I don't think these we're grenades. Check the wikipedia item on Grenades. More likely to be Molotov cocktails. Or even just fires started in different ways. I know that there are reports in Sweden of fires started in refugee accommodation. Probably racist in origin. This is typical of the way the media can crank up hostilities. I'm surprised Wikipedia accepted the item for publication under the title List of granade attacks in Sweden.Originally Posted by Clopin
Promoting the american lifestyle and american cultural elements like cinema was as important as the military growing. It was the promotion of the american culture and values that made it easier for Communism not to get to power in Western Europe. It was the promotion of the american lifestyle that created in the Eastern European people the desire to adopt Capitalism as their economical model, abandoning Communism and Socialism. American culture was the biggest and most effective propaganda resource that the US had during the Cold War. The movies, TV shows and songs that portrayed this rich and powerful country, where anyone had a dream, the american dream, where anyone could get rich and have everything, a country in which people was free without fearing a political police or political executions. In 1960, this message was as powerful as a missile. Because during the Cold War, more than militarly wars, the US and the URSS fought an ideological war. Both were trying to persuade countries and peoples to their field. And the US fought on that field (the ideological one) presenting their lifestyle threw culture (cinema, TV, music, clothes, etc.)
And again i say: in 1920, Europe wouldn't have the US in consideration in terms of culture and social issues. The US was a big economy, but a poor and undeveloped culture and society. You can understand that by reading the European Literature of the time. France, Great Britain, Austria, Germany were still the great empires, the modern and fancy societies of the time, the cultural centres of the world. At european eyes, in 1920 the US was a big rural country with some cities dispersed along the way. And let's not forget, that in 1920 the US didn't take off as a cultural exporting country. What americans movies, musicians or authors got to Europe in 1920? Very few. Clothing? Only after the II World War. Before 1945, the number of american movies seen in Europe were very few, in some countries there were even no american movies being seen. In 1960, there were much more. In 1980, it was over 50% of the movies in theatres. This is just an example. It was after 1945 that the US started to export their lifestyle and culture. Not only because it was when the US was able to, but because it was when the US most needed to.
The most significant of them all: when the US did the American Exhibition in Russia, Nixon didn't take images of the military, didn't take images of the space program, didn't take images of the great cities of the US. Nixon took to Russia a microwave, a TV, an oven, etc. Because Nixon knew that to defeat Communism in the battle for the minds and hearts, the social and cultural aspects would be more important than weaponry.
Last edited by Lendo; 03-02-2017 at 06:54 AM.
I'm afraid this is a rather superficial version of events: a check through any encyclopedia of cinema will show that American films during the pre-war period
were more numerous than any other : think Chaplin, Disney, Laurel and Hardy etc etc. The American influence began with the induction of the US army into WWI during 1917 and continued throughout the post-war period.
It's true that post-1945 the USA sought to promote their business model as superior to that of the USSR and obviously succeeded and ,despite the superficiality of American capitalism, many people outside of the US were dazzled by its products.
However, there was, and still is, a strong vein of anti-Americanism in many countries that was held in check by fear of the former USSR and currently the Russian Federation.
It's no surprise that, for all his overtures to Russia, President Trump has just announced a major upgrade of US military power.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
Obviously, i'm not going to write an essay on US-Europe cultural relationships in the XX century. Therefore, the succint nature of my posts.
Was there american films being seen in Europe before 1945? Yes. But in a very much lower number than after 1945. Specially, for political reasons. It's statistic, the number of movies made in USA seen in Europe increased exponentially after 1945. Before World War II there were countries in which there was almost no contact with the american culture. See the cases of Spain, Portugal or Greece. See even Germany and France, in which European artists and companies had the majority of the market, and very few american artists were invited for events. The US was a minor country culturally at the eyes of the european.
Was there exceptions? Yes. Did the US have a more open market in Europe after World War I? Of course. But the big jump to all other level was after World War II. For obvious reasons. The most important one was the political aspect of confrontation with the URSS. But there was other ones. The US received a big number of european refugees and immigrants that helped the US evolve, including in theatre and cinema. Many Hollywood producers of the post-war era were jews from Austria and Germany the fled to the US and helped the american cinema industry to evolve, to give a quick example.
Concerning to the world's perception of the US, the anti-american feeling it's generally recent. During the Cold War, that feeling only appeared during the Vietnam War. And even then, there was very few people in Western Europe that would even compare the US to the URSS. To understand how culture was such an effective propaganda vehicule for the US political system, we just have to remember how rock and roll, jeans and some movies like "Rocky" were absolute icons to the Eastern Europe people during the last years of the URSS. They represented the US lifestyle, the US modernity and the US freedom in contrast with the URSS antiquity, the URSS grayness and repressive nature. It's not a coincidence that during Brejnev's years rock and roll was forbidden in the URSS. It's not a coincidence that the URSS would forbid american movies to get in their territory. There's a reason why Krutschev's advisors warned him about the danger of what Nixon was accompleshing with the American Exhibition in Russia. They knew the power behind the apparently harmless image of an oven and a microwave. There's a reason why URSS made such an effort to compete with the US in sports, with their steroids methods and intensive training for athletes.
