't work with was Russia and is partly why the us worked with the Nazis. They saw it as a means to an end in the goal to defeat communism.
  
  Russia did not exist then.
  
  I'm not saying America was pro-nazi (though some were). I'm saying the US could've fought Japan and just continued to fund the Soviets. The red army was more than up to the task of sweeping through every country held by the Nazis after they broke them in the East.
  They didn't though, they prioritized victory in Europe ahead of victory in the Pacific. That is because they were racing against the communists to liberate as much as Europe as they could. They were already planning for the next war.
  Remember how the justification for nuking civilians in Japan was so American soldiers didn't have to give their lives taking the island? So why sacrifice American lives in Europe if you know the USSR is months away from totally steamrolling Nazi Germany? There has to be a geopolitical reason.
  
  The Nazis may not get broken in the East without the Americans and the Allies in the West.
  We have plenty of things to be Anti-American about right now without trying to cherry pick, and oddly frame WWII.
  
  The Battle of Stalingrad ended on February 2, 1943, with the surrender of German forces after months of intense fighting, marking a major turning point in World War II.
  D-Day occurred on June 6, 1944, marking the Allied invasion of Nazi-occupied France.
  Your response to me only makes sense if you think I am saying that the Soviets could have beaten the Nazis on their own with no lend lease program or the British holding out against the Nazis.
  Am I saying that? Can you quote one of the sections of my comments that is giving you that impression?
  If you would stop getting defensive for no reason and actually read my comments, maybe you'll actually be able to understand what I am saying?
  Let me lay it out, as clear as fucking possible for you:
  Americans provided material support to allies fighting the nazis
  The goal of this is not to stop fascist ideology, but to keep the status quo maintained in Europe and Asia
  The Soviets win Stalingrad and begin pushing west. Nazi defeat is all but inevitable.
  American inaction here would result in a red german and red france. Possibly even red Italy and the overthrowing of Franco's fascist regime in Spain.
  Americans prioritize victory in Europe over the Pacific, even though the Japanese navy is the bigger threat to them.
  Ergo:
  It's not the defeat of fascism that the Americans were interested in, it was maintaining a status quo and preventing communism from spreading through Europe
  THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS THE UNITED STATRS OF AMERICA
  
  There are several accounts pushing these strange lies about WW2. They don't seem to be bots or Russian accounts but this bullshit has to be coming from people intentionally spreading propaganda and disinformation.
  
  Sometimes it's okay to discuss things and consider them from a different angle than the one you're used to. It can help give you a new perspective on things. Broadening your understanding of things.
  
  Does it mean that anonymous social media can't exist without state actors using it to push propaganda?
  I also don't want everything I've posted to social media to be attached to my resume when I'm applying for jobs.
  I've thought about some kind of system where a trusted actor would have access linking individuals actual names to pseudo-anonymous online identities. But one, that's a stretch. Two, Elon would have downloaded that database first. And three, it doesn't even fully solve the problem. Maybe you can make it a crime to allow foreign individuals to use your verified social media account.
  But all that's just spitballing on the bleeding edge of social media. And our government isn't exactly known for being on the bleeding edge of tech.
  I do think something like this could be good for the German government in particular.
  
  A lot of the US supported nazi Germany directly as well. They were supporting both the allies and the nazis for a while.
  
  No you didn't, you let your competitors destroy eachother and joined in at the end to reap the rewards.
  Maybe it is like ukraine. Let others do the fighting for you.
  And you know nothing about Pearl Harbor.
  Everyone knows you desperately wanted war with Japan.
  The oil embargo was almost a declaration of war.
  But you wanted Japan to do it.
  You deliberate placed the fleet in a remote place as bait, totaly indefensible.
  Everyone with brain knew this at the time but their objections were dismissed.
  
  Bro you defending Imperial Japan?
  
  By far the lesser evil.
  And that says a lot about the US
  
  Read a book Einstein
  
  get fucked loser
  
  Damn, brains and wit all in one? I’m sure you get lots of attention
  
  At least I know what I'm talking about.
  Get back to your lemm.ee echo chamber if you don't want to learn inconvenient facts
- Hell, we only got involved with the Nazis because Hitler declared war on the US after the US declared war on Japan for pearl harbor.
- I would go as far to say the reason they did d-day wasn't to defeat the nazis, but to liberate as much of western europe as they could before the soviets set up social republics in france and the netherlands.
  
