How can objective historical fact be offensive?

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#1

Some people on here have a bit too much nationalistic pride and seem to find lots of historical facts inconvenient and thus “offensive”. I’m not sure how a historical fact can be offensive, since it’s objective fact.

Thus, I do not find the following picture offensive:

Nor this:

Nor this:

What I do find offensive, however, is faked photos which seek to hide from objective historical fact and introduce lies, such as this:

and this:

Photos such as these seek to lie about objective historical fact. This kind of propaganda and lying is offensive.

#2

Well said, Man of Stoat.

I don’t recall any of the Brits bitching while AIDES was busy posting pictures of captured/surrendering Brits, or ships sinking or burning.

Yet they whinge and cry about a few pictures that show the Union Flag going back up over Stanley, or a couple of Marines Yomping.

Something tells me we are dealing with a bunch of immature south American school children.

#3

The only British bitching that occurred was when the Argentine contingent found pictures of British soldiers offensive, and then for logical consistency demanded that the said Argentines remove their equivalent pictures…

Here’s another picture I don’t find offensive:

#4

i agree, i believe these things just happen in war, i think some people really need to let it go and make their life go easier

#5

Its because they have a massive rock stuck in their massive egotistical colons and refuse to accept the truth, therefore any other explanation but the real one becomes possible.

#6

a question,
if i have this picture as signature (i will shrink it):


you will feel offended?

this isn’t propaganda,this is true.

#7

Erwin, you can have that picture in your sig if you want. I wouldnt know why you would want it though. But it does not offend me a all.

#8

you will feel offended?

Of course not! That was the whole point of the damn thread - why would anyone feel offended by objective historical fact?

Hence, you should not be offended by the following:

Or these classics:

#9

Look at the state of that guys belt!!1

The single argie with the Brit in the background with SLR at Low port.

I found this on cross bones post about the Brazil contribution to WW2.

“But this did not fulfill the population’s strong desire to take revenge for the casualties in the sunken ships, and as a point of honour, Vargas decided to form the core of an Expeditionary Force in August 1943. This also helped to divert attention from the atrocities committed by the government against those who dared to complain. This course of action was also a result of extensive talks between Roosevelt and Vargas. The Expeditionary Force was also an excellent chance for the Army to catch up with more modern weaponry.”

Judging by the bit in red. It seems to be SOP for any South American dictator to start a war, to hide up poor results in home policy. :smiley:

#10

“But this did not fulfill the population’s strong desire to take revenge for the casualties in the sunken ships, and as a point of honour, Vargas decided to form the core of an Expeditionary Force in August 1943. This also helped to divert attention from the atrocities committed by the government against those who dared to complain. This course of action was also a result of extensive talks between Roosevelt and Vargas. The Expeditionary Force was also an excellent chance for the Army to catch up with more modern weaponry.”

Judging by the bit in red. It seems to be SOP for any South American dictator to start a war, to hide up poor results in home policy. Very Happy

I think you are being a little unfair here, 1000 yd.

It’s not just South American dictators (sorry, leaders, wouldn’t want to offend any despots reading this) who go in for this sort of thing.

Who can forget Saddam and Gulf War 1. Trouble at home with pesky Kurds & Marsh Arabs? Invade Kuwait to distract them.

And of course, Gulf War 2, the sequel, eh GB?

WW2 (on topic for once), started by a nutter. You could argue he built up to it by having a go at the Jews first (an internal enemy is even better if you can get away with it. Then you can send the brave boys of the SA round to break some windows and do a spot of murdering) but it swiftly changed into an attack on other countries to keep the momentum going.

Mugabe is up to the same shabby tricks in Rhodesia at the moment. Pick on an enemy and hope the people forget they are starving. If I were one of the politicians who’s supported him at the time of Independance, I’d hang my head in shame. Or better still, hang myself, hang myself

I’m off for a lie down now, as the cynicism of the human race is sometimes too much to bear.

#11

Ah, the memories.

Here’s a couple of harmless happy snaps taken by myself during Navy Days 1983 at Pompey (wasn’t one in '82, the lads deserved a spot of leave)

#12

The big diffrence with Mugabe is that he is deliberately starving and forcing out his opponents. His own party are not the ones going hungry! I agree with your statement though.

#13

That’s an understatement. I relate historical facts and often times the Thug Gang goes after me trying to refute them, even though they are supported by experts in that field. The boneheadedness of it never ceases to amaze me. :lol:

As for faked photographs of the Faulklands conflict, it’s pretty sissified to do such a thing. As I understand it, such photos have been made by people on both sides of the issue. You are absolutely correct about the “too much national pride” thing. It gets in the way of reason for some people. I find such photos, like you, to be very offensive.

#14

Thug Gang? :lol:
In any case, the objection is that they’re often nothing to do with historical fact and in fact fit in the category of historical (or science, or military) fiction. See your comments on jet engines, infantry tactics, etc.

#15

For those who may be interested, the top cover on the SLR is the sight bracket for the SUIT.

#16

Thug Gang? :lol:
In any case, the objection is that they’re often nothing to do with historical fact and in fact fit in the category of historical (or science, or military) fiction. See your comments on jet engines, infantry tactics, etc.[/quote]

Yes, I remember what a fool some made of themselves. Crazy freakin’ claims. A venerable cartoon of unintelligence.

#17

I would have hoped that those who choose to post here would be objective in their views of historical events; some however, feel that National pride comes before truth.
Damage purported to have happened to a certain ship (whose name appears to be taboo), would have destroyed an item of equipment that I helped install in 1981, which was still in place & functioning when I replaced it in 1983 (same Serial No. & untouched by anyone in two years).
I feel no upset when I see photo’s of things that are FACT, it is the propagandist falsehoods that cause annoyance.