This should be required viewing for every American

[DZComposer]

23X14HS4gLk

Ironically, it was not intended for public consumption (there's even a warning against shoing it without permission from the US War Dept.).

[CrypticQuery]

I've never seen anything more true in my life.  Thank you for posting this DZ, and I'm going to get this video out to as many people as I can.

[DZComposer]

The most brilliant part:

"HEY! That fella's talking about me!"

"And that makes a difference, doesn't it?"

...

"Before he said 'Masons,' you were ready to agree with him."

"Well, yes, but he was talking about... What, about those other people."

"But, in this country, we have no 'other people,' we are American people!"

[CrypticQuery]

1940's styled instructional videos hit their best with this one! .  It's amazing how that message can be applied almost seven decades later , and yes, that part was definitely enlightening .

[Sabre]

So "Racism is bad cos of the nazis". While I agree with the message, the delivery is really bad.

[CrypticQuery]

So "Racism is bad cos of the nazis". While I agree with the message, the delivery is really bad.

Not really, they're just citing the Nazi's as an example the way I interpreted it :)

[DZComposer]

So "Racism is bad cos of the nazis". While I agree with the message, the delivery is really bad.

1. This was made right after WWII.

2. The film isn't saying that Nazism with come to the US if people aren't tolerant. It is saying that if you buy into intolerant rhetoric and allow it to shape your political views and form prejudices, it makes it easier for the populace to fall prey to those wishing to implement totalitarian policy. The Nazis were merely a convenient example that was on everyone's mind at the time. Basically the film is saying "United we stand, divided we fall."

This message is true. People were totally willing to accept the unconstitutional provisions of the "Patriot" Act, for instance, based upon irrational fears brought about by just this type of rhetoric, this time aimed at Muslims. Something that both sides would have called out prior to 9/11.

[Sabre]

1. This was made right after WWII.

2. The film isn't saying that Nazism with come to the US if people aren't tolerant. It is saying that if you buy into intolerant rhetoric and allow it to shape your political views and form prejudices, it makes it easier for the populace to fall prey to those wishing to implement totalitarian policy. The Nazis were merely a convenient example that was on everyone's mind at the time. Basically the film is saying "United we stand, divided we fall."

This message is true. People were totally willing to accept the unconstitutional provisions of the "Patriot" Act, for instance, based upon irrational fears brought about by just this type of rhetoric, this time aimed at Muslims. Something that both sides would have called out prior to 9/11.

1- No excuse.

2- It's hyporcrical in a way. "You must be tollerent of everyone, except nazis, no, they are really scum.", swap out "Nazi" for American or Muslim or whatever and I bet you wouldn't view it the same. You can be appolagetic, fine. It's also a properganda film, so it's bound to be full of crap and beat you round the head with it's message. It still greatly deminishes the point by banging on about the nazis, and to use excuse 1 would mean that the film is outdated and therefor useless.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Ah, "The Big Lie"...

You see, in economic dark ages, mass uncertainty and fear by the people, who are working long hours, for little pay, with mass inflation on the rise, of course there will always be those "charismatic few" who will tell those masses what they want to hear, be it "It's all the infidel American's fault!" or "It's all because of the Jews!" and they're promised things like "We'll make your life better!"  "Who are you to trust?  Who can you trust!?  Us!  We have your best interests in mind!" (and of course "Change is coming to America!"    ).

But, no...The promises are false, if not weak...Things go from bad to worse...and those people you were told to hate, they're not the real problem, ironically a lot of the times it's those "charismatic few" people who made you the promises, told you who was at fault, told you all the things you [thought that you] wanted to hear, those "charismatic few people" are the REAL enemy.

In Post World War ONE Europe, especially Germany, the economy was in the shitter.  You worked 15 hours a day, for little pay, and if you had saved up a wheelbarrow full of money, it almost literally bought you only a loaf of bread, or one egg.  People were discouraged, angry, scared, demoralized, and wanting someone to tell them things could be better for them.  Hitler saw this, and capitalized on this opportunity, he told the people "It's all someone else's fault!  The Jews made you poor!  Our old World War 1 enemies are the reason for your hardship!  I'm one of you, I know what your struggling through.  I promise to make things better for you!" and he told the people things like that, it was what they wanted to hear [at the time].

Heck, in these piss poor Muslim nations, people like Osama Bin Laden and Dr. Aymen Al-Zawhari are saying similar things to the poor there, "The American Infidel sinners made you poor!  They are parasites sucking the oil from our sacred lands!  They only care about money!  Them and the Jews are the reason you don't have any money, or provisions for your family!  We will give you what you need, and what you want!".  In Pakistan, these flood victims are already being helped....by terrorist organizations, while the Pakistani Government sits by and does NOTHING.  These people, hungry, starving, and homeless, with families to feed, will serve and respect whoever feeds and provides for them, be it their government, or Islamic terrorists, or even the boogey man, if he existed.  Unfortunately, it's the terrorists that are feeding and providing for the flood victims (and protecting them from the Evil Monkey in/from Chris Griffin's closet ), if the Pakistani Government had stepped in like they were supposed to, fed and aided the flood victims, and blocked the Islamic terrorists from doing that stuff, that would stop potential terrorists from joining up...

In the words of the Joker (played by Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight"), "Why don't I just cut you up into a thousand little pieces, and feed you to your pooches!?  Then you'll see just how loyal, a hungry dog really is...!"

[Redeemer]

1- No excuse.

I'm not too sure about that, things were much different back then. The way people responded to things was different. If that message was put across again today, the reaction would be much different. Things are much more sensitive these days, so much so that it affects freedom of speech and opinion.

[Robert Monroe]

1- No excuse.

2- It's hyporcrical in a way. "You must be tollerent of everyone, except nazis, no, they are really scum.", swap out "Nazi" for American or Muslim or whatever and I bet you wouldn't view it the same. You can be appolagetic, fine. It's also a properganda film, so it's bound to be full of crap and beat you round the head with it's message. It still greatly deminishes the point by banging on about the nazis, and to use excuse 1 would mean that the film is outdated and therefor useless.

The Nazis were a political group. Islam is a culture. There's a difference, especially when said political group had waged war with THE ENTIRE PLANET. The Muslim extremists of today are little more than an outspoken and violent minority. Secondly, you can always look beyond the shortcomings of the film and admire the message behind it. Nothing is going to be perfectly tailor-made. Shit has faults. Whether or not you can look beyond those faults is your own problem. Hindsight is 20/20.

[Sabre]

I'm not too sure about that, things were much different back then. The way people responded to things was different. If that message was put across again today, the reaction would be much different. Things are much more sensitive these days, so much so that it affects freedom of speech and opinion.

But in that case (as I already said) the film is outdated.

The Nazis were a political group. Islam is a culture. There's a difference, especially when said political group had waged war with THE ENTIRE PLANET. The Muslim extremists of today are little more than an outspoken and violent minority. Secondly, you can always look beyond the shortcomings of the film and admire the message behind it. Nothing is going to be perfectly tailor-made. Shit has faults. Whether or not you can look beyond those faults is your own problem. Hindsight is 20/20.

Whoosh! <- the point going over your head.

My point was, if you exchange nazi with whatever group you support (like the mason in the film) I dont think you/he would be defending the film as much. I don't know what your polatics are, if any. So I'm going to dig into your religeon again to prove a point.

Let's say the film showed christian horrors as an example of intollerance. Chances are you would be calling the film BS, or at least see it as poor delivery like I do.

Another example, a nation as a whole rather then polatics again, but what if it was showed America as an example of racism?

[Robert Monroe]

Whoosh! <- the point going over your head.

My point was, if you exchange nazi with whatever group you support (like the mason in the film) I dont think you/he would be defending the film as much. I don't know what your polatics are, if any. So I'm going to dig into your religeon again to prove a point.

Let's say the film showed christian horrors as an example of intollerance. Chances are you would be calling the film BS, or at least see it as poor delivery like I do.

Another example, a nation as a whole rather then polatics again, but what if it was showed America as an example of racism?

I see your point, but what I am saying is that you are judging a 60+ year old film by modern conventions. Yes, the fact you can switch out "Nazi" for anything else undermines the message some. That leaves you with a choice: are you going to look past that and admire the rather progressive message of the day it had, or are you going to hold its age against it? Again: hindsight is 20/20.

And to be really honest, if this film was made today, it would inevitibly piss SOMEONE off no matter who they pictured as the "jerks", because you can not equally portray everyone as being a dick. Might as well at least us a commonly hated enemy of the state of the time. And while I'm pretty sure Nazis as individuals were not all Jew hating evil monsters, the political party was just that and nothing else. Where as Christians or Muslism or Liberals or Conservatives or Americans can cry "cheap shot!", it would be quite difficult to defend the Nazi PARTY.

[Sabre]

I'm going to hold it's age against it, rather then hand wave it as being "Good for it's day". It's a bit like the argument I make against the wii. People often say "X is pretty good for a wii game", but that assumes the wii exisits in a vacume, but without the assumtion it turns into "X is pretty good for a wii game, but crap compaired to everything else". The film is that wii game.

Might as well at least us a commonly hated enemy of the state of the time.

Again. You could apply that to the VC, or the Koreans, or the Chinese, or any comunist nation. To use your favourite quote of the week, hindsight is 20/20.

Imo, reguardless of the message, properganda like this is mostly worthless as far as forwarding an opinion. It's like that ludite film where tractors crash through fences. It's like a reverse strawman.

[DZComposer]

It's hyporcrical in a way. "You must be tollerent of everyone, except nazis, no, they are really scum.", swap out "Nazi" for American or Muslim or whatever and I bet you wouldn't view it the same. You can be appolagetic, fine. It's also a properganda film, so it's bound to be full of crap and beat you round the head with it's message. It still greatly deminishes the point by banging on about the nazis, and to use excuse 1 would mean that the film is outdated and therefor useless.

You accuse others of missing the point, when you missed it yourself.

