Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

World War II

2008-03-30T14:49:05Z

Alberti: /* Chinese Civil War */

[[Image:Caen_sniper.jpg|right|thumb|300px|An allied soldier in the ruins of Caen, 9 July 1944]]
'''World War II''' was a global conflict fought between the [[Allies|Allied powers]] which eventually came to include the [[United States]], the [[Soviet Union]], the [[British Commonwealth]], the [[Republic of China]], and many other nations, and the [[Axis Powers]] (mainly [[Third Reich|Nazi Germany]], [[Fascism|Fascist]] [[Italy]], and Imperial [[Japan]]). Several conflicts involving some world major powers precipitated the general conflagration. On September 1, 1939 [[Poland]] was invaded by Nazi Germany. On September 3, the [[United Kingdom]] and the [[French Third Republic]] with its allies entered the war.

During the war, eight major world powers fought, along with several lesser states joining with one side or the other. On the side which lost were the Axis Powers Germany, [[Japan]], and [[Italy]]. Against them came to be the Allied Powers [[United States]], [[United Kingdom]] and the Commonwealth, the [[Soviet Union]] with its [[Comintern]] allies, and the [[Republic of China]].

==Failure of the League treaty==
The causes of World War II are complicated. The immediate causes of World War II are generally held to be the Japanese attacks on China and the British and Dutch colonies, and the German invasion of Poland on the 1st September 1939. Following the two day deadline for the withdrawal of German forces, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand declared war on Germany, followed quickly by France, South Africa, Canada and Nepal.

The condition of Germany in the aftermath of [[World War I]] is also considered to be a contributing factor. The [[Weimar Republic]] that was founded at the end of WWI, was struggling from the beginning. One reason were the harsh terms of [[Versailles]] treaty. Although the terms of the treaty were never fully enforced, the psychological damage was immense, since they were perceived as a grave injustice. The republic was also struggling with the rejection by monarchist, who were still occupying important position in the state. Many WWI veterans believed that the German forces in WWI were not defeated, but that the social democratic leaders, who founded the Weimar republic to thwart a communist revolution, surrendered to the allies for political gains. It was known as the "stab-in-the-back myth", and was used to discredit the republic. [http://www.germannotes.com/hist_weimar_dolch.shtml] Although the Weimar Republic enjoyed a time of economic resurgence after the early years of hyper-inflation it failed to gain deep public support. The Weimar Republic was famously called a ''democracy without democrats''.
[[Image:58742big.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Japanese Expansion in Asia, 1928 - 1941. [http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/maps2.html]]]

In the early 1930 Germany was in a permanent political and constitutional crisis, caused by rising unemployment during the great depression. Germany was hit harder than most other countries. The National Socialists, known as the Hitler movement, promised to restore national pride and statue, by disbanding the Versailles treaty, and reverting the injustices imposed onto Germany by its international enemies. It was common to blame the "international Jewdom." Part of this ideology was that Germany deserved to be larger, and that in order to survive, it would have to conquer the East.

===Chinese Civil War===

China was engaged at the same time in two separate wars. One was with Japan. The other was a civil war between the government and the [[Chinese Communist Party]].

===Mukden Incident===

The Japanese invasion of [[Manchuria]] in 1931 marked the beginning of World War II in Asia. In March 1932 the Japanese set up the [[puppet state]] of [[Manchukuo]]. On 24 February, 1933, the [[League of Nations]] adopted a resolution calling for the non-recognition of Manchukuo, however the [[Soviet Union]] nonetheless did recognize Manchukuo and sold Japan the Chinese Eastern Railway in 1935.<ref>''While You Slept : Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It'', John T. Flynn, New York : The Devin - Adair Company, 1951, [http://www.mises.org/books/whileyouslept.pdf pgs. 18, 36, 65] pdf.</ref>

===The Ethiopian War===

In 1935, [[fascist]] [[Italy]] under the leadership of [[Mussolini]] invaded [[Ethiopia]], the only uncolonized nation in [[Africa]] and a member state of the [[League of Nations]]. While Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie tried to get the League to help his country, his pleas in [[Geneva]] went unheard. Italy's colonial occupation of Italy was marked by the aerial bombardment and use of poison gas against civilian populations.

===Reoccupation of the Rhineland===

===Spanish Civil War===
:''Main article: [[Spanish Civil War]]''

===Second Sino-Japanese War===
:''Main article:[[Second Sino-Japanese War]]''

In 1937, when the Japanese invaded China, Soviet General Secretary [[Josef Stalin]] ordered the CCP to cease operations against China's government, the [[Kuomintang]] or KMT, and present a [[united front]] to the Japanese. This lasted until 1939.<ref>''While You Slept : Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It'', John T. Flynn, New York : The Devin - Adair Company, 1951, [http://www.mises.org/books/whileyouslept.pdf pg. 46] pdf.</ref>

[[CCP]] Chairman [[Mao Zedong]] sent a secret directive to his followers which said:
:"The Sino-Japanese war affords our party an excellent opportunity for expansion . . . the first stage is a compromising stage . . . but in reality this will serve as camouflage for the… development of our party. The second [stage]. . . should be spent in laying the foundation of our party's political and military powers . . . until we can match and break the [[Kuomintang]]. The third is an offensive stage . . . in which our forces. . . isolate and disperse…and wrest the leadership from the hands of the Kuomintang."<ref>Documents on the Problem of the Chinese Communist Party (Chungking, 1944).</ref>

With the making of the [[Hitler-Stalin pact]] the Soviet Union was at war on the side of Germany. The CCP stopped fighting the Japanese and resumed [[guerrilla]] operations against the Kuomintang (KMT). The CCP devoted its energies to fighting the Chinese government for the portions of eastern China between the railroad lines, held by the Japanese.

===Treaty of Munich===
:''Main article [[Munich conference]]''

The [[Locarno Pacts]] formed the background for the events of 1938 when Czechoslovakia was dismembered at Munich. When the guarantee of Locarno became due in 1936, Britain dishonored its agreement, the Rhineland was remilitarized and the way was open for Germany to move eastward. Poland protested vigorously at the refusal to guarantee her frontiers.<ref>[http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2006/10/119975.pdf ''Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time''], Carroll Quigley, Collier-Macmillan, 1966, pg. 293.ISBN 0-945001-10-X</ref>

At Munich, Hitler, British Prime Minister [[Neville Chamberlain]], [[Mussolini]] and French Premier [[Edouard Daladier]] carved up Czechoslovakia without consulting anyone, least of all the Czechs and Slovaks.<ref>''Tragedy and Hope'', Quigley, pg. 638.</ref> The outlawry of war was relatively meaningless without some sanctions that could compel the use of peaceful methods. Efforts in this direction were nullified by Britain.<ref>''Tragedy and Hope'', Quigley, pg. 296.</ref>

==Polish Partition==
[[Image:Communazi Peace Pact.jpg|thumb|300px|right|By terms of a secret protocol to the [[Nazi-Soviet pact]], Poland was partitioned with Germany and the USSR each occupying 200,000 square kilometers.]]
:''Main article: [[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact]]''

In the immediate run up to WWII, there were frequent reports of trespassing Polish troops. On August 31, 1939 German covert operatives staged a fake attack by Polish troops on a German radio station. WWII started on September 1, 1939, when German troops invaded Poland. Hitler justified this as a defensive act, pointing to the frequent border incidents, and said famously that from this moment on Germany would strike back.

The major tactical innovation of the war was the use of combined arms warfare, typified by the German doctrine of [[blitzkrieg]]. In this style of warfare armor, infantry, artillery and air power (see [[Luftwaffe]]) all coordinate to achieve overwhelming superiority at point on the enemy lines. Armor and fast-moving infantry units then exploit the gap and penetrate deep behind enemy lines. The objective is to cause a widespread collapse of the enemy's ability to fight. It was particularly effective during the early stages of the war, before the Allies developed effective countermeasures.
[[Image:Communazipact1.JPG|thumb|300px|left|Partition of Poland. Source: Franklin D. Roosevelt Library, Hyde Park, NY; Time magazine [http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/fdr-diplo-images.html].]]
On September 17, 1939, Poland was invaded from the east by Hitler’s noble ally, Josef Stalin.

In 1939-1940, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bessarabia were invaded and annexed into the Soviet Union proper. The Soviets lowered the local standard of living and disrupted and destroyed the prevailing socioeconomic structure. Local currencies were still legal tender but so was the Russian ruble. The occupying Russian soldiers were paid in rubles and the established exchange rate inflated the ruble by as much as 2000 to 3000 per cent. Overvaluing made the average Russian soldier extremely rich. This huge influx of rubles started a wave of inflation that natives did not notice at first. Eventually shortages were caused by Soviet purchasing agents that fanned out through the newly occupied nations, buying up wholesale goods in warehouses and the production of local factories.

Goods produced locally were shipped to Russia instead of resupplying the local market. Russian propaganda stated the goal was to raise the ordinary working person's standard of living. Prices were frozen, and wages raised by as much as ten times. Merchants and factory owners declared bankruptcy and went out of business. Shortages of food and other necessities introduced growing inflation, a black market, and discontent among the population. These deliberate Soviet policies raised the cost of living but not the actual standard of living. Once annexation was complete, local stores and industries were nationalized, their former owners arrested, stripped of their possessions, including their accumulated rubles, and shipped to the [[gulag]]s of Siberia. Workers still employed were then paid in rubles. <ref>Vladimir Petrov, Money and Conquest: Allied Occupation Currencies in World War II, Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1967, pgs. 173 -175.</ref>
[[Image:2-463.jpg|thumb|350px|right|Soviet and German troops meet up in the town of Brześć on September 18, 1939.<ref>[http://www.ipn.gov.pl/portal/en/23/211/September_17_1939__Soviet_aggression_on_Poland.html September 17, 1939 - Soviet aggression on Poland], The Institute of National Remembrance - Commission of the Prosecution of Crimes against the Polish Nation.</ref>]]
The French and British were initially reluctant to honor promises to the Polish government, avoiding serious consideration of an invasion of Germany. The British failed to send land forces in time to support the Poles (see [[Western betrayal]]). The French mobilized slowly and then launched a token offensive in the Saar. The Meanwhile, on September 8, the Germans reached Warsaw, having slashed through the Polish defenses. On September 17, the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the East.

Following the completion of the invasion of Poland, German forces regrouped and Allied forces remained defensive, leading US commentators to dub it the [[Phoney War]]. May 10 1940 marked the end of any accusation of a phony war, with the invasion of France by Germany, via the [[Netherlands]], [[Luxembourg]] and [[Belgium]]. Resistance by the British armies and French armies proved weak and the occupation of France began. British troops were routed and evacuated mainland Europe at Dunkirk. France was divided into the northern [[Occupied France]] and the collaborationist [[Vichy regime]] in the south of France, including [[Corsica]].

The collapse and occupation of France, together with Germany's non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union,<ref>[http://nobsopus.blogspot.com/2007/01/celebrations-marking-60-years-since-end.html Celebrations Marking 60 Years Since the End of World War II], Pavel Vitek, ''Russkii vopros - Studies'', No. 1 2005. Translation from Russian.</ref>, their alliances with fascist Italy, and an expansionist Japan, benevolent neutrality of fascist Spain, with little of Europe outside of Axis hands led many to assume that the United Kingdom had been defeated. Indeed it would appear that the, seemingly foolish, decision of the relatively weak United Kingdom to continue the war took the Axis powers off guard. This decision ensured the remaining British Empire was still involved in the war, with Japan threatening many British possessions in Asia.

In 1940 [[Denmark]] and [[Norway]] were invaded by German forces, to preempt a British occupation of Norway. Norway also contained a source of [[Heavy water]], possibly crucial in the construction of an atomic weapon. This was soon followed by the British invasion of neutral [[Iceland]] (the invasion of [[Denmark]] by German forces marks the start of an independent Iceland).

With Britain the sole opposing European nation, the [[Battle of Britain]] commenced. The [[Luftwaffe]] attempted to achieve aerial dominance over the south of Britain, in order to allow a sea based invasion of Britain to proceed. For many months the [[Royal Air Force]] and Luftwaffe fought for dominance, with the resilience of the RAF, with British, Canadian and [[Republic of Poland|London Polish exile]] pilots forced a rethink of [[German]] tactics. The period that followed is known as the [[Blitz]], where the RAF and Luftwaffe attempted to undermine the infrastructure of the opposing country. This was a period of great economic devastation, which took both countries a considerable period to recover from. More seriously it led to huge numbers of civilian deaths.

==Finnish War==

The Soviet Union invaded [[Finland]], a member of the [[neutral]] [[Oslo Group of States]] on November 30 1939. This conflict came to be known as the [[Winter War]]. Despite the overwhelming numbers of the [[Red Army]], the Finnish resistance was strong and the battle was hard fought before the Soviet army took control. The Soviet Union was expelled from the League of Nations on December 12, 1939 for violations of the League treaty.<ref>[http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1939/391214a.html League of Nations' Expulsion of the USSR, December 12, 1939].</ref> The League of Nations found the Soviet Union conducting "a [[war of aggression]] [which] constitutes a violation of this solidarity and an international crime."<ref>[http://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_League_of_Nations_Protocol_for_the_Pacific_Settlement_of_International_Disputes The League of Nations Protocol for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes], 2 October, 1920.</ref>

==Soviet-German War==
[[Image:SOVietOffense med.gif|thumb|300px|right|Soviet map of offense plans in the West. The map is dated May 15, 1941.<ref>Stalin's chance. Soviet Union and struggle for the Europe: 1939-1941. 2000. (In Russian) [http://militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov/index.html] Index to Maps and Illustrations [http://militera.lib.ru/research/meltyukhov/ill.html]</ref>]]
1941 marked the major turning point in the war in Europe, when the Germans undertook [[Operation Barbarossa]] - the invasion of the Soviet Union. In a war of major turning points, this was the most significant in Europe. This miscalculation diminished the German army's capacity.

Stalin was informed by his master spy in Japan, [[Richard Sorge]], of the Japanese Imperial Conference in Tokyo which decided on July 2 not to move against the Soviet Union from [[Manchuria]] through Siberia, but instead to prosecute a plan of advance to the south at the risk of war with the United States and United Kingdom. The possibility of a Japanese attack and a two front war with both Germany and Japan was a specter that haunted Soviet officials. <ref>President Roosevelt followed the debate through the medium of "Magic" -- a name applied to intercepted and decoded Japanese messages. He described the Imperial Conference as "a real drag-down and knockout fight... to decide which way they were going to jump --attack Russia, attack the South Seas (or) sit on the fence and be more friendly with us." President Roosevelt to Secretary Ickes, July l, l941 cited in William L. Langer and S. Everett Gleason, ''The Undeclared War, 1940-41'', (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1953), p. 646.</ref><ref>Testimony of Major General Charles A. Willoughby, August 9, 1951, [[Institute of Pacific Relations]], Hearings, Part 2, pp. 363-364; p. 505.</ref> Russia had over 200,000 men facing Japan in the Far East. These troops were desperately needed in the war against Germany. [[Victor Kravchenko]] a high Soviet official and defector wrote, "Beginning with the nineteenth (October, 1941), the situation improved. The first seasoned Siberian and Far Eastern forces began to arrive... Far Eastern troops, hardened in border struggle with the Japanese, and Siberian forces inured to winter warfare were rushing westward across a continent to hold the invaders." <ref>Victor Kravchenko, ''I Chose Freedom'', New York: Charles Scribner and Sons, 1950, p. 377-378.</ref>

The German war against the Soviet Union (known as the [[Great Patriotic War]] in the Soviet Union) demanded a huge dedication of resources and lengthy supply lines in need of defense later in the war permitted an invasion of mainland Europe by Allied Forces on [[D-Day]].
[[Image:Molotov-matsuoka.JPG|thumb|300px|left|Soviet Foreign Minister [[Vyacheslav Molotov]] signs the [[Matsuoka pact]]. Japanese Foreign Minister [[Yosuke Matsuoka]] is to his immediate left, Joseph Stalin is seen standing between the two.<ref>[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/s1.htm Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact April 13, 1941], The Department of State Bulletin Vol. XII, No. 305, April 29, 1945. Retrieved from the Avalon Project 11 August 2007.</ref> ]]
==United States enters the War==

