“Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the track of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened.” - Dwight D. Eisenhower 1945

The image is a black and white photo of a large pile of human skulls and bones in front of a barbed-wire fence.

  • Creeoyfred@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Device information

    Sync version: v24.03.26-14:56    
    Sync flavor: googlePlay    
    
    Ultra user: false    
    View type: Slides    
    Push enabled: false    
    
    Device: Armor_17_Pro    
    Model: Ulefone Armor 17 Pro    
    Android: 12
    
  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    As an indigenous person in Canada i know from personal experience that there are a lot of bastards everywhere that don’t want to believe a lot of things that happened in the past.

    • Angry_Autist (he/him)@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Humans are not inherently rational creatures, it’s something that has to be cultivated.

      Most people do not bother trying to cultivate it, and replace it with ‘gut instinct’ and ‘the guy at the bar said’.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Genuinely, Ike was the most recent Republican president that I truly respect. He was not perfect by a long shot, but he had his head on straight compared to many other politicians for a LOT of topics, considering the time in which he was raised, in the military, and serving as president.

      • Bubs12@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I would say he is solidly in the middle of the party switch that took a long time. Nixon was still his VP and FDR, a progressive democrat, was before him. But there were still a lot of conservative democrats in the south. The parties used to be a lot more ideologically idiosyncratic.

      • xkbx@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        The whole party switch thing is a bit of a misnomer, or mislead - the fact is, you had completely different worlds at the time. For example, Lincoln’s republicans supported the abolition of slavery, the abolition of alcohol, and westward expansion. The opposing democrats at the time supported white supremacy and protections of religious minorities. Then go forward a few years, and Democrats (like Wilson) wanted income taxes and silver-based money, while Republicans (like McKinley) wanted tariffs and gold-based money. Then after that, you get closer to what we know now, which is Democrats wanting larger government and welfare for the poor, while Republicans wanted less government and anti-communist foreign policy.

        So there’s less of a switch and more of different gradual challenges to different shifting groups of ideologies. It just looks like a switch when you look at individual issues that look like they hold the same water as other issues today.

        For example, you can have people that are absolutely for welfare, but also against religious freedoms; the poor need to be housed and fed, but everyone needs to be Christian. You could have then an opposing party that absolutely hates the idea of being theocratic, because they believe in the individual person’s freedom to be themselves, but at the expense of people who need support. Sort of the same way how Libertarians and mostly left circles can all agree that drugs shouldn’t be criminalized today, but have polar opposite beliefs for economic policies and government services.

        Or smth idk I’m not an expert, I’m just taking a rly long shit

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          The only time I’ve ever heard it come up is in the context of slavery. So that’s probably why most people call it a switch. It’s a single issue.

            • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              That’s not my experience, and I’m describing my experience.

              My experience is that people like to say “Democrats are the party of slavery”. And then someone else says “the parties switched”.

              • zeppo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                The parties did switch but it’s more complex than a black/white thing since political ideas have changed over the past 100 years. And as such, comparing is political parties of the current time to those of 180 years ago is absurd.

                Dixiecrats switching to republicans is definitely a real thing and it happened around the 50s and 60s. In any event, which political party likes confederate flags is a decent question at this point. The party of Lincoln? That would be odd.

        • paddirn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          You should’ve ended that whole thing with, “But don’t let all this distract you from the fact that in 1998, The Undertaker threw Mankind off Hell In A Cell, and plummeted 16 ft through an announcer’s table.”

        • BakerBagel@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          The Republicans started off as the party for rich Northerns. They took the abolitionist stance partly for humanitarian reasons, but also because industrialization of the South with it’s massive slave labor pool would have crushed Northern industrialists. The GOP is still the party of Northern business owners, they just convinced white workers that they were also looking out for them.

          • Sauerkraut@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Hmm, how do we square that with the fact that Lincoln was very pro-labor and he argued against the myth that wealthy capitalists create jobs?: “It is [falsely] assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor[…] Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration” -Abe Lincoln , First Annual Message to the Senate and House of Representatives

    • protist@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      After the Civil Rights Act was signed by LBJ, there was a massive party realignment, and the Republican Party of Eisenhower’s time died

    • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Isn’t he also the one that was responsible for overthrowing the democratic governments of a lot of countries he thought were too communist?

  • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    If you visit the Holocaust museum you can see the only known photos documenting the attrocities as they happened. Someone snuck a camera and film in to a Auschwitz prisoner who managed to take 4 or 5 grainy photos showing the guards piling and burning bodies.

    • gimsy@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Meh, he also nuked hundreds of thousands of civilians, under the pretense to stop the war. If the Japs had the nuke and used on civilians in the US and US won the war anyway, i am sure it will be remembered more than concentration camps

      • LongboardingLad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        This isn’t factual. The first two Nuclear Devices were used without the knowledge of Eisenhower and was horrified when he learned of the aftermath. Someone else commented further down on his atrocities and while I believe the statements made, I cannot confirm those. I can confirm that he was kept in the dark about the use of nuclear weapons, and stopped a third device being used

    • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The great works of Eisenhower while president of the US

      Funding, and arming, paramilitary death squads to keep the price of super essential things like, like bananas, low by having the CIA create a coup in Guatemala. The resulting 40 year ethnic cleansing of Guatemalan natives. Project Ajax in Iran that over-threw their government for the Sha. Operation Haik which attempted to coup Indonesia in 1958. Purging the government of dissenters under the auspices of them being gay, and basically making the burgeoning lavender scare policy. Was instrumental in the formative days of what became the Vietnam war. Created, and authorized, policy that basically gave the US DOD and CIA cart blanche to interfere with foreign powers in the interest of the US’s industry.

      These are just the things I can come up with off the top of my head.

      • smayonak@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        We have to distinguish between the Dulles Brothers and Eisenhower. The brothers were two of the biggest gangsters to ever step foot in DC. Because they were allowed to run operations without the knowledge of the president and they lied and manipulated presidents is not completely clear what Eisenhower knew.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        He also initially opposed the removal of Mossadegh, went against Israel, France, and Britain to defend anticolonial efforts in Egypt, ended the Korean War, and cut support to the pro-US dictator Batista, which was extremely helpful to Castro’s victory.

        The past is rarely simple. Men are capable of great mistakes and great evil while also being capable of great good and virtue. Not even getting into questions of institutional inertia.

    • archonet@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I dunno, I had a lot of respect for McCain while he was still kicking. I might not have agreed with his politics but he was never malicious, unlike the majority of Republicans nowadays.

      • CptEnder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah McCain was every Democrat’s favorite Republican. Dude just wanted to serve his country without all the social bullshit, can’t really fault that.

        • Baalial@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          He was a Republican and a good man. Modern Republicans celebrate god awful hate filled attitudes. Not much different from the far left, just opposing policies, really.

          • archonet@lemy.lol
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Not much different from the far left

            Careful, reminding the tankies about the horseshoe upsets them, and there are a lot of tankies on Lemmy.

            • Baalial@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              I appreciate the sentiment and the intent and I’m not aiming this attitude at you, but i really don’t give a fuck. I am so incredibly tired of tiptoeing across egg shells on the internet. If someone can’t handle reading a sentence that contains an opinion or idea that they don’t agree with, then they need to quit being a complete fucking bitch or quit using the internet. The ability to offend is my right, and offense is a necessity.

              • clickyello@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                2 months ago

                not a tankie but I don’t like your attitude, it costs zero dollars and zero cents to not be like that. be nice.

                • Baalial@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  I don’t care what you don’t like and I’m under no obligation to be nice.

                  This has been me being nice, it will only get worse from here.

            • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              You’re not “reminding” tankies about horseshoe, you’re telling everyone you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about whenever you mention the term.

      • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Cross reference it with a list of those who subsequently endorsed him and after eliminating those names maybe you can find one or two. Maybe.

    • g0d0fm15ch13f@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Right, but if you read that link, you’ll see that that quote isn’t direct but instead a historians recollection of “words to that effect” from Ike. The following quote CAN be directly attributed to him:

      I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to “propaganda.”

      • Melllvar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        From his war memoir Crusade in Europe:

        The same day [April 12, 1945] I saw my first horror camp. It was near the town of Gotha. I have never felt able to describe my emotional reactions when I first came face to face with indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency. Up to that time I had known about it only generally or through secondary sources. I am certain, however that I have never at any other time experienced an equal sense of shock.

