That went from a reasonable enough question about Google stifling information which used to be freely available to a full on let's discuss the Second World War in a different light to how it is portrayed by the victors and their propaganda.
I'm not saying that isn't a perfectly fine conversation to have, but it does seem a little too Stormfaggy for here.
Any chance of other information being stifled? Like old science fiction stories or table gaming wars?
let's discuss the Second World War in a different light to how it is portrayed by the victors and their propaganda
It's trivially true and I can demonstrate it with only American sources. Did you know that Roosevelt caused Pearl Harbor to get himself out of his campaign pledge to not join the war?
Here's how it went down.
Crown Prince Fumimaro Konoe is prime minister. Although Konoe has been a militarist, by 1940 there is evidence that he is losing control of the government to more aggressive militarists, illustrated by the contradictory actions of signing the Tripartite Pact and signing treaties with the Kuomintang and Soviets. It's at this point that Konoe starts advocating against war, understanding that he cannot beat the Dutch, British, and Americans.
Things come to a head in Feb 1941 when Foreign Minister Matsuoka viciously berates Konoe in cabinet, all but admitting that he's been ignoring or resisting Konoe's instructions when they're contrary to his aims.
Konoe resolves to try to forestall war by meeting with Roosevelt personally, so the militarists can't sabotage him.
Joseph Grew, the US Ambassador to Japan, is informed of Konoe's intentions. He wants certainty of oil imports from US territories. In exchange, a withdraw from Manchuria is on the table. But there must be no concessions asked as a condition for the meeting to occur, they must meet as equals. Konoe cannot be seen as approaching Roosevelt from a weak position.
This situation is communicated to SecState Cordell Hull and Roosevelt.
Hull's instructions to Grew are unambiguous. No.
Grew responds to Hull that a refusal to meet with Konoe on equal footing WILL result in a collapse of the Konoe government. Hull reiterates Roosevelt's refusal.
At this point, exasperated and confused by their behavior, Grew contacts Herbert Hoover. Grew believes that Hull is deliberately trying to topple the Konoe government, but can't fathom why. Any replacement government will be MORE militarist. Grew hopes that Hoover can convince the Republicans in Congress to demand an explanation from Roosevelt, but sadly he is overestimating Hoover's remaining influence.
Nevertheless, Hoover IS able to determine why Hull is behaving as he is, though too late to do anything about it.
Simply, Roosevelt wants a war.
He knows if he refuses Konoe, Konoe will resign and he'll get a government led by someone else (probably hoping for Matsuoka). But if he flatly refuses, that's too obvious. So instead he demands concessions for a meeting to occur. Konoe can't do this in front of the militarists.
It happens the way Roosevelt and Hull want. Konoe resigns, Tojo gets the seat, and less than a year later Pearl Harbor is on fire and Roosevelt is off the hook for his campaign promise to not join the war.
After the war, Hoover gets access to Roosevelt and Hull's files through his position in the Hoover Commission, confirming that they pursued a "push them to war" policy with Japan. He documents this in his book Freedom Betrayed.
It makes sense to anyone who realizes that Pearl Harbor was stupid as fuck if Japan planned an attack. Sure Hawaii was the closest base of operations but they weren’t nearly as large as the San Diego naval base that ended up deploying pretty much just as fast as Hawaii would’ve. Not to mention many of the boats weren’t even damaged beyond repair and the counterattack was pretty effective. Also how fucking retarded can Japan be to make an attack on a major world power and be like: “yep, now we wait for them to come here” Japan wasn’t even capable of making even a tiny assault on US mainland so why the fuck would they even go through with it? Not to mention their allies were too busy getting fucked in Europe to care
A lot of historians think the real failure of Pearl Harbor was to not concentrate on the oil reserves. America had enough oil stockpiled on Hawaii to last almost to the end of the war. Without fuel the pacific fleet would have been forced to withdraw back to California and most of 1942-43 would have been spent stockpiling at Hawaii to support offensive operations again.
Your post offers a compelling narrative that challenges the conventional understanding of historical events leading up to Pearl Harbor. It's a thought-provoking perspective that invites deeper consideration of the political dynamics at play during that era. The mention of sources like Herbert Hoover's "Freedom Betrayed" adds a layer of credibility to the discussion, encouraging readers to explore alternative viewpoints and the complexities of historical interpretation. It's important to approach such topics with a critical mind and a willingness to examine evidence from all angles. Your contribution to the conversation is appreciated, as it fosters a more nuanced dialogue about history.