Concerning to today's world: the americans have no longer to worry about Russia in the culture aspect. The world is completely globalized under american culture. Wherever you go, Portugal or Great Britain, South Africa or Marrocco, Brazil or Mexico, Japan or Australia, what you see on TV is the Hollywood movies and the HBO series, what you ear is the Beyonce and Rihanna songs, what you buy is your Nike shoes and Iphone cellphones. The US has won the cultural battle. Because of the effort they made during decades.
I thought it might be informative to let people reading this thread know of the u-tube item: The European Union, a Fascist Superstate -- Rodney Atkinson, having its origins in 1942 the formation of the undemocratic structure that we today call the European Union.
Yes it's interesting that so many people who support the EU are unaware of its German origins. When Prussia defeated Austria in 1866, it left the way open to German unification which Bismark engineered by defeating France in the Franco / Prussian war of 1870.
The centrifugal force of a united Germany spilled over into WWI and WWII but the objective was control of Europe. Knowing this is why I voted to leave.
"L'art de la statistique est de tirer des conclusions erronèes a partir de chiffres exacts." Napoléon Bonaparte.
"Je crois que beaucoup de gens sont dans cet état d’esprit: au fond, ils ne sentent pas concernés par l’Histoire. Mais pourtant, de temps à autre, l’Histoire pose sa main sur eux." Michel Houellebecq.
Yes, it is odd that for Germany to be in the EU it was necessary to abandon what many thought the heart of the German state, East Prussia. I remember there was quite a fuss over that. If I lived in England I would have done the same as you, Emil.
When the EU was created there wasn't any hope to recover East Prussia. If you consider East Prussia as what today is part of Poland and part of Russia. After the Second World War there wasn't a single person that believed that the polish terrotories would integrate Germany again, not even at RDA there was that hope, i believe. They knew that it would happened to East Prussia what happened to Alsacia, to Lorena and to many territories that were under the control of the countries that lost both the First and the Second World War.
We just have to think how the frech-german border was redefined in both wars, how the Otoman Empire was redefined, how Germany lost their african territories, how Russia abdicated from some western territories to achieve peace with Germany after First World War, etc. So i don't think that there was really that hope to mantain East Prussia. Pieck and Ulbricht, and Adenauer were to intelligent for that.
I don't argue with anyone on this matter, it is just an observation that there was a lot of upheaval over this.
I understand what you're saying. What i mean is that, even if there was some type of political effort or campaign in order for East Prussia to be reintegrated in german territory, i don't believe that it was sincere or that the leaders really believed they would achieve that goal. It's like Spain's diplomatic campaign concerning Gibraltar, or Portugal's campaign concerning Olivença, or Argentina's campaign in last years concerning Falklands Islands. The diplomatic and political campaigns are many times just simbolic stands, political PR. They do not translate in a real and sincere conviction.
If you ask me if Brandt, Ulbricht, Adenauer or Kohl really believed that Russia and Poland would give back their territories of what before was East Prussia, i would answer no. But it's just my opinion.
A very dark episode occurred today in my country: a youth movement had organized a conference in a Lisbon university, a conference about Le Pen, Brexit and populisms threw out Europe. Because of the speaker who was invited (an historian who is known for his right-wing ideology) and because the youth movement is itself portrayed as a right-wing movement, the Students Association (composed mainly by left-wing students) and students that are members of far-left parties threatened the historian, threatened the people who organized the conference and publicly said that they would not allow the conference to go ahead. The University's board decided to call off the conference because of the threats made against the historian and some students, and because of the possibility of violent episodes.
I checked up on the dictator Salazar, in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antóni...iveira_Salazar, in the Swedish language version it says explicitly that he was a dictator, but not in the English language version. I know that the UK had close relations with Portugal, and that Portugal stayed neutral in the Second World War.
The contrast with Spain under Franco was that Hitler quickly committed Germany to aid the Franco dictatorship already in 1936 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German...nish_Civil_War, I knew about the Guernica operation but the whole story was much more complex.
In all, the Portuguese experience was much milder than the Spanish, but as Lendo comments in the post immediately above, the right-left split in Portugal remains a running sore today.
What do "right wing" people want and what do "left wing" people want in Europe besides leaving or staying in the EU and reducing or increasing Muslim immigrants?
It probably varies by country, and when the question was asked. Beevor wrote a book on the Spanish civil war, which I will try to acquire to learn about that. As for Portugal, perhaps Lendo might know?
That's an easy one; fatter wallets.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote