Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2011-08-30T17:33:31Z

DRCWMILLER: /* Public Discussion Here */

[[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive1|Archive 1]]
 [[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive2|Archive 2]]

== Public Discussion Here ==

(post comments here by clicking "Edit this page")

The Conservapedia entry for "Gen. George S. Patton" has a great section on the classic 1969 film, "Patton;" why is it not on the list?? A few years back "National Review" listed 100 great conservative films ("A Man for All Seasons" led NR editors' list). Immediately readers (including me) sent in their own nominations and "Patton" came in #1!!!!

CW Miller PhD

I think 'Tears of the Sun' should've definitely been on the list. Its extremely pro-military.

What is the conservative message taught by "The Way We Were"? Just curious.

== The Blind Side ==
It's a story about the shortcomings of public education and how the power of private Christian charity helped a young homeless man overcome his disadvantages and play in the NFL.[[User:AdamDiscordia|AdamDiscordia]] 19:03, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Brokeback Mountain ==

I was thinking about this topic earlier and had an interesting thought about a seemingly non-conservative movie that, in a way, is actually quite so. I'm going to throw this out there for some (hopefully productive and civil) debate and see what people think.

The movie is Brokeback Mountain. Now hold on to your outrage, people. I have justifications for my point. Please hear me out. (Oh, and spoilers, just in case you planned to see/read it and hadn't)

As you probably know, the movie (and the novella on which its based) is about two men who fall into a homosexual lifestyle. But what struck me as conservative about this film is that it doesn't glorify the lifestyle; the two mens' choice to indulge in homosexuality is a disastrous choice that ends up ruining both their lives. One man's marriage is destroyed and his relationship with his child is forever tainted. The other man's choice actually leads to his violent death (Incidentally, I'm not saying that killing someone for being gay is a conservative value. But the point is that this movie is actually very up-front about acknowledging the catastrophic consequences of a homosexual lifestyle).

Considering all that, my next though was whether this movie might be unintentionally conservative, in which case it certainly doesn't belong on this list. But I don't think it is (haven't seen it since it first came out though, so I could be wrong).

So, there's my point. I would appreciate some discussion. I imagine some CPers will think I'm trolling or just trying to start an argument. Not so. I feel like it's a valid point but that there are probably strong arguments for and against, and I'd really like to hear what other people think. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 17:11, 25 June 2010 (EDT)

:You are partially right, but I think the homosexuals were meant to be sympathetic and on that basis alone, I don't think that movie belongs on this list. [[User:AdamDiscordia|AdamDiscordia]] 19:05, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== U-571 ==

I deleted U-571 from this list. It portrays the capture of an Enigma machine from a German U-boat by US forces. As pretty much everyone with any interest in WW2 knows, the naval Enigma machine was stolen by Polish forces and decoded by British code-breakers at Bletchley. My Brit friends think U-571 is a joke because it minimises the role of the British ("you arrogant Yankees"). Poles are offended because it cuts out the Polish involvement altogether - including the very brave men who risked their lives to steal an Enigma machine and hand it over to British Intelligence. (BTW, Britain and Poland were allies of ours in WW2 and still are now.) Deceit isn't a conservative virtue - so I crossed U-571 off the list. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 16:51, 20 September 2010 (EDT)

: I'd say it's very questionable whether there's any deceit involved. The movie makes an on-screen written acknowledgment that the the first (and the majority) of enigmas were captured by British sailors. The whole movie is so over-the-top that nobody with a lick of intelligence would believe it's true. American sailors did capture an enigma machine during the war too, so this movie is obviously "inspired by a true story" even if it's not especially true. Most of the movie-going public knows that Hollywood "true" stories are highly fictionalized. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:13, 21 September 2010 (EDT)

==The Lives of Others==

Where on earth is The Lives of Others? it is, surely, the best recent critique of Communism and, for that matter, one of the best films ''of any type'' released in the past five years. It certainly deserves a place ahead of, for example, the obscure Dark Matter. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:13, 28 November 2010 (EST)

: It's in German, right, and about the former [[East Germany]]? I'll add it on your recommendation, but I can't agree it ranks higher than the English-language Dark Matter, which speaks to today and not just the past.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 28 November 2010 (EST)

::Fair enough, Andy. Though I don't quite understand the argument against foreign-language films. If the issue is obscurity, The Lives of Others was seen by far more people in the US than Dark Matter. A glance at Box-Office Mojo confirms that Dark Matter took in a staggeringly tiny $30,591 on its domestic run. The Lives of Others took in $11,286,112 in the US (plus another $66 million in the rest of the world). I am, however, content to abide by your criteria. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 15:40, 28 November 2010 (EST)

:::Oprah Winfrey's daytime talk show rakes in far higher revenues than both, but I'm not sure what that proves. Dark Matter was apparently victimized and downplayed by liberals who finally figured out its conservative message, after it won first place in one of the Sundance Film Festival categories. The liberal backlash against Dark Matter is particularly surprising given that Meryl Streep starred in it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 28 November 2010 (EST)

::::P.S. Your suggestion of "The Lives of Others" is a fine addition. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:02, 28 November 2010 (EST)
http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/button_sig.png
::::No problem. Keep up the good work. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 20:47, 28 November 2010 (EST)

== Fiddler on the Roof? ==

A film celebrating the value of community, tradition, family, and faith, all against the historical context of the harm done by the rise of Communism in Russia...worthy of a spot on the list? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:30, 6 January 2011 (EST)

:Sounds good to me ... please add it as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 6 January 2011 (EST)

== Gattaca ==

A condemnation of genetic experiments on humans, and a wonderful triumph of individualism in an extremely controlled society. No matter how much scientists play to be God, and try to improve the human race by using genetics, there will always be an individual, based on original God design, who, despite his health shortcomings, will triumph over this genetically modified, supposedly perfect human beings.

I don’t immediately put it on the list because the movie is a bit atheist. In the final scene, the hero finally managed to travel to space and cites the phrase: “They say every atom in our bodies was once a part of a star. So, maybe I'm not leaving, maybe I'm going home."

So, I’ll say that the movie has a conservative message, unfortunately diluted with atheist overtones. I’ll wait for someone else opinion before posting this. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 23:03, 10 March 2011 (EST)

:Feel free to post this with the caveat you mention. Thanks for explaining it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
::We talked about this movie at my fellowship a few months ago - pure hokum about a guy who might have been alright on his own but for a disgusting patriarchy forcing human engineering. I'll write this if AlejandroJ doesn't. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 00:51, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
:::Thanks, I posted it. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 15:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

== Disney cartoons ==

Most, and perhaps all, of the Disney cartoons for the past 15 or so years have pushed the [[feminist]] ideology. I welcome any counterexamples, but doubt there are any. Hence the reversion of the "Princess and the Frog (2009)" addition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)
:''The Lion King'', a 1994 Disney movie, is definitely conservative. A main message of the movie is honoring thy father, and the power-hungry main antagonist, once he becomes ruler, favors big government, pushes [[liberal values]] and destroys their territory. I'll add it with your approval. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 15:45, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

::Sounds like a good choice. Please add and if anyone has a different view of the movie, then he can let us know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:26, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Added. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 16:41, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly I would agree with your reversion of my contribution of the Princess and the Frog if that movie were feminist-ideology-promoting (like, for instance Mulan (1998)) but frankly, it is not a feminist movie. I am not a woman, nor a feminist - I am staunchly conservative. The Princess and the Frog promotes monogamous marriage (which feminism does not) as well as the other conservative values I listed (such as saving money, hard work, free enterprise etc). In fact, the main character is so pro-marriage that she changes her licentious friend's behavior from debauchery (which feminism promotes) to monogamy. It is possibly the most conservative-value-laden animated movie I have ever seen.

''The Lion King'' on the other hand promotes re-incarnation with its "Circle of Life" song. Jack, the hero of ''Titanic'' commits fornication and mocks a man reciting the 23rd Psalm; Cal, the main antagonist is depicted as a church-service-attending hypocrite.

You are doubtless correct about the feminist ideology pushed by many Disney animations, but this is not one of them. I respectfully request that you consider returning my contribution of 'The Princess and the Frog'. [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 23:17, 25 March 2011 (EDT)

:I have to disagree with you about The Lion King. As far as I can interpret, "The Circle of Life" is either about the bond all humans share or the journey from life to death and the afterlife, not reincarnation. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 00:36, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::Spotsbunch, I think you have a valid point about the Lion King, but from what I've heard about the "Princess and the Frog," it's feminist claptrap with the woman wearing the pants and doing everything except having children and homeschooling her kids. It's more Disney tripe about a successful businesswoman towing along an inept man, which is hardly typical in the real world.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:56, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::Arguably, any movie where people turn into frogs, or where in Beauty and the Beast, people have transmogrified into furniture is not "real world". Fantasies they may be, (like many movies listed here) but they are still conservative. I (finally) put it to your kind consideration that if you would watch the Princess and the Frog, you would find it contains less feminism and more conservativism than Beauty and the Beast. Whatever your judgment, I respect your decision and will refrain from further debate, even though I (thus far) disagree. Kindest regards [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 08:43, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::[[Feminism]] is unmistakable: it has women acting like men and vice-versa, contrary to reality. Disney cartoons have been ''heavily'' feminist for at least 15 years. ''Beauty and the Beast'', made 20 years ago, was not feminist in any way. But having a "Princess" act like a businessman and aspire to run a restaurant is feminist. What's next - Cinderella aspires to be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company???--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:10, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::Is there any reason a woman can't run a restaurant or a fortune 500 company? No really, Andy, I want to know. Why is it feminist to portray a woman doing anything but cooking, cleaning, and rearing children? [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 13:40, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::Who said anything about cooking and cleaning? And, no, there isn't a reason why a woman can't aspire to any field, such as plumbers (almost no women plumbers), gas station attendants (ditto), or professional football players (ditto). The fact is that the vast majority of women ''do not aspire'' to do such activities (or running a restaurant or a Fortune 500 company), and it's false for feminists or feminist movies to repeatedly pretend otherwise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:48, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::I apologize for my abrasiveness, it just seemed that you were implying that's all they're supposed to do. I can see where you're coming from. While a woman can do what she wants, feminists are wrong for telling woman that they should only aspire to do things traditionally done by men. Men normally aren't beauty consultants, clothing designers, or nail salon technicians, so why don't we see any men urging more men to do these things? [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 14:00, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::[[Feminism]] repeatedly tries to persuade women not to have children and raise them, pretending that aspiring to work in a job is somehow better. I can't think of a single Disney movie in the last 15 years that has been realistic about the homemaker role that most women prefer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:00, 26 March 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::Up. A key part of the story is that the old man's wife had given up her dreams of being an explorer as real life concerns around the home took precedence. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 15:03, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::As promised, I will make my petition no further. However, as others have continued this debate, I will contribute to that. The Bible, our ultimate authority, disagrees (as I read it) that "a woman aspiring to run a business" (restaurant or otherwise) is feminist. Proverbs 31:10-31 describes at length "the wife of noble character" to be involved in business by working with eager hands; importing food from merchant ships; providing food for her family; purchasing property for farming; trading profitably; making and selling expensive cloth and having enough money left over to give to the poor. Anyone with a definition of feminism which includes activities like these, who also respects the Bible as God's authoritative Word should reconsider his definition. Respectfully and with kindest regards, [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 19:15, 26 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::Not surprisingly, you left out the verse saying "her children wake up, and call her 'blessed,' so does her husband" ([[CBP]] version), as well as several other verses that feminist movies do not include.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:06, 27 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::::::::::Then would it be acceptable to put the Princess and the Frog in the "Debatable Whether Conservative" section of this page? [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 15:44, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

::::::::::::::There are high quality movies in the "Debatable" section. The [[feminist]] "Princess and the Frog" doesn't even come close to that level of quality and arguably conservatism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:46, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

== Titanic ==

The movie ''Titanic'' also shows the rich and privileged getting on the half-empty life boats while the poor and lower class passengers are locked below (which is actually historical). Should it truly be included in this list? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:50, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

:No, I disagree. The movie accurately portrays the wealthiest men on the boat (Guggenheim, Astor, etc.) giving up their lives so that poorer women and children could be saved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:53, 6 April 2011 (EDT)

::While I'm ''not'' denying there were individual acts of chivalry and that Guggenheim et al declined seats (although there is historical conflicting testimony about Astor) on the lifeboats (of which there were too few given the number of people on the ship), the numbers show a definite declining survival rate by class. This was also a theme in the movie and not one that should be ignored.

::The movie showed the lower class passengers being locked in the bowels of the ship, blocking escape. There is historical conflicting testimony on this subject as well: several people reported gates between decks being locked and armed guards blocking passageways while one steerage passenger testified that the gates were not locked. Another passenger stated that not only did the staff ''not'' sound an alarm in third class, but that steerage passengers who came up on deck were told to return to their rooms because there was no danger.

::'''First Class''' Women - 4/141 died (97% survival rate)1; Children: 1/7 died2 (86% survival rate); Men - 104/171 died (39% survival rate); Totals: 109/319 died (66% overall survival rate)

::12 of the 4 first class female passengers who died chose to remain with their husbands. *corrected mistype.

::2Lorraine Allison remained on board with her family because they had been separated from her infant brother, who was on a lifeboat with his nurse. The entire family died, with the exception of the baby.

::'''Second Class''' Women: 13/92 died (86% survival rate); Children: 0/25 died (100% survival rate); Men: 135/152 died (11% survival rate); Totals: 148/269 died (45% overall survival rate)

::'''Third Class''' Women: 91/179 died (49% survival rate); Children: 55/80 died (31% survival rate); Men: 381/440 died (13% survival rate); Totals: 527/699 died (25% overall survival rate)

::'''Staff and crew''' Female: 2/22 died (91% survival rate); Male: 701/896 died (22% survival rate); Overall: 703/918 died (23% overall survival rate)

::There are some servants left out of these numbers due to confusion

::Sorry for the over-long reply, but the ''Titanic'' has been a subject of fascination to me since my teenage years (about a century ago!) so I'm rather verbose about it. 8^) I don't agree with you on the subject, but I won't remove the movie from the list. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:51, 7 April 2011 (EDT)
==Move The Dark Knight To the Debatable category?==
I'm wondering whether of not The Dark Knight should be truly considered conservative-while it does have the message of not giving in to terrorist, it also includes themes of everyone being corruptible and having their limits (like the good public defendant, Harvey Dent, turning into a villain, Two Face) and seems fascinated with darkness and chaos ("Madness is like gravity all you need is a little push"). Given this all, and the fact that Patrick Leahy had a cameo in it, I think this might well be reconsidered. Thoughts?
Armond White, who generally sees through liberal bias and is a more conservative viewer, wrote this about it: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:fTJ_tj1IKooJ:www.nypress.com/article-18545-knight-to-remember.html+armond+white+the+dark+knightr&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com]

:Thanks for your comments. I'll move "Dark Knight" to the debatable category as you suggest.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 13 April 2011 (EDT)

::I watched it when it came out, and I didn't notice anything particularly Conservative about it. The only thing really good about it was the citizen response to the terrorist dilemma the arch-villain sets up, whereby two boatloads of passengers "must" each ensure their own survival by blowing up the other's boat; a quick-witted passenger takes the remote control and throws it overboard. But this has nothing to do with Batman.

::The movie shows how vicious bad people can be, and how bullies support (and recruit) other bullies. But that is hardly fodder for the liberal-conservative debate. Both sides claim to despise bullying.

::I daresay the [[Batman]] character of the 1960s comic books had some "[[conservative]]" qualities, such as the ''noblesse oblige'' of the superior man and idea that society can be benefited by the actions of a heroic individual. Both of these run counter to Communist ideas of history. But the Batman movies I've seen are about a different, darker man. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:45, 14 April 2011 (EDT)

== "The Sandlot" as 1950s America as a time when "every boy had a chance to be great." ==

I suppose, maybe. It's harder to achieve greatness when one couldn't necessarily ride at the front of the bus/use the same drinking fountain/eat at the same counter/go to the same university as other folks. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 14:15, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

: Your point is valid. Feel free to include your point in the entry itself. I don't think the 1950s were as [[conservative]] as today. In addition to your comment, [[homeschooling]] was prohibited in the 1950s, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:29, 28 May 2011 (EDT)

== Rollerball (1975) ==

Rollerball (1975) is frequently overlooked as one of the great conservative films. A dystopian tale in which a corporate oligarchy maintains control over the peoples of the world by distracting them with a hedonistic culture of sex, drugs, and violent entertainment. Rollerball was designed by the corporations to hypnotize and distract the minions with gladiatorial combat disguised as sport. The world watches these spectacles and subconsciously receives the message their corporate masters are feeding them - that individual achievement is not possible, because every Rollerballer ultimately faces the same gruesome fate. However, when Jonathan E (James Caan) proves dominate and (more importantly) invincible in the sport - the corporations attempt to force him to retire through an ever horriflying series of rule changes designed to bring about his death or capitulation.
Jonathan E's defiance is a captivating and uplifting example of a man asserting the freedom of the individual in the face
of totalitarianism. JFarren 17:38, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

