“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.

  • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    6 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.

    • protist@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 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

      • xkbx@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 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

        • BakerBagel@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 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
            1
            ·
            6 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

        • paddirn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 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.”

      • Bubs12@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 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.

    • AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 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?

  • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    6 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
      1
      ·
      6 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’.

    • g0d0fm15ch13f@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 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.”

  • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 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.

    • archonet@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 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
        3
        ·
        6 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
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 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.

    • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 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
        ·
        6 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.

            • smayonak@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              He probably didn’t know. Bush shuffled Cheney off to the margins and had Rummy resign in 2006 when he realized that he had been manipulated. From then on he leaned heavily on Condoleeza Rice. But the main thing is that the Dulles brothers were long gone.

      • tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 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.

  • theparadox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 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
      1
      ·
      6 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
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

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

          • WamGams@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 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
              1
              ·
              6 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.

  • Creeoyfred@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 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