I find it incredible how time can change the perception that people have of certain events. I have often stated here how much things have changed in only my lifetime. I try to keep an open mind, and do my best to consider different takes or angles on any given event. I find that the media almost always interprets events differently than myself, and perhaps that is why my readership is growing. (I thank each and every one of you who find my site worth visiting.) It is always refreshing to read a different perspective on things, especially if you enjoy having somebody provoke you to thought.
Thinking outside of the box is something that takes a little getting used to, but once you are used to breaking down the expected parameters of thinking, it becomes quite fun. I have to say, however, that thinking along a different path is only profitable as long as you do not deviate from the truth, and regrettably, I believe that many who report today’s events do that on a regular basis.
I am not writing this column to try and put today’s mainstream media down. I wouldn’t have a problem with that, but that is not my intended destination. I want to hopefully cause you to look at the way things today are being reported by applying today’s viewpoints to World War II.
I love learning, and enjoy periodically going through the web reading up on history. I am fixated on the two world wars for some reason. I don’t necessarily like the stories, but the human spirit and the triumph of good over evil always inspires me. Had Hitler not made that fateful error in judgment, that being to engage Russia before taking Great Britain, we may all perhaps be speaking Deutsche.
To think that the entire world picked sides and that so many picked the right side is quite the amazing feat, especially when you look at the uncertainty among today’s politicians and today’s political climate. If we were thrust into a similar situation as our grand parents were, would we fare as well? Would the truth guide us like it did them?
If World War II were to unfold today, many things would be different. Of course the technology has changed but I am not going to address that. Let’s assume that the machines of war and technology today were as they were in 1940. What would be radically different?
For one thing Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, would find more than enough support among the North American left and the Hollywood crowd to effectively keep America and Canada out of the war long enough to take Europe. I can almost read the jacket cover for the DVD that Michael Moore would produce today. He would have a big documentary showing how George Bush had American planes painted to look like Japanese fighters, and that Pearl Harbour never really happened. “What happened over Hawaii? Were those really Japanese planes, or a well choreographed plot to drag America into the war?” Adolf would be dressed up by the press to appear human, perhaps a great leader of his people, and the nasty allies would have to contend with the photos of dead Dutch people that died as we “liberated” them.
Some friends of the American president would have a connection to a ship building company, and the media would claim that as the reason the President was sending so many ships across the Atlantic. He knew that the German’s would sink them, thus enriching his shipbuilding friends.
Winston Churchill would be arrested for inciting violence towards Nazis under Britain’s strict anti-hate laws, and Canada would offer to sell Germany some of our oil. After all, it’s a free economy.
The U.S. and Britain would try to boycott Germany, and would ask the United Nations to apply sanctions against them. Of course, that wouldn’t work because someone on the inside would be on the take.
Like today, massive rallies would be held across the globe condemning America and Britain for their warmongering stances. It would matter not to the cushy peacenik crowd that we were on the defensive.
Germany would take Europe, and would then set its sights on Britain. As we are no longer British subjects, we would be in no hurry to jump to her defense. We would, however, pledge 300 peacekeepers.
England would beg for help, but the U.N. would decide to wait to give the Security Council resolutions that had passed time to work. Britain would fall.
Germany would then turn on Russia, and the world would condemn Russia for striking back. The U.N., especially the Arab members, would denounce Russia’s aggression, even though it would simply be self-defense. The progressive liberal nations would plead with Moscow to “show some restraint.”
France would still hurriedly surrender. After all, the German’s are nice people.
Canada would resist arming itself, as guns are bad, and having a defense might cause us to lose that neutral feeling. Once it was painfully clear that we would be next, North America would decide to build more war materials. Unfortunately, the factories could not be built on time because of the needed environmental assessments.
After several years, American citizens, with the help of the media, would be unwilling to take any more losses in someone else’s war and would elect a liberal Democrat for President. With the state of the Democratic Party today being almost socialist, they would no doubt not have the fortitude to use the bomb on Japan, which would result in the further deaths of a million American G. I.’s, as well as Russia claiming a huge swath of China and northern Japan.
The liberals would claim that Japanese soldiers are people too, and that a nuclear blast would pollute the environment and lead to an increase in global warming.
Embedded reporters would prevent American operatives from carrying out the missions that would be necessary to turn the tide of the war in any meaningful way. Indeed, many of the reporters would actually be enemy agents.
The media would focus on American treatment of prisoners, and liberals would ask us to use interrogation terms like “Will you please tell us where your ammo dump is, pretty please?” Meanwhile, the aggressors Germany and Japan would be more than happy to torture their prisoners, giving them a huge tactical and intelligence advantage. Our prisoners would all receive free health care and dental work.
North America would eventually be split in half by the Germans and Japanese. We wouldn’t have much to say about it as most of us would be dead. It seems that not everyone is as humane and tolerant as we are.
While you may think that I am being facetious, I don’t think so. While I am rambling on a bit, I think that for the most part, the article is dead on. If you think I am way off base, you need to look at today’s headlines again.
Seeing how history has unfolded and looking at the difference our way of thinking today would have on the outcome of the same scenarios, albeit oversimplified, I think that you would agree that our countries are no longer as secure as they once were.
Take away the will to arm and defend yourself, the will to stand up to threats to your security, and the unwillingness to support your commander in chief and your allies, and I think that the end result is pretty clear.
While many say that they are simply trying to uncover the truth in regards to today’s war, I think that they have piled so much paranoia, suspicion, conspiracy, partisanship, and double talk on top of what is really there, that they could no longer see the truth even if they were truly looking for it, and it is undermining the safety of our culture and country.