== Indiana Jones ==

I am very surprised that the Indiana Jones films are not included in here, when they are certainly conservative. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 23:25, 28 July 2011 (EDT)

:Would you like to add them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

== Rebuilt ==
I've rewritten the page as a table. Everything is sortable now. The gross is the US gross value, not worldwide (with one referenced exception). Everything else is the same. Films listed with NA - TV means that they were a TV program, and thus did not have a gross. NA - DVD means that they were released straight to DVD. None of the values are adjusted for inflation. While that would be interesting to do, I don't think wikis support computed columns, and it seems like a waste of time to update every number here. [[user:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Well done. Your format is better, and your additional information about revenues is interesting, although not of great significance due to (1) inflation and (2) popularity typically doesn't mean much.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:24, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Should the United States have entered World War I?

2011-08-29T02:30:06Z

DRCWMILLER: /* no... */

{{debate}}

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes

Yes. Three major factors could contribute to this. One being that our allies were about to fall to the seemingly unstoppable German war machine. Two, the Germans and their allies were sinking ships carrying American citizens. We had every right in the world to go forward and protect not only our allies, but our own citizens. Three, we were experiencing a slump in our economy and needed something to drive the prices back up.
--[[User:Goose89|Goose]] 13:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Goose a few thoughts. 1. Generally a nation isn't consitered an "ally" until, say, a treaty is signed. France, Russia and England were not our allies before 1917. 2. Unrestricted German submarine warfare is a legitamate reason to go to war. 3. You have found a great economic principle. When your economy is slumping, nothing like a short victorious war to drive those prices back up. Goose, your arguments frighten me.
Kdude, if that is your real name, I sure haven't heard any indication that the Mexican government was A: capable or B: crazy enough to declare war on us. They were embroiled in a brutal civil war at the time and utterly incapable of posing a credible threat to us AND THEY KNEW IT. (Come to think of it, we invaded them during WWI hunting for Pancho Via, so they would have been justified in declaring war, but that's another issue.)
Sincerely, Parcival

Yes. Another reason not listed above is that in early 1917, Germany's foreign secretary, Arthur Zimmermann, sent a coded telegram to Germany's ambassador to Mexico promised that if Mexico declared war on the United States, Germany would help give back Mexico the territories it lost (Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, also known as the Mexico Cession) in the Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo which ended the Mexican-American War.
--[[User:Kdude50|Kdude50]] 16:54, 17 March 2007

==='''no...'''===

Because the Americans brought the so called 'Spanish flu' with them and that fearful disease managed to kill off nearly 20 million mostly young European citizens far more than were actually killed by the war. Of course it wasn't in any way meant. If the American soldiers had not been crowded together in their vast training camps perhaps the virus would not have developed and the many Americans who died from this pandemic would also have been saved.

If the Europeans would have settled their issues on there own, there would have been a tie in the end, or maybe Austria/Germany would have won. In that case Hitler would not have arisen and WWII would never have occured, many Eastern European countries wouldn't have suffered communism.--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 06:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:Hitler wouldn't have risen to power in Germany had it not been forced to pay war reparations as declared in the Treaty of Versailles. Woodrow Wilson didn't want to punish Germany as harshly as our allies did but no one really listened to Wilson. This is an example of Europeans settling their issues on their own which in turn caused WWII. Also, another example Europeans settling their issues on their own is when The Black Hand assassinating Archduke Franz Ferdinand which started WWI. So clearly your argument about letting Europeans settling their issues on their own is faulty.--[[User:Kdude50|Kdude50]] 22:12, 22 March 2007

::Kdude, you need read more closely what I wrote. My point is that Germany wouldn't have lost the war if the United States wouldn't have supported UK and France. So there would have been no need for reparations, ergo: no Hitler!--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 12:46, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

