Genuinely, Ike was the most recent Republican president that I truly respect. He was not perfect by a long shot, but he had his head on straight compared to many other politicians for a LOT of topics, considering the time in which he was raised, in the military, and serving as president.
After the Civil Rights Act was signed by LBJ, there was a massive party realignment, and the Republican Party of Eisenhower's time died
That's because he isn't actually a republican. This was before the party switch.
The whole party switch thing is a bit of a misnomer, or mislead - the fact is, you had completely different worlds at the time. For example, Lincoln’s republicans supported the abolition of slavery, the abolition of alcohol, and westward expansion. The opposing democrats at the time supported white supremacy and protections of religious minorities. Then go forward a few years, and Democrats (like Wilson) wanted income taxes and silver-based money, while Republicans (like McKinley) wanted tariffs and gold-based money. Then after that, you get closer to what we know now, which is Democrats wanting larger government and welfare for the poor, while Republicans wanted less government and anti-communist foreign policy.
So there’s less of a switch and more of different gradual challenges to different shifting groups of ideologies. It just looks like a switch when you look at individual issues that look like they hold the same water as other issues today.
For example, you can have people that are absolutely for welfare, but also against religious freedoms; the poor need to be housed and fed, but everyone needs to be Christian. You could have then an opposing party that absolutely hates the idea of being theocratic, because they believe in the individual person’s freedom to be themselves, but at the expense of people who need support. Sort of the same way how Libertarians and mostly left circles can all agree that drugs shouldn’t be criminalized today, but have polar opposite beliefs for economic policies and government services.
Or smth idk I’m not an expert, I’m just taking a rly long shit
The Republicans started off as the party for rich Northerns. They took the abolitionist stance partly for humanitarian reasons, but also because industrialization of the South with it's massive slave labor pool would have crushed Northern industrialists. The GOP is still the party of Northern business owners, they just convinced white workers that they were also looking out for them.
Hmm, how do we square that with the fact that Lincoln was very pro-labor and he argued against the myth that wealthy capitalists create jobs?: "It is [falsely] assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor[...] Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration" -Abe Lincoln , First Annual Message to the Senate and House of Representatives
I would say he is solidly in the middle of the party switch that took a long time. Nixon was still his VP and FDR, a progressive democrat, was before him. But there were still a lot of conservative democrats in the south. The parties used to be a lot more ideologically idiosyncratic.
Isn't he also the one that was responsible for overthrowing the democratic governments of a lot of countries he thought were too communist?
100%. Truman started the Cold War, and Eisenhower was the first Cold Warrior. Most notably he is the one who rejected the peace deal signed between the French and the Vietnamese communists, setting the stage for the Vietnam War. The Iranian prime minister was overthrown in favor of the Shah on his watch too.
As an indigenous person in Canada i know from personal experience that there are a lot of bastards everywhere that don't want to believe a lot of things that happened in the past.
If you visit the Holocaust museum you can see the only known photos documenting the attrocities as they happened. Someone snuck a camera and film in to a Auschwitz prisoner who managed to take 4 or 5 grainy photos showing the guards piling and burning bodies.
https://www.auschwitz.org/en/gallery/historical-pictures-and-documents/extermination,11.html
These are probably the pictures you're talking about.
Sadly, I give it 10 years before AI has eroded public trust in photos so extensively that no one believes any pictures or videos they see anymore
There is also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_Album and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Concentration_Camps_(film)
The latter hits hard. Unbelievable images. Luckily not in color.
Can be watched at https://www.spiegel.de/geschichte/was-die-deutschen-nicht-sehen-wollten-a-9e63991b-cd26-4169-9fe8-bb118bf404e4 if that's not geoblocked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%B6cker_Album is also noteworthy.
Eisenhower, the last good republican
The great works of Eisenhower while president of the US
Funding, and arming, paramilitary death squads to keep the price of super essential things like, like bananas, low by having the CIA create a coup in Guatemala. The resulting 40 year ethnic cleansing of Guatemalan natives. Project Ajax in Iran that over-threw their government for the Sha. Operation Haik which attempted to coup Indonesia in 1958. Purging the government of dissenters under the auspices of them being gay, and basically making the burgeoning lavender scare policy. Was instrumental in the formative days of what became the Vietnam war. Created, and authorized, policy that basically gave the US DOD and CIA cart blanche to interfere with foreign powers in the interest of the US's industry.
These are just the things I can come up with off the top of my head.