American naval escort of British convoys carrying [[Lend-Lease]] aid lead to a shooting war with Germany. On October 17, 1941, the U.S. destroyer Kearney was torpedoed; two weeks later, the destroyer Rueben James was blown to pieces with the loss of 115 lives.<ref>Oxford Guide to World War II, ed. by I.C.B. Dear, Oxford University Press, 1995</ref> On November 10, an American escort of 11 vessels picked up a convoy of six vessels including America's three largest ocean liners with 20,000 British troops and guarded them from Halifax to India and Singapore. Many of the activities of the American Navy in the summer of 1941 were not known at all to the American public. In September, Roosevelt sought to repeal the [[Neutrality Act]] forbidding the arming of merchant vessels which was done on October 17. Two weeks later, all the essential points
of the Neutrality Act were repealed. <ref>Carroll Quigley, ''Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time'', Collier-Macmillan, 1966, pg. 720. ISBN 0-945001-10-X</ref>

The [[Attack on Pearl Harbor|attack on Pearl Harbor]] officially brought the United States into World War Two. Admiral [[Isoroku Yamamoto]] of the Japanese Imperial Navy was against engaging with the United States, due to fear of "waking a sleeping giant". The United States recovered from the shell shock of the initial attack and plunged into the war with the slogan "Remember Pearl Harbor!".

==Yugoslav and Chinese Partisans==
Hitler invaded Yugoslavia in April 1941. The Yugoslavian government fled to [[London]] and joined the Allied governments-in-exile of Belgium, Czechoslovak, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, and the [[French National Committee]]. At the Inter-Allied Meeting held of September 24, 1941 in London, the Yugoslavian government along with the other governments-in-exile and the Soviet Union, pledged their "adherence to the common principles of policy set forth" in the [[Atlantic Charter]], to "respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live."<ref>[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/atlantic/at17.htm The Atlantic Conference : Resolution of September 24, 1941].</ref> On January 1, 1942, the Yugoslavian government and the other signatories of the Atlantic Charter, along with most other Powers of the British [[Commonwealth]] and the [[Pan American Union]] of States, put forward the [[Declaration by United Nations]], "being convinced that complete victory over their enemies is essential to defend life, liberty, independence and [[religious freedom]], and to preserve [[human rights]] and [[justice]] in their own lands as well as in other lands, and that they are now engaged in a common struggle against savage and brutal forces seeking to subjugate the world....
each Government pledges itself to cooperate with the Governments signatory hereto."<ref>[http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/paw/274.html Declaration by United Nations, January 1, 1942], U.S. Department of State Bulletin, vol. VI, p. 3.</ref>

Within Yugoslavia, Colonel [[Draja Mikhailovitch]], a Serb, organized a resistance army on behalf of the Yugoslavian government known in the press as the Chetniks.<ref>''While You Slept : Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It'', John T. Flynn, New York : The Devin - Adair Company, 1951, [http://www.mises.org/books/whileyouslept.pdf pg. 46] pdf.</ref> Yet Mikhailovitch soon found it more important to fight communism than the occupator and at the end of 1941 started colaborating with Germans. Interestingly, despite both being collaborators, there were still fights betheen the chetniks and the [[Croatia]]n [[ustashe]] movement.

[[Josip Broz Tito]], a member of the [[Comintern]], led the communist [[Yugoslav Partisans]]. In the United States, [[Louis Adamic]] had access to the First Lady, [[Eleanor Roosevelt]]. Adamic was invited to the [[White House]] and pressed upon U.S. President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] support for the [[subversion]] of Colonel Mikhailovitch in favor of Tito. The U.S. [[Office of War Information]] (OWI) began a campaign against Mikhailovitch which was repeated in [[mainstream media]] sources, with a call for unity with the partisans.

The Yugoslav government-in-exile in London continued to support Mikhailovitch. [[Franklin Roosevelt|President Roosevelt]] in 1942 paid tribute to Mikhailovitch and his men. But at the [[Teheran conference]], as part of the policy of [[appeasement|appeasing]] Stalin, Roosevelt and [[Winston Churchill|Churchill]] abandoned Mikhailovitch completely and yielded to Soviet Union’s choice of Tito. The U.S. withheld arms and aid from the United Nations ally and gave them to Tito and thus delivered Yugoslavia to communism, but also shortened the war as partisans were by then a strong force at fighting the occupator.

At the [[Cairo conference]] the same program was launched against Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang. [[OWI]] and the American press began referring to the CCP as "partisans." The [[propaganda]] campaign originated in the Soviet Union. ''War and the Working Class'', a [[Bolshevik]] publication, in March 1943 printed the following:
:"The Eighth Route and the New Fourth Army in China consist of the most progressive, steadfast and self-sacrificing people of China. They are led by the Communist Party. . . . China has every possibility over the enemy."<ref>Quoted in ''While You Slept'', Flynn, pg. 47.</ref>

And it added, "national unity is necessary." This began to appear in the United States. The Chinese Communists and Mao were referred to as "partisans," and the call for "unity in China." [[Edgar Snow]] in the ''Saturday Evening Post'' wrote that the situation in China was much like that in Yugoslavia, with the Chinese partisans led by General [[Chu Teh]], and Mao Zedong corresponding to Marshal Tito and his following.<ref>"Sixty Million Lost Allies", by Edgar Snow, ''Saturday Evening Post'',
June 10, 1944.</ref>

Shortly after the Teheran conference, Churchill in a speech in February 1944 indicated that the allies were no longer sending supplies to Mikhailovitch. Two months later King Peter, the Yugoslavian Head of State was forced to dismiss Premier Purich, which meant the entire cabinet in which Mikhailovitch was Minister of War. A delegate of the partisans Subasich was made Prime Minister. With the subsequent Russian invasion and the aid of American supplies, the Communists with Tito took control. Mikhailovitch, an ally of the Atlantic Charter, was sentenced by Tito after the war as a traitor.

==War in Europe 1944==

"The time of liberation is at hand. Poles, to arms! There is not a moment to lose!" This was broadcast on the Polish language radio station from Moscow on July 29, 1944, at 8:15 in the evening. A force of 40,000 responded. <ref>''Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time'', Carroll Quigley, Collier-Macmillan, 1966, pg. 795. ISBN 0-945001-10-X</ref> But the Red Army, for sixty-three days, denying they knew anything about it, refused to drop weapons and food to assist the Polish fighters for whose liberty the British government had gone to war in September 1939. The Polish resistance fighters were massacred methodically by the Germans. At the very time at which Prime Minister Mikolajczyk from the legitimate [[Republic of Poland|Polish Government in exile]] in London flew to Moscow, the Kremlin "recognized" the [[Comintern]] puppet regime, the [[Lublin Committee]], as the new Polish "people's government." <ref>Stanislaw Mikolajczyk, ''The Rape of Poland; Pattern of Soviet Aggression'', (NY: Whittlesey House, 1948), p. 70.</ref>

While Romania was frantically imploring the West for assistance, the U.S. [[Office of War Information]] (OWI) praised the Soviet Unions’ "new democracy" and the "innocent nature of Communism." <ref>Reuben M. Markham, ''Rumania Under the Soviet Yoke'' (Boston: Meader, 1949), p.
169.</ref> By November, [[Andrey Vyshinsky]], the legal mastermind who presided at the major show trials of Stalin's [[Great Purge]], arrived to "restore internal order."