There was no reason for America to interfere. THis was just a case of Russian imperialism in the Balkans and xenophobia towards Germany. Germany's creation in 1871 and subsequent rise to power alarmed many of the old school Metternich balance-of-power European political strategists. Germany's military buildup was not out of aggression, but rather out of Wilhelm's fear of war by way of aggression from Russia. His fear was justified. America's excuse for entering the war - Germany's sinking of ships was ridiculous. Americans were warned that ships entering the war zone around Britain took the risk of being sunk. Also the Lusitania was carrying weapons aboard bound for Britain. The Germans had to sink it. Everyone needs to get over this phobia of Germany. In this war, they were the good guys. [[User:neocorporatist|neocorporatist]]

:So can we conclude the Wilson administration, illegally arming Britain like in the [[Lusitania]] incident, was akin to the Reagan administration illegally arming the [[Contras]] in the 1980s, only in the Lusitania incident American lives, including that of children and infants, were being used a hostages to insure safety of passage for the illegal contraband? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:48, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

I mostly think we should of stayed because of what could have been avoided. If Germany had won Hitler would have remained a painter instead of trying to take over Europe. This would be because Germany would not have gone into a depression where they would look for any kind of change. The British and the French would not have divided up the Ottaman empire for their own means. Three Ottoman provinces were combined to form modern day Iraq leading to three groups who hate each other. This could have all been avoided if the U.S whose arrival turned the tide of the war would have stayed out. CARNESJW

:Ya but if [[Xerxes]] would've lost at [[Thermopylae]] what you just outlined may have been a different story, too. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:I don't think Germany would have won "but for" the U.S. The entry of the U.S. into tht war, in my estimation was just the last nail in the coffin for the Kaiser. We may have accelerated the end of the war, but Germany didn't have the resources to pull it out. They might, however, have been able to stretch the war out long enough to force a settlement on better terms than they did, this (possibly) preventing the rise of Hitler (though virulent anti-Semitism and an oddly powerful sense of cultural superiority was rampant in Germany for a long time before the Nazis, who merely seized on them, so who knows whether a better settlement would really have prevented the rise of Nazism). [[User:JesusSaves|JesusSaves]] 03:56, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

- No, because the Germans attacked Britain. Americans died on the Lucitania, but the Germans were targeting the UK and not the US. At that time, the US was weak but Britain could easily have defended itself with no American help whatsoever. American involvement in WWI was just a waste of lives. [[User:NickA|NickA]] 23:30, 27 July 2010 (EDT)

Do not forget that the Lusitania went down back in 1915; the issue was resolved for two years between the US & Germany, until further ship sinkings became blatant. Still, as pointed out, US entry was a disaster since it gave personal motivation to "the Little Corporal" himself and national motivation to the German people--notably after harsh reparations & the infamous inflation that the Weimar government used to make the reparations worthless; worthless to the allies but making the Mark worthless as well!!

CW Miller PhD
28 Aug. 2011

Talk:Cold War

2011-08-29T02:14:53Z

DRCWMILLER: /* End of the Cold War */

==End of the Cold War==
The Soviet Union didn't fall in 1989. Its prestige diminished, but it didn't dissolve until 1991.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 19:32, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:Corrected. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:33, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::Actually the significance of the birth of Russian democracy on Christmas Day is something Western journalists tried to obscure, but we need to write about it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:03, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
:::It was the 26th, was it not? that would make it boxing day. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 22:04, 18 April 2007 (EDT)
::::It was Christmas Day that Gorby folded shop, they rung down the hammer n' sickle from the Kremilin, and Yeltsin took over. The 26th would be the first full day.

::::There are actually several meanings to the 25 of December, not the least of which is modernization, that is to say accepting the Gregorian calander, because as you know in parts of the former Soviet Union Christmas is still celebrated on the old calander. Then Soviet Premiers have taken in recent decades to making a sort of "State of the Union" or Christmas message, despite atheism being the official position. In all actuallity, Gorby was set to fold shop months earlier, and Yeltsin poised to take over, but they waited til Christmas, cause this is just traditionally the time Soviet people are accustomed to hearing from their leaders on non-crisis big events. And of course finally, most significant of all, the choice of using the Christmas as the new Russian "Fourth of July" was a pointed statement to the world about the new Russian democracy's stance on (1) separation of Church and State issues; (2) declaring a multicultural multi-ethnic state fundementally a Christian nation. These things, for obvious reasons, were totally ignored by Western media. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:17, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

On Khruschev, and the "Cold War" in general, a major factual point needs to be added.