The nazis were an oppressive regime that was on everyone's mind at the time this film was produced. That is why it was used as an example. The point of the film isn't "Nazis are evil," but rather "allowing people to manipulate our prejudices to divide us can lead to the loss of freedom." The Nazi party genuinely abolished freedom in Germany, yet is was through democracy that they rose to power. The film accurately points out that they got popular by playing the blame game with minorities. Far from just being a convenient bad guy, the Nazi party is a bonafide real-world example of the point. You can't just substitute "any group" here and make this film work. It has to be an oppressive regime that rose to power over similar circumstances. Because of this, the Nazis really are the best example.

The film also pointed out that not everyone who was a Nazi was evil. One of the characters joined the party, believing that it would lead him to a better life, yet it merely led him to his grave.

You're blindly following this Godwin's Law point-of-view that whenever someone uses Nazis as a comparison, the argument is invalid. But the problem with that is that said comparisons are only invalid when the comparison is unwarranted. That is not the case here, as the Nazis are a bonifide, relevant example.

[Sabre]

You accuse others of missing the point, when you missed it yourself.

The nazis were an oppressive regime that was on everyone's mind at the time this film was produced. That is why it was used as an example. The point of the film isn't "Nazis are evil," but rather "allowing people to manipulate our prejudices to divide us can lead to the loss of freedom." The Nazi party genuinely abolished freedom in Germany, yet is was through democracy that they rose to power. The film accurately points out that they got popular by playing the blame game with minorities. Far from just being a convenient bad guy, the Nazi party is a bonafide real-world example of the point. You can't just substitute "any group" here and make this film work. It has to be an oppressive regime that rose to power over similar circumstances. Because of this, the Nazis really are the best example.

The film also pointed out that not everyone who was a Nazi was evil. One of the characters joined the party, believing that it would lead him to a better life, yet it merely led him to his grave.

You're blindly following this Godwin's Law point-of-view that whenever someone uses Nazis as a comparison, the argument is invalid. But the problem with that is that said comparisons are only invalid when the comparison is unwarranted. That is not the case here, as the Nazis are a bonifide, relevant example.

I'm not missing the point. You claim the nazis are a relivent example. Fair enough, then why linger so long on them? It's not the Nazi part I object to, it's the idea of them being a free acceptable target. Again, if you replaced nazi with any other group, no matter how relivent, it would be discredited and you wouldn't be defending the film so strongly. Again, what if it used American history as an example? You wouldn't be defending it. You would simply dismiss it as something from the 'bad old days' and move on.

[Robert Monroe]

I'm not missing the point. You claim the nazis are a relivent example. Fair enough, then why linger so long on them? It's not the Nazi part I object to, it's the idea of them being a free acceptable target. Again, if you replaced nazi with any other group, no matter how relivent, it would be discredited and you wouldn't be defending the film so strongly. Again, what if it used American history as an example? You wouldn't be defending it. You would simply dismiss it as something from the 'bad old days' and move on.

Who says we are lingering? I don't see how a video from the 1940s can be considered lingering, because again: at the time, they were a relevant political group. Noone here is making claims of acceptable free targets but you. The rest of us are actually enjoying the video for the good message it has. If it used American history as an example, it really wouldn't bother me, because US history is far from perfect. Every history is.

[Sabre]

Finally, were getting somewhere. (Btw, it's the video that lingers on the nazis, but you already knew that)

Ok, now we've established that the message is all that matters, where is the line drawn of what is or isn't acceptable?

[DZComposer]

I'm not missing the point. You claim the nazis are a relivent example. Fair enough, then why linger so long on them? It's not the Nazi part I object to, it's the idea of them being a free acceptable target. Again, if you replaced nazi with any other group, no matter how relivent, it would be discredited and you wouldn't be defending the film so strongly. Again, what if it used American history as an example? You wouldn't be defending it. You would simply dismiss it as something from the 'bad old days' and move on.

Firstly, you just painted me with a broad brush and assumed that I would think less of the film if it were from part of American history. WRONG. There are many things that happened in American history that I absolutely abhor and some of them we have yet to learn from. The internment of the Japanese, for instance. There are already calls here for doing that to Muslims. Slavery is perhaps the worst, and this shit still happens, often with undocumented workers.

The line is drawn at the point where the comparison is fallacious in some way, IE making an unwarranted generalization because the Nazis did something similar (IE, the Nazis made the trains run on time, so efficient rail travel is evil). But when you have a legitimate historical comparison, no line is crossed.

[Robert Monroe]

Finally, were getting somewhere. (Btw, it's the video that lingers on the nazis, but you already knew that)

Ok, now we've established that the message is all that matters, where is the line drawn of what is or isn't acceptable?

Acceptibility is determined by what is targeted and how. A 1940s film targetting Nazis is acceptable, a 1940s film calling every German a dirty Nazi is not. Likewise, showing disdain for Muslim extremist TERRORISTS is acceptable, showing disdain for Muslims as a whole is not, disdain for North Korea's antiquated Cold War communist state is ok, disdain for Koreans as a whole is not.

Its not about what you are, its about what you have done. Organizations with largely unchallenged vendettas that are against your own society are "acceptable" targets, so long as you paint them the proper way.