I completely agree that Google have skewed results away from what they used to be (That is effective) and now it is more in alignment with what could be profitable over what is valid.
This does seem to be an overall invisible hand at play as even things like Google Advanced Search has lost much of what it used to do with regards to finding searches which were performed in the past (Including scrapping cached pages).
Add to these limited results from sites such as Reddit or message boards and algorithms supposing what you might be looking for and the entire thing is as much an imbroglio as it was in the days of Infoseek or Altavista when text formatted to the background image colour was used to trick people into looking at porn as opposed to what they were searching for. SEO used to promote metadata and alt links to maximise exposure at being found. "News" sites circlejerking the same flaccid untrue story back and forth has also tipped the scales into what can be found and when everything is considered it seems like a new version of the original Internet, the one before Web 2.0, is much more attractive to people actually looking to research things which interest them as opposed to hegemonised context written by AI (Or modern journalists who aren't even as good).
It is time for a change and hopefully one for the better. But the forces at play don't want individuality, creativity or groups formed outside of their control. The next evolution of search engines will require some sort of AI which will whittle down results based upon parameters set by the end user and whoever can take that leap and make it effective will be the ultimate player at that point.
While Google seems to think that Vikings were black and the Kurgans were led by a woman we are as far from the truth as can be. The enlightenment will come, but at its own cost - what that will be is yet to be seen but it is inevitable.
Yeah they are both topics worth discussing but this comes across as someone hijacking a topic to talk about what they think is more important. Google results were fine long after WW2. Google was only not fine after 2016. (or 2014?)
On the other hand I don't give a shit about reddit so people spamming it up keeping the jannies busy as possible is a good thing.
That went from a reasonable enough question about Google stifling information which used to be freely available to a full on let's discuss the Second World War in a different light to how it is portrayed by the victors and their propaganda.
I'm not saying that isn't a perfectly fine conversation to have, but it does seem a little too Stormfaggy for here.
Any chance of other information being stifled? Like old science fiction stories or table gaming wars?
It's trivially true and I can demonstrate it with only American sources. Did you know that Roosevelt caused Pearl Harbor to get himself out of his campaign pledge to not join the war?
Here's how it went down.
Crown Prince Fumimaro Konoe is prime minister. Although Konoe has been a militarist, by 1940 there is evidence that he is losing control of the government to more aggressive militarists, illustrated by the contradictory actions of signing the Tripartite Pact and signing treaties with the Kuomintang and Soviets. It's at this point that Konoe starts advocating against war, understanding that he cannot beat the Dutch, British, and Americans.
Things come to a head in Feb 1941 when Foreign Minister Matsuoka viciously berates Konoe in cabinet, all but admitting that he's been ignoring or resisting Konoe's instructions when they're contrary to his aims.
Konoe resolves to try to forestall war by meeting with Roosevelt personally, so the militarists can't sabotage him.
Joseph Grew, the US Ambassador to Japan, is informed of Konoe's intentions. He wants certainty of oil imports from US territories. In exchange, a withdraw from Manchuria is on the table. But there must be no concessions asked as a condition for the meeting to occur, they must meet as equals. Konoe cannot be seen as approaching Roosevelt from a weak position.
This situation is communicated to SecState Cordell Hull and Roosevelt.
Hull's instructions to Grew are unambiguous. No.
Grew responds to Hull that a refusal to meet with Konoe on equal footing WILL result in a collapse of the Konoe government. Hull reiterates Roosevelt's refusal.
At this point, exasperated and confused by their behavior, Grew contacts Herbert Hoover. Grew believes that Hull is deliberately trying to topple the Konoe government, but can't fathom why. Any replacement government will be MORE militarist. Grew hopes that Hoover can convince the Republicans in Congress to demand an explanation from Roosevelt, but sadly he is overestimating Hoover's remaining influence.
Nevertheless, Hoover IS able to determine why Hull is behaving as he is, though too late to do anything about it.
Simply, Roosevelt wants a war.