==War in Europe 1945==
:''See also [[Western_betrayal#Warsaw_Uprising|Warsaw Uprising]]''

On January 5, 1945, the Soviet Union announced that the [[Comintern]] affiliated [[Lublin Committee]], with which it had dealt ''de facto'' ever since its birth, was now officially recognized as provisional government of Poland. "The [[Yalta Declaration]]," Soviet Deputy Commissar of Defense [[Nikolai Bulganin]] told the Lublin Committee on February 17, 1945 "is a scrap of paper.... You will be the Government of Poland, no matter how those elections turn out and whatever might happen in the meantime. Be steadfast and have faith in Stalin!" <ref>Rear Admiral Ellis M. Zacharias and Ladislas Farago, ''Behind Closed Doors; the Secret History of the Cold War'', (NY:Putnam, 1950), p. 58.</ref>

On February 24, 1945, in violation of the Yalta pact -- which had been signed on February 11 -- the U.S.S.R. indicated her unwillingness to co-operate in the Allied Control Councils in Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania, and on February 27, [[Andrey Vyshinsky]], in another violation of the Yalta pact, insisted by an official [[demarche]] that King Michael of Romania substitute Communists and Communist tools for certain members of his cabinet. Despite these Soviet manifestations of contempt for the agreements which had been signed at the Crimea Conference, [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]], on March 1, 1945, told a joint session of Congress that "more than ever before, the major Allies are closely united."

On May 26 presidential adviser [[Harry Hopkins]] met [[Stalin]] at the [[Kremlin]] to discuss the fundamental relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union. Hopkins told Stalin that two months earlier there had been overwhelming sympathy among the American people for the Soviet Union and complete support for President Roosevelt's policies but now this body of American public opinion was seriously disturbed. Hopkins noted the deterioration of public opinion the previous six weeks had been so serious as to affect adversely the relations between the two countries.

Hopkins stated public opinion was alarmed and worried at the present trend of events and did not quite understand why, but it was obvious to them that if present trends continued unchecked the entire structure of world cooperation and relations with the Soviet Union would be destroyed. [[President Truman]] asked Hopkins to relay his great anxiety at the present situation and his desire to continue Roosevelt's policy, and intention to carry out all arrangements, formal and informal, which Roosevelt and Stalin made together. Hopkins said he wished to state as clearly and as forcibly as possible, the question of Poland had become a symbol of the U.S ability to resolve problems with the Soviet Union.

Stalin replied that at the [[Yalta conference]] it had been agreed that the existing Polish government was to be reconstructed and that anyone with common sense could see that this meant the [[Lublin Committee]] was to form the basis of the new government. Stalin said no other understanding of the Yalta Agreement was possible.

Stalin went on to declare that at Yalta it had been agreed that the three powers would sit on the Reparation Commission. Now the United States Government was insisting that France should be represented on the same basis as the Soviet Union. This, Stalin said, was an insult to the Soviet Union in view of the fact that France had concluded a separate peace with Germany and had opened the frontier to the Germans. To attempt to place France on the same footing as the Soviet Union looked like an attempt to humiliate the Russians. <ref>''Roosevelt and Hopkins : An Intimate History'', Robert E. Sherwood, New York Harper and Brothers, 1948. Full record of meeting, [http://americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=/PDFsml_AD/Roosevelt_and_Hopkins-An_Intimate_History-Robert_E_Sherwood-1948-1034pgs-GOV-POL.sml.pdf&id=252&PHPSESSID=03d3557b41f249f71349e6d730cc8498 pgs. 920 - 934] pdf. Those in attendance were Stalin, Molotov and Pavlov and Hopkins, Harriman and Bohlen. </ref>

==Far Eastern Theatre==

The Soviet Union was allied with Japan through the [[Matsuoka pact]] while giving aid and direction to the [[Chinese Communist Party]] (CCP), its [[Comintern]] ally, to subvert the Kuomintang (KMT) government. This duplicity of motives and actions bore out tragic and disastrous events -- most specifically the eventual [[slavery|enslavement]] of 550 million Chinese people and a deeply partisan crisis in American domestic politics. The Soviet Union agreed to President Roosevelt's "Great Design" for a [[United Nations]] with "Four Policeman" to enforce the peace, the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the Chinese Nationalist Government avowed in the [[Joint Four Power Declaration]] of United Nations at the Moscow conference of October 1943<ref>[http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1943/431000a.html Joint Four Power Declaration], Moscow Conference, October, 1943.</ref> But [[Stalinist]] agents in several countries, including [[propagandist]]s in American academia and media along with subversive infiltrators in key [[U.S. Government]] positions, were able to subvert American [[foreign policy]].

At first the United States was on the defensive, losing the Philippines, and other countries under U.S. military protection. The battle of the Coral Sea was the first major engagement with the Japanese that resulted in a draw and set the stage for the battle of Midway a month later. That one battle changed the direction of the war forever, crushing Japanese offensive sea power in one strike. After that, the Japanese were forced to be on the defensive for the rest of the war and never seriously threatened the American military again. In order to shorten the war, the U.S. military chose to adopt a policy of island hopping that including bypassing most of the extensive Japanese holdings to instead focus on a relatively straight path leading to Japan.
[[Image:Ww2-asia usma.edu pic.gif|thumb|300px|left|Time Line of Pacific War]]
Stalin, throughout the war, had assured the United States through Ambassadors [[Averell Harriman]],<ref> John R. Deane, The Strange Alliance: The Story of Our Efforts at Wartime Co-operation with Russia (NY:Viking, 1947) p. 226.</ref> Pat Hurley,<ref> William D. Leahy, I Was There: The Personal Story of the Chief of Staff to Presidents Truman and Roosevelt; Based on his Notes and Diaries Made at the Time; (NY:Whittlesey House, 1950), p. 147.</ref> and Secretary of State [[Cordell Hull]]<ref>Cordell Hull, Memoirs (NY:Macmillian, 1948), Chapter 90, p. 1398.</ref> that he would enter the war against Japan. In 1943, to Hull, the promise had been made "without any strings to it." In 1944, when the matter was again discussed with Harriman, Stalin specified his conditions: "provided that the United States would assist in building up sixty divisions in Siberia" and "provided the political aspects of Russia's participation had been clarified."<ref> John R. Deane, The Strange Alliance: The Story of Our Efforts at Wartime Co-operation with Russia (NY:Viking, 1947) p. 247.</ref>

On the eve of [[Yalta conference]] the Japanese Foreign Minister asked the Russian Ambassador in Tokyo about the possibility of arranging for a settlement. Stalin did not communicate this to either Roosevelt of Churchill.<ref>''While You Slept: Our Tragedy in Asia and Who Made It'', John T. Flynn, New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1951, [http://www.mises.org/books/whileyouslept.pdf pg. 168] pdf.</ref> Admiral [[Chester Nimitz]] and General [[Douglas MacArthur]] assured Roosevelt on his way to the [[Yalta conference]] at a stopover in Hawaii just after Roosevelt's [[United States presidential election, 1944|nomination for his fourth term]] that as soon as they took the Philippines and the Marianas, Japan would be hopelessly cut off from supplies and that she would have to surrender.<ref>I Was There, Admiral William D. Leahy, New York, 1950, pgs. 245-259.</ref> But Gen. [[George c. Marshall]] was adamant. Admiral Leahy says that Marshall didn't seem to realize that the Navy had beaten Japan. .<ref>I Was There, Leahy, New York, pgs. 245-259.</ref>

Army Chief of Staff [[George C. Marshall]] believed that Japan would fight to the last man. Marshall insisted on preparing for a land invasion of Japan with an army of 2,000,000 men anticipating a tremendous number of casualties. Marshall further insisted that the Soviet Union becoming involved in the war was necessary to fight the Kwantung army Japan had in Manchuria. Marshall apparently was unaware that this army was deteriorated by levies for use in other parts of the Pacific.

==Japanese capitulation==

On August 6, 1945, a B-29 Superfortress, the Enola Gay piloted by Paul Tibbet, dropped a nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. Then, on August 9, Bocks Car, a B-29 piloted by Frederick C. Bock dropped the second atomic bomb. On August 20 the Japanese government told the United States it was ready to accept the terms which the Allies proposed. The next day, the Allies replied, saying the authority of the emperor would be "subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers." On August 14 the Japanese government agreed to this.

The Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, in breach of the [[Matsuoka pact]] which was supposed to remain in force until April 1946.<ref>''The Japanese-Soviet Neutrality Pact: A Diplomatic History 1941-1945'', Boris Slavinsky, Nissan Institute Routledge Japanese Studies Series, 2003, pg. 1.</ref> Five days later, Soviet armies were in [[Korea]] with an force of 250,000 and weapons taken from the Japanese. An armed militia of 150,000 men was quickly organized.<ref>''Korea Today'', by George M. McCune, Cambridge, 1950, pgs. 178-179.</ref> Dr. [[Syngman Rhee]] who served as head of the Korean Provisional Government-in-Exile for many years, returned and set out to organize a republic in South Korea. He envisioned a unified republic, with a constitution and elections. But there was no wish for election or unity in the occupation zone of [[North Korea]].

Then, September 2, 1945, the Japanese government, along with all its military forces, formally surrendered to the United States. This happened in a ceremony aboard a United States battleship, the ''Missouri'', on [[Tokyo Bay]], where the [[Japanese Instrument of Surrender]] was signed. This was the ending of World War II, after six years almost to the day.

==Greek Civil War==
[[Greece]] sided with the [[Allies]] in World War II after [[Mussolini]]'s demands for surrender were met with the famous "[[Okhi]]" (''[[Greek]] for "no"'') statement of Greek Prime Minister [[Ioannis Metaxas]]. [[Italy]] invaded in October of 1940, and were repulsed by Greek troops in the [[Greco-Italian War]]. [[Germany|German]] and [[Bulgaria|Bulgarian]] troops joined their Italian allies in the fight, and overran the Greek, [[Great Britain|British]], [[Australia|Australian]], and [[New Zealand]] forces. The [[Nazi]] invasion during the [[Battle of Crete]] was delayed by fierce [[Crete|Cretan]] resistance, delaying the German [[Operation Barbarossa|invasion]] of the [[Soviet Union]] for over a month. Despite their efforts, the Nazi war machine was able to annex Greece. After liberation, Greece fell into [[Greek Civil War|civil war]] between [[communists]] and royalists. Lasting until 1949, the conflict resulted in a Royalist victory, preserving the Greek state, but at the cost of 40,000 lives.

==Chinese Civil War resumes==

When the Japanese surrendered, the Chinese Nationalist army far outnumbered the Red revolutionary army. Then appeared Stalin's army of 1,250,000 men armed with American guns, planes, tanks and munitions and other supplies and the balance began to alter. And the Maoists had immense quantities of munitions laid down by the Japanese in the Manchuria.

General [[George C. Marshall]] was sent by [[President Truman]] as his personal representative to China, arriving on December 20, 1945. His specific instructions from Secretary of State [[James Byrnes]] were to insist on a coalition government of "unity" as a condition for continued aid to the Nationalists.<ref>''George C. Marshall, Statesman, 1945-1959'', Forrest C. Pogue, New York, 1987, pg. 61.</ref> [[CCP]] leader [[Mao Zedong]] already said publicly in April 1945 that a coalition government with the Chinese Nationalists would result in the defeat of "reactionary American imperialism."<ref>"On Coalition Government," address to the April 1945 Seventh National Convention of the Chinese Communist Party, quoted in Anthony Kubek, ''How the Far East Was Lost'', Chicago 1963, pg. 238.</ref>

Marshall held several meetings with [[Chiang Kai-shek]] or his delegates and with Mao's representative, [[Zhou Enlai]], and twice arranged ceasefires, in January and June of 1946. When the ceasefires was ordered the Communists held 57 counties. A year later they had 310—a violation of the truce. The Bolton Congressional report compiled a catalogue of the bridges, railway stations and other installations destroyed by the Communists during the ceasefire.<ref>Bolton Report, House Committee on Foreign Affairs (Sub-Committee No. 5) on Communism in China, 1948.</ref><ref>''History of the Chinese Communist Party'', Jacques Guillermaz, London, 1972, pg. 445.</ref><ref>''China: A Political History, 1917-1980'', Richard C. Thornton, Boulder, CO, 1982, pg. 192.</ref> Marshall however imposed an embargo on the [[Chinese Nationalist government]]. All aid of all sorts to the Kuomintang was discontinued until the summer of 1947 by which time the balance had shifted. Even then what the U.S. sent was insufficient to stem the Communist tide.

Gen. [[Douglas MacArthur]]'s Chief of Intelligence told the U.S. [[Senate Internal Security Subcommittee]] in 1951, "The real cause for the Communization of China is the long-range [[subversion|subversive]] operation, over the last two decades, conducted by professional Communists under orders of the [[Kremlin]]-controlled Third [[Comintern]]."<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,821608-3,00.html The Case Against '''[[I.P.R.]]'''], ''[[Time magazine]]'', September 03, 1951.</ref>

==Ukrainian Resistance==

==Fallout From World War II==

*[[Iron Curtain]]

*[[British Empire]]
The war effectively bankrupted Britain, which started the process of dismantling its empire. It was not until 2007 Britain finished paying off the loans to the USA which it had taken to fight Nazi Germany.

*the Netherlands and Indonesia
After the defeat of the Japanese empire, their army retired from the [[Dutch East Indies]] and the land was returned back to the Dutch. Quickly after that, the people of the islands revolted against the government on 17 August 1945 and declared themselves independent. The Dutch sent their “new” army to the colonies to restore order. The Dutch scored a number of victories, but after the political pressure from the USA and Australia the Dutch acknowledged in 27 December 1949 the sovereignty of [[Indonesia]]

*Supremacy of the USA in the Western World
Whilst most countries had seen their economies demolished by the war, the USA had industrialized heavily and made financial gains from sales of arms to other Allied countries. Prior to the war, one-third of Americans were employed in agriculture. The socioeconomic changes brought by returning soldiers, many of whom took advantage of a generous GI education benefits, precipitated the rise of the great American middle class.

*Supremacy of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe.

*[[Vietnam War]]
During the war the French lost their colony of Vietnam to the Japanese. At the end of the war they decided to reassert their colonial mastery, but the Vietnamese now had other ideas. The battle with the French would eventually lead into the Vietnam war after the French defeat and American intervention ensued to prevent the spread of Communism.

==See also==
*''Main article: [[Workers World Revolution]]
*[[Cairo conference]]
*[[Harry Dexter White]]
*[[Institute of Pacific Relations]]
*[[Lend-Lease Act]]

==Further reading==

*Gerhard L. Weinberg, ''Foreign Policy of Hitler's Germany: Starting World War II, 1937-1939'', Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.
* Gerhard L. Weinberg, ''A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II'', Cambridge: University Press, 1994.
*[http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/1997/padilla.html Kursk: The Turning Point on the Eastern Front in World War II], by Roberto R. Padilla II

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

== External Links ==
* United States Department of the Navy/Navy Historical Center's [http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq36-4.htm Fleet Admiral Chester William Nimitz]
* [http://www.onpower.org/history_wwii.html/ World War II]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=12&articleID=139 "On the Brink of World War II: Justus Doenecke’s ''Storm on the Horizon''," by Ralph Raico]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1499 "Government and the Economy: The World Wars," by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=113 "How War Amplified Federal Power in the Twentieth Century," by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=65 ''Depression, War and Cold War'', by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=138 "Wartime Prosperity?", by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=1431 Pearl Harbor]
[[Category:World War II| ]]
[[Category:Wars]]

Pickle

2008-03-30T14:43:56Z

Alberti:

A '''pickle''' is any foodstuff that has been preserved by anaerobic [[fermentation]] in [[brine]] or marinating and subsequent storage in an [[acid]] solution such as [[vinegar]].

Foods commonly pickled include [[cucumber]]s, [[gherkin]]s, [[onion]]s and [[cabbage]].

== Metaphor ==
A 'pickle' can be an embarrassing or awkward situation: "Andrew Schlafly has got himself into a bit of a pickle with his threats to report editors to the FBI".

