defunktory

The "Kirovograd Conference" is a supposed meeting between Molotov and Ribbentrop in 1943 to explore peace proposals. There is much ambiguity as to whether or not it ever happened. Personally, I do not think that it did as I have seen no compelling evidence for it. Or any evidence at all, in fact. I am very skeptical, but many claim it happened. I have to wonder why it never came up at Nuremberg and why no one who was alleged to have been there has ever given an account. This can perhaps be explained by the fact that, if it did happen (1) the negotiations were embarrassingly unsuccessful and (2) the mere fact that such a negotiation occurred would shake the confidence of folks at home on each side (3) as well as those powers allied with each side (though in Germany's case, with Italy out by 1943, this was presumably not crucial).

The only souce I know is in Payne's Life and Death of Adolf Hitler, but he provides no source. What I need is some sort of documented proof that it happened. Is there any?

For awhile there I was listed as a Top Contributor in History, Politics, and Current Events. Now it is just History. What are the criterion for Top Contributor status and how does one lose such status after it is acquired?

Yahoo! Group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/3rdReichStudies/join

All are welcome!

Easy 10 Points.

Are the modern ‘news’ shows sacrificing objectivity--in an effort to boost their ratings and maximize profits--by appealing to the lowest common denominator? The high percentage of viewers that only watch one or the other of the popular, one-dimensional news ‘networks’ would seem to answer this question in the affirmative. It is an unfortunate fact that, in these days of declining newspaper readership, most Americans tend to get their news from TV.

The lowest common denominator, in this context, are the folks who believe everything on FOX, Al Jazeera, the Rush Limbaugh Show, or MSNBC's Ed Shultz Show, along other supporting programming. Are they just ditto-heads, or fellow-travelers, who are either unwilling or incapable of thinking for themselves, or is it merely intellectual laziness? Does watching shows that exclusively present only one, narrow view, effectively eliminate the need to utilize judgement and actually THINK about things?

Anyone out there who only gets their 'news' from one or two similar sources, answer this question: Does listening to the 'other side' of the picture make you upset and makes you want to turn it off and watch that which you already agree with? Be honest. If so, you have ditto-head syndrome, are not a free-thinker, and are part of the problem.

To my mind, this phenomenon is comparable to the mindset one still sees in the Russian Federation. Large numbers of former Soviet citizens long for the 'good old days' when they were told what to think and weren't bombarded with a multitude of difficult choices. It is much easier and comforting to only be subjected to one opinion, especially when all the options appear, on the surface, to be equally unpalatable.

You've heard of the penitentiary prisoners who, after being released from a period of extended incarceration, commit another crime, not because they need to, but because they want to go back to prison? They do this because, in jail, they are told what to do each minute and therefore don't have to do any thinking.

Consider these questions:

Are Americans so gullible that they cannot intelligently distinguish propaganda from objectivity?

Do we need a new Fairness Doctrine?

Do we need to regulate that which can be labeled ‘News,’ just as we do drugs or airlines, to protect an undiscerning public from information snake-oil salesmen?

Would we be better served if the Fourth Estate, so essential to worthwhile public discourse, were structured as a non-profit enterprise, similar to the Supreme Court?

Or is the solution as simple as putting on our thinking caps, turning off the TV, and maybe reading a book or two? And how does one make that happen?

Whadaythink?

It seems that more than a few of the Tea Party protesters justify their intense opposition to Obama, including the carrying of the witch-doctor, Obama-Joker and Obama-Hitler signs, by correctly pointing out that all those Bush-Hitler signs we used to see were also over-the-top.

What they fail to recognize is that two wrongs don't make a right. Both men, agree or disagree with their policies, were Americans voted into office in a free and fair election (well, 2000 is a bit problematic, but Bush's re-election was above reproach) and thus both deserve to be respected as OUR president. Why is patriotism ignored by so many for mere politics?

The real issue with the Tea Party is this: If they want to be taken seriously--and they do have some issues worthy of notice--they need to better police their rallies and get rid of the racist signs and rhetoric. Until they manage to do so, they will look like disaffected white folks full of hate and fear, not serious people protesting debatable policies.

I know this is a view that pleases neither side, and I do not expect to garner any question stars, but it is an objective analysis of the problem with the Tea Party, and if anyone out there has some intellectual honesty they will recognize the truth in it. The rest of you mindless partisans incapable of independent thought can just leave your hateful missives and continue on your narrow-minded, unpatriotic path.

Are there any actual Americans out there who place patriotism before politics? And how can we change this sorry state of affairs?

Is the movie historically accurate?

...shouldn't they have the class and discipline to police their rallies and discourage those folks who carry racist and inflammatory signs from giving the entire movement such bad press?