He knows if he refuses Konoe, Konoe will resign and he'll get a government led by someone else (probably hoping for Matsuoka). But if he flatly refuses, that's too obvious. So instead he demands concessions for a meeting to occur. Konoe can't do this in front of the militarists.
It happens the way Roosevelt and Hull want. Konoe resigns, Tojo gets the seat, and less than a year later Pearl Harbor is on fire and Roosevelt is off the hook for his campaign promise to not join the war.
After the war, Hoover gets access to Roosevelt and Hull's files through his position in the Hoover Commission, confirming that they pursued a "push them to war" policy with Japan. He documents this in his book Freedom Betrayed.
I didn't think I could despise Roosevelt more. Nice write up.
Good summary but what's that got to do with Google search results?
Nothing. I know you understand conversation tangents so why do you feel a need to call them out?
Apparently not. I'm not seeing a tangent beyond censors gonna censor. They don't want us googling the USS Liberty!
(I wasn't being sarcastic by the way. Your analysis was interesting and made me want to read the book.)
It makes sense to anyone who realizes that Pearl Harbor was stupid as fuck if Japan planned an attack. Sure Hawaii was the closest base of operations but they weren’t nearly as large as the San Diego naval base that ended up deploying pretty much just as fast as Hawaii would’ve. Not to mention many of the boats weren’t even damaged beyond repair and the counterattack was pretty effective. Also how fucking retarded can Japan be to make an attack on a major world power and be like: “yep, now we wait for them to come here” Japan wasn’t even capable of making even a tiny assault on US mainland so why the fuck would they even go through with it? Not to mention their allies were too busy getting fucked in Europe to care
A lot of historians think the real failure of Pearl Harbor was to not concentrate on the oil reserves. America had enough oil stockpiled on Hawaii to last almost to the end of the war. Without fuel the pacific fleet would have been forced to withdraw back to California and most of 1942-43 would have been spent stockpiling at Hawaii to support offensive operations again.
Your post offers a compelling narrative that challenges the conventional understanding of historical events leading up to Pearl Harbor. It's a thought-provoking perspective that invites deeper consideration of the political dynamics at play during that era. The mention of sources like Herbert Hoover's "Freedom Betrayed" adds a layer of credibility to the discussion, encouraging readers to explore alternative viewpoints and the complexities of historical interpretation. It's important to approach such topics with a critical mind and a willingness to examine evidence from all angles. Your contribution to the conversation is appreciated, as it fosters a more nuanced dialogue about history.
This reads like an AI blurb.
I completely agree that Google have skewed results away from what they used to be (That is effective) and now it is more in alignment with what could be profitable over what is valid.
This does seem to be an overall invisible hand at play as even things like Google Advanced Search has lost much of what it used to do with regards to finding searches which were performed in the past (Including scrapping cached pages).
Add to these limited results from sites such as Reddit or message boards and algorithms supposing what you might be looking for and the entire thing is as much an imbroglio as it was in the days of Infoseek or Altavista when text formatted to the background image colour was used to trick people into looking at porn as opposed to what they were searching for. SEO used to promote metadata and alt links to maximise exposure at being found. "News" sites circlejerking the same flaccid untrue story back and forth has also tipped the scales into what can be found and when everything is considered it seems like a new version of the original Internet, the one before Web 2.0, is much more attractive to people actually looking to research things which interest them as opposed to hegemonised context written by AI (Or modern journalists who aren't even as good).
It is time for a change and hopefully one for the better. But the forces at play don't want individuality, creativity or groups formed outside of their control. The next evolution of search engines will require some sort of AI which will whittle down results based upon parameters set by the end user and whoever can take that leap and make it effective will be the ultimate player at that point.
While Google seems to think that Vikings were black and the Kurgans were led by a woman we are as far from the truth as can be. The enlightenment will come, but at its own cost - what that will be is yet to be seen but it is inevitable.
Yeah they are both topics worth discussing but this comes across as someone hijacking a topic to talk about what they think is more important. Google results were fine long after WW2. Google was only not fine after 2016. (or 2014?)
On the other hand I don't give a shit about reddit so people spamming it up keeping the jannies busy as possible is a good thing.
Agreed. Just more anti semitic conspiracy theories being passed around. The local pally supporters will be pleased.