About 1961, just as other events in the "Cold War" were becoming very evident & yet more troublesome to US leadership as well as the public, the Soviets renewed testing of nuclear weapons. After Sputnik, this event most clearly marked the open threat that Khruschev verbally expressed. Indeed, the Soviets exploded a number of huge thermonuclear bombs, obviously to boast their capabilities. They gave a propaganda warning of an explosion that would be bigger than any other--then followed through with a blast of 58 megatons! During that period, the US only exploded two or three tests.

Having lived through the period, my own impression was, and still is, that the sudden, and powerful, nuclear tests contributed more than anything to the American "Cold War" psychology--more than Khruschev's verbal rantings, more than the Berlin Wall, more than Sputnik, and showed why the Cuban crisis of 1962 was a kind of cumulation. Note that by fall 1963, the Soviets agreed to the nuclear test ban treaty that ended these explosions, except for those deeply buried. And that was part of the easing of the Cold War in the view of the US public. Possibly the sense had eased after the Cuban Crisis, and eased further when Khruschev himself fell about a year later, but the nuclear test ban was the most notable "end" of the psychology. (Of course, the new Soviet leaders were just as dangerous, but they practiced much better "PR" by avoiding such a belligerent face.)

Charles W. Miller PhD
28 Aug. 2011

==Content/Causes==

This article is in need of extreme lengthening and content addition. It does not take into account the full scope of the military, economic, and socio-political ramifications, not to mention its omission of [[John Paul II]]'s steadfast resolve and tireless campaigning against Godless communist oppression. The religious connotations of the "conflict" should be taken into account as well. Does anyone else agree? --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:20, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

-To attribute the American victory to only Ronald Reagan is a serious understatement. As every President since FDR had added something to the pool. For example Truman commited US forces to Korea in 1950, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, and Nixon all had their hands in Vietnam trying to prevent both northern communist dictatorship and southern corruption, and Ronald Reagan with his diplomacy. --[[User:Snotbowst|Snotbowst]] 17:32, 28 February 2008 (EST)

== Expansion ==

I've reorganized the article to include a causes section, which needs content. [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 17:36, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Nikita Khrushchev

2011-08-26T18:59:39Z

DRCWMILLER:

"there was a little violence along their long border." A little violence? Too colloquial/imprecise.

"The group persuaded the Politburo, which governed the Communist Party." You don't need to in-line explain what the politburo is. It needs its own entry, and doesn't need to add off-subject material to an entry that's supposed to be about Khruschev.

This entry doesn't mention when he died.
--[[User:WOVcenter|WOVcenter]] 15:45, 9 March 2007 (EST)

hey his name is spelled wrong!! --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 10:03, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Christianity ==

Thanks for the source LT. I searched everywhere of all difference combinations of terms. I never searched for "the last priest" though :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:03, 29 December 2007 (EST)

On Khruschev, and the "Cold War" in general, a major factual point needs to be added.

About 1961, just as other events in the "Cold War" were becoming very evident & yet more troublesome to US leadership as well as the public, the Soviets renewed testing of nuclear weapons. After Sputnik, this event most clearly marked the open threat that Khruschev verbally expressed. Indeed, the Soviets exploded a number of huge thermonuclear bombs, obviously to boast their capabilities. They gave a propaganda warning of an explosion that would be bigger than any other--then followed through with a blast of 58 megatons! During that period, the US only exploded two or three tests.

Having lived through the period, my own impression was, and still is, that the sudden, and powerful, nuclear tests contributed more than anything to the American "Cold War" psychology--more than Khruschev's verbal rantings, more than the Berlin Wall, more than Sputnik, and showed why the Cuban crisis of 1962 was a kind of cumulation. Note that by fall 1963, the Soviets agreed to the nuclear test ban treaty that ended these explosions, except for those deeply buried. And that was part of the easing of the Cold War in the view of the US public. Possibly the sense had eased after the Cuban Crisis, and eased further when Khruschev himself fell about a year later, but the nuclear test ban was the most notable "end" of the psychology. (Of course, the new Soviet leaders were just as dangerous, but they practiced much better "PR" by avoiding such a belligerent face.)

Charles W. Miller PhD