[[Category:Food and Drink]]

Pickle

2008-03-30T14:39:06Z

Alberti:

Pickle

2008-03-30T14:38:40Z

Alberti: Not "usually a cucumber" - lots of things.

Kettle

2008-03-30T14:35:15Z

Alberti: What a fish kettle is

A '''kettle''' is a device used for boiling water, mainly these days used for the making of hot drinks (tea or coffee), and some food items such as freeze-dried instant noodles, or powdered soup / sauce mixes. 

In the old days before people had running hot water, they'd also be used to fill up the bath. 

There a 2 main types of kettle - those powered by mains electricity, and those powered by an external heat source (such as the top of a gas cooker, or an open camp fire). It is also possible to obtain ones powered from a car's cigarette lighter socket, and a 3rd type known as a Kelly Kettle traditionally used by fishermen from the West of Ireland but becoming increasingly popular with other outdoorsy type people. That works by having it's own self-contained fire inside the metal casing which fits over the top of itself. 

== Fish kettle ==

A '''fish kettle''' is an elongated pan used for poaching [[fish]].

== Alternative Uses of the word ==
A "Kettle" is also a term used by Railway enthusiasts when referring to a [[Steam Locomotive]].

== Related Links ==
[http://www.kellykettle.com/ The Kelly Kettle]

[[category:cooking]]

Talk:Sexual ethics

2008-03-30T14:32:26Z

Alberti: /* That's it? */

== That's it? ==

You would think that a topic as complex as this would merit a bit more then a quote from Bill Bennett

[[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

:I dunno, he is quite studly. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:18, 31 January 2008 (EST)

:Yeah, but doesn't this perpetuate the slander that conservatives are afraid of sex? :) [[User:DLerner|DLerner]]

::Well, I dunno. You could argue that it's not family friendly... Because sex doesn't create families. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:22, 31 January 2008 (EST)
:::Ouch, you have quite a bite :). [[User:DLerner|DLerner]]
::::Th... thanks? :P [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:32, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Why is this page locked? And why is the only comment Bible-related? Either erase it and lock it or put something more on it. [The kids find out about it sometime, whether your encyclopedia wants them to or not...] [[User:FlightlessOstrich|FlightlessOstrich]] 16:50, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

Surely even homeschoolers should know how babies are made. God created our bodies and created sex - what are these dumboes afraid of? [[User:Alberti|Alberti]] 10:32, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

Human reproduction

2008-03-30T14:30:24Z

Alberti:

'''Human reproduction''' is the mechanism by which we perpetuate our species. In order for human reproduction to occur under normal circumstances<ref>exceptionally, reproduction may take place via procedures such as in vitro fertilisation</ref>, a man and woman should engage in [[sexual intercourse]]. [[Christianity]] sanctions intercourse within [[marriage]]; most non-Christian cultures also enshrine this activity within a marriage-like union: a lifelong, legally sanctioned bond between one man and one woman.

The ultimate act of intimacy serves to unite the male and female gametes, the sperm and egg, respectively. These gametes carry just one half of the [[gene]]tic material ([[chromosome]]s) from each parent, and when they combine the new embryo contains a full set of chromosomes, as well as its [[soul]]. The process of the gametes combining is called fertilization, and takes place inside the woman's body, in the fallopian tubes or uterus. The embryo then attaches itself to the uterine lining, and is nourished by the woman's body while it develops. This development takes roughly nine months.

At the end of this process of protected development, what was once an embryo is now born as a new baby. Human babies are relatively helpless, and depend on the care and love of their parents in order to survive to maturity themselves.

Humans are not able to reproduce alone by budding, parthenogenesis, or self-cloning as some species are capable of. In addition, human gender is fixed, unlike some species, females are not able to become male or vice versa to deal with homogeneous populations of one gender.

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Sexuality]]

Human reproduction

2008-03-30T14:30:07Z

Alberti:

Human reproduction

2008-03-30T14:28:19Z

Alberti:

'''Human reproduction''' is the mechanism by which we perpetuate our species. In order for human reproduction to occur, a man and woman should engage in [[sexual intercourse]]. [[Christianity]] sanctions intercourse within [[marriage]]; most non-Christian cultures also enshrine this activity within a marriage-like union: a lifelong, legally sanctioned bond between one man and one woman.

The ultimate act of intimacy serves to unite the male and female gametes, the sperm and egg, respectively. These gametes carry just one half of the [[gene]]tic material ([[chromosome]]s) from each parent, and when they combine the new embryo contains a full set of chromosomes, as well as its [[soul]]. The process of the gametes combining is called fertilization, and takes place inside the woman's body, in the fallopian tubes or uterus. The embryo then attaches itself to the uterine lining, and is nourished by the woman's body while it develops. This development takes roughly nine months.

At the end of this process of protected development, what was once an embryo is now born as a new baby. Human babies are relatively helpless, and depend on the care and love of their parents in order to survive to maturity themselves.

Humans are not able to reproduce alone by budding, parthenogenesis, or self-cloning as some species are capable of. In addition, human gender is fixed, unlike some species, females are not able to become male or vice versa to deal with homogeneous populations of one gender.

[[Category:Sexuality]]

Talk:Professor values

2008-03-30T14:19:26Z

Alberti: /* Catholic schools */

...does [[Richard Dawkins|Dawkins]] fall into this category as well? For example, ''"Liberal politicians are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate."'' [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:03, 8 March 2008 (EST)
:No, because he's not a politician, and he does have a doctorate (two, actually, I think). And since you bring it up...Gary Hart also has a doctorate. And, while Dukakis only has a Harvard law degree, his academic work has been in fields where he can most reasonably be considered an expert (public policy). The same can be said of Al Gore (and his have hardly been "high-ranking academic positions"--"visiting" professorships, and non-credit courses). And, finally, Kerrey is an administrator, not an academic.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 20:35, 9 March 2008 (EDT)
::He's not a politician, but he is an [[atheistic]] (and [[liberal]]) figurehead. And I wouldn't be too certain about those doctorates; [[Richard_Dawkins#Position_at_Oxford|it's debatable whether Dawkins is even a real professor]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 00:10, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:I removed Hart and Kerrey as examples of "liberal politicians (who) are routinely given high-ranking academic positions despite a lack of a doctorate", because (as noted above), Hart has a doctorate, and Kerrey is an administrator (not an academic).--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::I don't know enough about those politicians in particular to confirm your edits, but your reasoning sounds legitimate. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:33, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
:::Alternately, I suppose, one could add Hart/Kerrey back to the list and change the wording of the defining phrase to something like, "...given university positions over better-qualified candidates."--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 22:46, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
::Actually, yes, I agree with that. These examples certainly shouldn't be removed on a technicality or a meaningless distinction when the point still stands; changing the wording of the phrase is a much better idea. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 20:56, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

== What is this about? ==

'''What?''' Another article based on an '''unheard-of phrase''' plucked out of the air? This certainly does not look like an encyclopedia article - cf. [[Hollywood values]], [[Liberal friendship]], [[Second generation atheist]], [[Liberal grading]], [[Embraced deceit]], etc. None of these belongs in an encyclopedia. Apart from anything else, who on earth is likely to look up a phrase like "professor values"? Shouldn't an encyclopedia consist of articles on topics that users are likely to look for, not on opinion pieces by its editor-in-chief? What point are you trying to make, exactly? Who is the target of this latest attack? This is the sort of thing I would expect from a blog or a hate-based website, not from a family-friendly and '''trustworthy''' encyclopedia. This sort of thing is making Conservapedia look ridiculous. Or would you like articles on [[Doctor values]], [[Taxi-driver values]] and [[Lawyer values]] as well? If so, I'd be happy to draft them for you! There must be lots to be said about the misdemeanors of all sorts of groups. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:15, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

: I agree that this kind of article could bring legitimate criticism against CP. The major premises are not documented. While some contributers to this article, including those who have made those assertions, say that it is a work in progress and welcome others to document the supposed many examples, there are a pitiful few, some old, some from other countries, and some for extremely prevalent crimes of marijuana possession. I took a long time to find the best possible supporting source for educational stats, and my guess is that the more than 1,200,000 professors currently working in colleges and universities are responsible for a disproportionately SMALL number of crimes. Until I find statistical support for that statement, I won't post it in the article.