  Then you go so far that you're off the map.
  
  No, the US stayed out of the war until after the Nazis had been defeated at Stalingrad and were getting pushed out of Russia. The reason the US didn't enter the war earlier was 1. Forces in the US wanted Europe destroyed since all it would take is a push to over industrialize our economy and we could emerge as the worlds leading superpower (which happened) and 2. The powerful forces in the US were really hoping the Nazis would defeat the Soviets.
  The other poster is more correct, we entered the war to clean up the western front and prevent the USSR from taking the credit for "winning", and prevent expansion or even diplomatic leverage.
  
  Completely ahistorical garbage. If the US wanted the Nazis to beat the Soviets, then why did they send billions in equipment and supplies even before Stalingrad.
  
  Its not that they wanted the Nazis, but the US will choose a dumptruck of fascism over a thimblefull of socialism every time. The US wasn't officially aligned with Germany, there were forces in the US that wanted to see them defeated, and protect allies like GB. However many powerful american businesses were closely aligned with the nazis anc they wield a lot of political clout. IBM's second biggest customer was Nazi Germany. So don't act like there was zero conflict of interest. But as I said the incentives weren't pro-nazi, they were pro-US superpower and anti soviet. There certainly were powerful forces within the US that explicitly wanted fascism here though, the Ultra podcast covers this well in 2 seasons.
  Your version of history where there are good guys and bad guys that clearly demarcate the winners and losers in a completely justified in every way war, is the ahistorical garbo. People just can't fathom that the US would act underhandedly to give itself an advantage despite every second of this country's foul imperialist history. As if these things are decided by your personal morals rather than by politics and power. God what naive idealism.
  In the war room, when it looks like the worlds greatest enemy are going to defeat your greatest enemy, should you intervene on behalf of your greatest enemy? No you wait and see how things shake out. Its always surprising when people just refuse to think about political economy and instead believe the "stars and stripes forever, super patriot, the US is the greatest country in the world" delusion.
  
  You are stitching together facts to create a false larger narrative and sound like a either a 15 year old who has just discovered the world isn't black and white, or an Alex Jones enjoyer .
  
  If you don't have anything to contribute to the discussion, then you could just not comment.
  When my facts contradict your narrative im a 15 year old antisemitic conspiracy theorist, meanwhile, you throw away all those facts to protect your narrative in the name of truth. Its a little disingenuous.
  I admit I'm coming in hot and heavy with a particular view and i believe these dynamicx are real and important to understand. but these were just a few particularly nasty threads in a long, complex and difficult war. Treating these topics fairly and honestly is the work of books, stacks of volumes even, and unlike you, I won't say that my view, which merely corroborates the perspective of the other commenter, is the comprehensive final word on WW2 history. That's all I was doing was corroborating, giving some facts to support their perspective which you arrogantly dismissed without a squeaky fart of evidence. Again, disingenuous.
  I assure you that I'm not 15 (multiply that by 3) nor a casual internet theorist, so dont bother trying to rattle me the way you might be able to with someone from one of those groups of people. In any case, whatever box you have to put me in to make yourself feel better than me is fine, but it doesn't make you right or even like a good faith participant in this discussion. I hope you get a lot of mileage out of that little insult, I hope it makes you feel special and very smart. From my limited experience, those feelings of fake superiority might be one of the only things you have going for you. But feel free to prove me wrong with something like an intelligent comment. It doesn't take much to impress me, being a dumb, childish, hateful oaf that you want to paint me as.
  
  If no D-Day then the Soviets just liberate Europe all on their own. Why risk so many American lives unless you're preparing for the next war?
  
  ... Oh, well. If the Soviets had it all handled then why indeed lol. You're an uneducated nut spouting conspiracies as stupid as those put out by Putinists.
  
  You're welcome to insult me all you like, but then have the balls to answer the question i proposed to you.

265 comments