        I visited every nook and cranny of the camp because I felt it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief or assumption that ‘the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda.’

        Some members of the visiting party were unable to through the ordeal. I not only did so but as soon as I returned to Patton’s headquarters that evening I sent communications to both Washington and London, urging the two governments to send instantly to Germany a random group of newspaper editors and representative groups from the national legislatures. I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and British publics in a fashion that would leave no room for cynical doubt.

      • trolololol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        So this post is propaganda, but still based on truth

        I’d still call it misinformation and miss direction

  • theparadox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    With the power of generative AI and MAGA chucklefucks, now some bastard will just claim its a deepfake or a deepstate.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      It sucks, and we’re not ready for it.

      One reason we know that the moon landings were real is that the technology to fake them simply didn’t exist in the 1960s. They didn’t even have video tape back then, let alone computer graphics. Add to that the fact that almost everybody in the US got their news from one of 3 TV networks, or from newspapers that actually cared about and could afford to do real journalism. That means that when people saw the moon landings they knew they were witnessing something real. It was unfortunately also easy to cover up real things (like MK Ultra) when you only had to deal with 3 TV networks.

      These days, especially for Americans, there are no authoritative sources of truth. (Australia has ABC, Britain has BBC, Canada has CBC, but the US has no not-for-profit news source that doesn’t have to worry about pleasing advertisers). Add to that that every kind of media is subject to “deepfakes” and other kinds of manipulation.

      And, this now affects historical events. When people in 1969 witnessed the moon landing, almost nobody thought it was fake. In 1969 it would have been relatively easy to remove almost any doubts anybody might have. But, memories are faulty and it’s so easy to create fake evidence, that now even people who were alive and watching it live when the moon landing happened are now starting to doubt it.

      In courts, we require evidence of various kinds because we know how unreliable people’s memories are. But, it feels like we’re heading for a future where your own memories may be more reliable than any research you’re able to do. And, we’re just not ready for that post-truth world.

      • WamGams@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Uhm… PBS/NPR exists and is frequently cited as the most trustworthy outlets.

          • WamGams@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Your stipulation was non-profit news that is trustworthy. How does PBS/NPR not meet that definition?

            • theparadox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              Despite Public Radio being creates by an act of congress, good old Ronnie Reagan slashed it funding in 1980. Currently, it gets ~25% of its funding from the government, but only a fraction of that is direct funding. Most funding comes through member stations getting funding from state or Federal sources, or from state funded universities. That means it needs corporate or nonprofit sponsors that can impact the incentives of a media organization.

              PBS gets a bigger chunk, ~40% if it’s funding from State, Federal, and educational sources. Still more dependent on external funding, such as corporate advertising, than internal.

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              My “stipulation”? It’s really weird of you to consider what I said as a “stipulation”, rather than simply a description.

              In any case, how does PBS/NPR not meet that description?

              The BBC earns £5 billion per year in revenue. On the news side, it generates 120 hours of radio and TV output per day, and employs over 5000 journalists, including 50 different foreign news bureaus. It’s the world’s largest broadcast news organization. Canada’s CBC has a budget of approx $1.38 billion in CAD. CBC’s news operation is the largest news gathering operation in Canada and includes a 24 hour news network. Australia’s ABC has about a $1b/year budget, but in Australia news is split between two public broadcasters, SBS and ABC. Those two are the most trusted news sources in Australia, with the BBC as the 4th most trusted. The most trusted private network is ranked 5th.

              If the US wanted something similar in its media landscape, it would have to have a budget of at least $10 billion, or $40b if it were to have a footprint similar to the BBC. How does that compare to the actual budgets of PBS and NPR? PBS is at well under $1b total, NPR is at only $250m Of that, the total government contribution between the two of them is $500m.

              In every other major English-speaking country, the public broadcaster is the main source, and the most trusted source of news. They have significant budgets that they use to employ huge numbers of journalists. BBC, in particular, has such an immense news organization that it has a huge worldwide footprint, not just one local to the UK.

              NPR and PBS just don’t compare. They may “exist”, but just barely.