: For a collaborative resource like this, I believe it is imperative that any contributor making an assertion, especially critical ones (as opposed to trivia, added dates, etc. -- which ideally should be supported, too), document them appropriately. If not, that sends a poor message to other contributors, editors, and sysops -- to say nothing of users, potential users, and CP critics. It is hardly the kind of example to provide for home-schooled kids learning about proper scholarship. I have looked and looked and find no reliable studies that support the argument that professors are more likely than anybody else to do bad things. Also, no evidence that liberal professors are worse than conservative ones. There are news and blog reports that repeat certain cases, but unless one does an exhaustive search, no conclusions can be drawn. If this article remains, then there should be additional coverage for politicians, clergy, other professions, etc. and they should include misdeeds by conservatives and liberals alike, according to the actual data. Leaving out crimes by conservatives does no one a service. I understand that this is a conservative encyclopedia, but some traits of it purportedly include truthfulness (I'd argue that it is dishonest to tell only partial truths), and to avoid misrepresentation and sensationalism. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 8:26, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

== Head's up - this isn't as simple as it may seem ==

As I was doing some admittedly "Google-esque" research, I did find that there are well over 4000 colleges and universities and probably many more than 1,250,000 current faculty. If we work backwards a generation or two, the number increases, of course, which makes it difficult to substantiate the claim that professors are disproportionately likely to commit crimes or other misdeeds, especially if all we cite are fewer than 20 examples of such misdeeds. Looking at campus statistics, many more campus crimes (by far) were committed by students, to say nothing about the many thousands of crimes committed by the general public. So I started doing some informal Google searches for crimes committed by different professions, using -- for lack of a more efficient search method -- "professor arrested," "faculty arrested," etc. along with other professional categories. Combining "faculty" or "professor" and "crime" didn't work well (too many useless hits).
The highest, in that combination alone, was "teacher" (over 190,000 hits), but "mayor" still had more hits (over 27,000) than "faculty" or "professor" (about 14,000). Unfortunately, hits for "pastor," "minister," and "priest," added up to an uncomfortably high number, over 100,000, but then again, if we don't know how many pastors, etc. are out there, we have no percentage to compare them with faculty or other groups. My methodology is rudimentary, but I didn't see any demographic or statistical reports that covered this topic. So, unless we can document this so-called high rate of crime among faculty, perhaps the article should remain mute on the number, relative to other professions. After seeing some statistics about the correlation between educational level and prison population, it also seems like the prison population is much more likely to have no or little education. There are very few PhDs in prisons. Likewise, after seeing these figures, I would guess that the more one is educated, the less likely one is to get felonies or misdemeanors.

So, my question is: do any other contributors to this article have any data at all on this? Is it only anecdotal? If facts can't be documented, then they don't belong in these articles. Especially if the article is questioning the integrity of professors, including their intellectual integrity (like the Korean scientist who established his reputation on cooked data - about which I can find documentation), this article's information should be sound. It is still full of undocumented assertions and sensationalism. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 8:01, 27 March 2008 (CDT)

== Tony Blair ==

Huh? How is this not relevant to the article? He has no doctorate, he has been appointed to teach at Yale and he is a liberal politician. --[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:19, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: That appears simply to be a guest lecture appointment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
:: You mean just like Al Gore?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 10:54, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
::: Since you don't seem to mind guest lecturers being added to this list, I will put Tony Blair back.
== Really? ==

I just did a google search, and the first few pages of the 735 results don't have any signinifigance to subject at hand. So, here's my question: Did you just make this term up Andy? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:07, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

: There's a great deal of bias out there, DLerner. That's a reason why we're here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Yes, Andy. But the problem is, there's a great deal of bias here too. Are there any articles critical of conservatives on this site? Believe me conservatives aren't perfect. You didn't answer my question, where is the term "Professor values" from? I know there are a lot of stupid people/policies on colleges (just watch the Penn & Teller episode on [[censorship]]) but that isn't the point. Where is the term from? [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:16, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Why are you critical of a neologism which points out a legitimate area of concern, DLerner? Examine the case studies, and perhaps you will appreciate why this article is a necessary one. [[User:Koba|Koba]] 12:34, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

::::Koba, the problem with making up a phrase like this is that it's really not meaningful, unless backed up by statistically valid evidence to justify it. Do Charlton Heston and John Wayne fit the profile of "Hollywood Values" as defined here? The examples mentioned in this article are as representative of professors as a category (i.e. a few out of thousands around the world), as they are of males. If this is the encyclopedic standard CP holds to, then I can create a page called "Right-handed values", describing the bad traits of right-handed people and backed by examples of the criminal behavior of some cherry-picked right-handed people, and it would pass muster based on examples like this page that ASchafly endorses.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

''The phrase Professor values refers to the lack of morals and values in the culture of college faculties, which is characterized by atheism, censorship, socialism, unjustified claims of expertise and knowledge, advocacy of liberal beliefs, liberal grading, liberal bias, anti-patriotism, plagiarism, false claims of credentials, lack of productivity, and promotion of sexual immorality.''

Has anyone else seen this "phrase" before? I looked for it. If it's a study, it belongs in an essay not in a article. Personally, I think Andy made it up. (It's a nice slogan though...)

If anyone can make up a term then write an article about it, how's this? "The phrase '''Criminal values''' refers to the lack of respect for the law..." [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 12:59, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

:Indeed - see my comment under "What is this about?", above - which nobody has seen fit to reply to. The proliferation of these flimsy articles is making a mockery of Conservapedia. The latest such nonsense is [[Liberal drivel]], which I assume is a parody - but it's getting harder and harder to distinguish parody from real content. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 13:17, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

== Um... ==
This article serves no purpose... It should be an essay or opinion at the very most --[[User:Helps|Helps]] 11:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

What '''statistical''' evidence is there in this article of atheism, plagiarism, socialism
, censorship etc. This article makes unfounded claims. [[User:Angband|Angband]] 13:18, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

: Help find the support for those observations. It's not difficult to find. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:: That is the wrong way to answer a legitimate question, and does a disservice to the students you want using Conservapedia as a legitimate reference source. When a so-called encyclopedic article makes irrational assertions and offers no cited evidence to support them, people are going to question its validity. Your response, "The supporting evidence is out there, help us to find it.", is basically an endorsement of unacademic postings by biased individuals as long as the bias is conservative, and an insult to the moderates who want a Conservative Encyclopedia to be, well, encyclopedic. My suggestion is that if it's not that hard to find the supporting evidence, then the page should be removed until the author can find it him/herself and post it. I'm sure I'll be accused of "Liberal Denial" or "Liberal Apology", or some other "Liberal ---" behavior that's used in place of an academic response, but fair-minded people need to speak up about this.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:I've never been to College in my long life but I must agree. This article is sensationalist tabloidism at its very best. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:49, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== First paragraph of article is not adequately supported ==

I do think the listing of the growing problem of professors misdeeds section in the latter part of the article was very informative.

However, I don't think the footnote in the first paragraph adequately supports the first paragraphs contentions. Is plagiarism truly a professor value? If it is, there is absolutely no support for the contention. I don't think that plagiarism is a common value of professor although there may be certainly instances of it. I have read the scientific fraud in the way of fudging experimental results is a significant problem but I have not heard the same regarding plagiarism. I do know that puffing up ones resume is a significant problem in the USA, however, the contention that professors often do it was not supported.

In short, I think the initial paragraph does not follow the conservapedia commandments in regards to proper citation and support. I don't think it is reasonable to ask the reader to do the research for that is getting the cart before the horse. It is the writers job to support the material.