We have to distinguish between the Dulles Brothers and Eisenhower. The brothers were two of the biggest gangsters to ever step foot in DC. Because they were allowed to run operations without the knowledge of the president and they lied and manipulated presidents is not completely clear what Eisenhower knew.
With the power of generative AI and MAGA chucklefucks, now some bastard will just claim its a deepfake or a deepstate.
It sucks, and we're not ready for it.
One reason we know that the moon landings were real is that the technology to fake them simply didn't exist in the 1960s. They didn't even have video tape back then, let alone computer graphics. Add to that the fact that almost everybody in the US got their news from one of 3 TV networks, or from newspapers that actually cared about and could afford to do real journalism. That means that when people saw the moon landings they knew they were witnessing something real. It was unfortunately also easy to cover up real things (like MK Ultra) when you only had to deal with 3 TV networks.
These days, especially for Americans, there are no authoritative sources of truth. (Australia has ABC, Britain has BBC, Canada has CBC, but the US has no not-for-profit news source that doesn't have to worry about pleasing advertisers). Add to that that every kind of media is subject to "deepfakes" and other kinds of manipulation.
And, this now affects historical events. When people in 1969 witnessed the moon landing, almost nobody thought it was fake. In 1969 it would have been relatively easy to remove almost any doubts anybody might have. But, memories are faulty and it's so easy to create fake evidence, that now even people who were alive and watching it live when the moon landing happened are now starting to doubt it.
In courts, we require evidence of various kinds because we know how unreliable people's memories are. But, it feels like we're heading for a future where your own memories may be more reliable than any research you're able to do. And, we're just not ready for that post-truth world.
Uhm... PBS/NPR exists and is frequently cited as the most trustworthy outlets.
AI Generated Daguerreotype
Right, but if you read that link, you'll see that that quote isn't direct but instead a historians recollection of "words to that effect" from Ike. The following quote CAN be directly attributed to him:
I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to “propaganda.”
From his war memoir Crusade in Europe:
The same day [April 12, 1945] I saw my first horror camp. It was near the town of Gotha. I have never felt able to describe my emotional reactions when I first came face to face with indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency. Up to that time I had known about it only generally or through secondary sources. I am certain, however that I have never at any other time experienced an equal sense of shock.
I visited every nook and cranny of the camp because I felt it my duty to be in a position from then on to testify at first hand about these things in case there ever grew up at home the belief or assumption that 'the stories of Nazi brutality were just propaganda.'
Some members of the visiting party were unable to through the ordeal. I not only did so but as soon as I returned to Patton’s headquarters that evening I sent communications to both Washington and London, urging the two governments to send instantly to Germany a random group of newspaper editors and representative groups from the national legislatures. I felt that the evidence should be immediately placed before the American and British publics in a fashion that would leave no room for cynical doubt.
Incidentally. This is the exact same reason people are trying to take down Telegram right now.
If the Holocaust were happening today Liberals would support it.
Nah
They are currently supporting Kamala Harris, a candidate who has reaffirmed her support for sending weapons to the country currently enacting its own Final Solution. So yes.
Nah
Denial is a river in Egypt, you need to face reality.
It does suck that she seems to want to continue sending weapons to Israel. I don't support that. But there are a zillion other reasons I do support her. Plus the other guy wants to "finish the job" and just wipe out Gaza. That's worse, fyi
Do you think Drumpf would somehow be kinder to the Palestinians?
"If"?
Cope harder
Thinking of the time V*ush said "well actually the Jews did have control over German banks" and imagining the Democratic Party saying that Hitler had a right to self defense against them.
I see this is your other line of attack, clown.
Hope you're not defending the attack against Genocide.
Are you guys all getting brain worms now like you did adult diapers and ear tampons?
He wasn't wrong
Device information
Sync version: v24.03.26-14:56
Sync flavor: googlePlay
Ultra user: false
View type: Slides
Push enabled: false
Device: Armor_17_Pro
Model: Ulefone Armor 17 Pro
Android: 12
?
195
RULE 1: IF YOU VISIT THIS COMMUNITY, YOU MUST POST BEFORE LEAVING!!
The Lemmy equivalent of r/195 on Reddit. Not officially affiliated (yet).
Any moderators from the reddit can have mod here, just ask.
There's another 196 over on 196@lemmy.blahaj.zone
Most people use the Blahaj.zone one so this place isn't very active.
ALL HAIL LORD SPRONKUS!!!