I do recommend the following conservative website in order to help provide adequate support for the article: Accuracy in Academia at http://www.academia.org/

In the meantime, I suggest the article to be pulled from the popular articles at Conservapedia until adequate support is given and that the article have a citation template put on it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:16, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

: This is a work-in-progress with 24 references already. There have been numerous instances of plagiarism by professors without any punishment, and those citations will be easy to fill in, and I welcome assistance. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:57, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::It does appear as if liberals are over represented in academia with 90% of professors describing themselves as being liberals or moderates. [http://chronicle.com/temp/reprint.php?id=s1153nnhjkhr407r6ng6gjg8pvc8g2s8] Therefore, there does appear to be less conservatives in academia. So one would expect there to be more atheist in academia. At the same time , atheism is not a professor value as about 25% of philosophy professors are theist. [http://www.rzim.org/slice/slicetran.php?sliceid=880] In the business and engineering departments the percentage of professors being theist is probably higher given that they are more conservative. In regards to plagiarism being a professor value, many instances of professors committing this act does not necessarily constitute it being a professor value. There are a lot of professors in the USA and abroad so the real question what percentage of professors have engaged in plagiarism. In other words, you can can find many instances of men beating their wives in the United States but is wife beating a "male value"? I don't think it is. Again, it comes down to the percentage issue. So to sum up, I think the opening paragraph needs to be less expansive in its claims or provide additional support. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:47, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:Even if 25% of philosophy professors were theists, wouldn't this still be lower than the rate of theism in the population as a whole? I do agree with your post in that it should be examined by specific departments. At least at my school, some departments, such as Economics and Geography, do not seem particularly liberal, while a number of others clearly are. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:03, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
:::DanH, thank you for your polite and kind reply. I do think that liberal ideology and liberals are over represented in academia. However, to call something a "professor value" or "male value" while a significant portion of the population in question does not share a particular value would be over reaching in my estimation. And I do think, for example, that 25% of a given population not sharing a value would be a significant amount of people and be justification for saying a given characteristic was not a value of the population as a whole. However, you can fairly say that a certain value is over represented in a population as a whole if in fact it is. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:14, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: Good cites, Conservative. I've added them. This entry is ranked #1 on Google and is emerging as a significant insight. Professors share a common value system, not unanimously, but in higher percentages of agreement than even some churches. It's enlightening to described the [[professor value]]s and note the harm caused by them. Ideas obviously do have consequences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 24 March 2008 (EDT)
::::: I have a feeling that the majority of the professors at Liberty University might take exception to this article, since by definition these descriptors apply to them. Also, being ranked #1 in this case has more to do with the topic not being recognized as a commonly-used term. If I wrote an article titled "Liberal Klingon Values" it would rank #1 for that search in no time, without being any more relevant.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:29, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

What constitutes "a relatively high" number of instances of crimes or other misdeeds? Compared to other professions? If so, then we'd need to document those comparisons. If there are over 1,200,000 professors currently active in the US alone, then the total cited cases here is an extremely small 0.00125% of that population, about 1.25 evildoers per 100,000 faculty -- and some cited were from former generations or from other countries. Given stats from the National Center for Educational Statistics, the total population of professors would easily be in the multiple millions (depending how far back we'd want to go), making the percentage of the population amazingly miniscule. Some of the crimes or other behavior in the list refers to things that the general public is probably even more likely to do, including stalking family, drug possession, etc. -- in other words, not things that are unique to professors at all. I'd say the % of pastors and other religious leaders who have gotten themselves into hot water is embarrassingly high (sexual immorality, misuse of church funds, etc.) and perhaps higher than that of the professoriate. Maybe comparing the professors to the general population would show that professors are more or less likely than the general population to commit crimes. Also, to be fair and honest according to the Commandments, this article should report the academic/moral/financial misdeeds -- some very high profile -- of conservative academics, including events at several Christian colleges and universities, indluding former faculty and university presidents. Making unfounded statements in an encyclopedia article, especially if the statements are inflammatory, is antithetical to the whole idea of honest scholarship -- which is ironic, considering the topic of this article! [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:25, 26 March 2008 (CDT)

== Title of the article should be "liberals and academia" and not "professor values" ==

I do believe upon sound research that people are not going to find this article based on a search of "professor values".

Here are the Google results of "professor values" and you will notice that all 715 results have nothing to do with the article we have: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Professor+Values%22&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

On the other hand if you do a search on "liberals in academia" you will get 8,450 results and all are related to our article: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22liberals+in+academia%22&btnG=Search

While I do think it is great to have a #1 Google entry in terms of getting exposure to Conservapedia I do think you have to begin with the end in mind and bring people to Conservapedia who are interested in a particular issue. I do realize that it is sometimes beneficial to pursue long tail marketing and dominate less competitive search queries over a long period of time, however, it does not appear as if anyone is typing in "professor values" to find the subject material of our article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:33, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

I hesitate to point this out again (I mentioned it above), but what of crimes and other misdeeds committed by conservative academics? A number of leaders of Christian colleges and universities have, for example, abused authority, horribly misused funds for private -- and sometimes extravagant -- entertainment, travel, or shopping, or have had immoral sexual affairs. Not including information about these instances, or even acknowleding their existence, is a serious and dishonest error of omission. [[User:CPlantin|CPlantin]] 09:28, 25 March 2008 (CDT)

==Professor Values on Wikipedia==

Seems the article was put up on Wikipedia and is now up for deletion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Values

This thing really doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 07:18, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:Not on wikipedia, maybe (not least, because it was ''plagiarized'' from here!) - but it seems perfectly at home in this encyclopedia. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:21, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:: I bet you think [[Hollywood values]] should be censored also!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

::: Actually, yeah, that's a dumb article too. --[[User:DJBlair|DJBlair]] 14:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:Yes, I think any article that is just 'made up' is neither trustworthy or encyclopedic. I wouldn't let my kids near this site (or Wikipedia for that matter, but thats a story for another day) [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 20:20, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

::In a strange bout of irony the WP ''Professor Values'' article now ranks higher than the CP version. [[User:TheGySom|TheGySom]] 08:24, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

==Catholic schools==

Should abuse by priests in catholic schools deserve its own article entitles, [[Priest Values]]? Of course not, because the abuse committed by some priests is not indicative of the entire group. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 20:42, 25 March 2008 (EDT)
:You're making a big mistake, you think this "encyclopedia"  is governed by logic and reason, it isn't. -- '''[[user:DLerner|D L e r n e r]]''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DLerner Articulate] 20:48, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:: DLerner was blocked for his repeated derogatory comments, and "LeaningRight" you should be blocked for your 90/10 [[rule]] violation against talk, talk, talk.

:: This [[professor values]] lists the commonly held values and consequences of those values. Your suggestion does not fit that model, and your suggestion is ludicrous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:17, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Whatever. By the way, check my contributions, specifically to the India article. I have not broken any rules that I know of. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:31, 26 March 2008 (EDT)
:This is a link to my mainspace contributions: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=LeaningRight&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=0 [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 13:33, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:: LeaningRight, you wrote, "I have not broken any rules that I know of." That is known as [[deliberate ignorance]], and it's not an excuse. Your last ten contributions have been all talk, and that violates the 90/10 [[rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:32, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Please have a little respect and don't talk to me like a child. I'm a middle aged man with children and I find that highly disrespectful. Have a glance at my contributions. I wasn't even aware of this 90/10 rule until you brought it up so its ignorance, but not 'deliberate'. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 15:26, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:: You responded to my citation to our very simple set of [[rules]] with "Whatever" and "I have not broken any rules that I know of." Your response was ''after'' I directed you to the very simple set of rules.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

:Go and meet someone who doesn't agree with what you believe. I can guarantee you it will be quite refreshing. I'm taking a week off before I lose any faith I have ever had in the American people. [[User:LeaningRight|LeaningRight]] 16:15, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

::You really ought to watch how you talk to good editors, Andy. Your attitude isn't helping Conservapedia one bit. [[User:ShaggerNorris|ShaggerNorris]] 18:30, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

Andy, if you hope to gain the respect of the mainstream, and avoid being an object of ridicule at RW and everywhere else, provide a solid case instead of anecdotes [[User:Innsmouth1|Innsmouth1]] 19:09, 27 March 2008 (EDT)
: What's RW? [[User:Alberti|Alberti]] 10:19, 30 March 2008 (EDT)