Adolf Hitler once stated that if a lie is repeated long enough that people will begin to accept it as the truth. Certainly Hitler would smile that one out of three Germans think that the US engineered the September 11 attacks.
Almost one in three Germans below the age of 30 believes the U.S. government may have sponsored the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, according to a poll published on Wednesday.
And about 20 percent of Germans in all age groups hold this view, a survey of 1,000 people conducted for the weekly Die Zeit said.
It also said 68 percent of all Germans felt the media had not reported the full truth behind the attacks, in which some 3,000 people were killed when hijacked planes were crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
There simply aren’t words to describe this. Such lies are as morally reprehensible as those who would deny the Holocaust. How anyone could believe something so evidently false is beyond me.
"The news is controlled," 17-year old Kenny Donaubaur was quoted as saying. "You could see that in the Iraq war. It doesn’t seem to me thet you get the full truth."
Herr Donaubaur is right – he’s not getting the full truth, But it isn’t the American media that’s lying to him – it’s the rabidly anti-American European press that is more an organ of propaganda than a source of information. The European press frequently spreads conspiracy theories as fact, spins the news to slander the US, and even outright lies about the intentions and policy of the US.
And these are supposed to be our allies…
UPDATE: As a German commenter notes, it was Goebbels and not Hitler who came up with the idea of "the big lie" as a method of propaganda. It appears as though I don’t watch enough of the Hitler History Channel…
a lie gets repeated a lot=truth…ok, why not.
But when was the fact that the US gov did 9/11 repeated? I mean, apart from this book from the french guy Mr Messan (that worked well for two weeks) where did you heard it in the news? Can you give ONE name of a famous newspaper defending this position; “Le Monde” explicitely and strongly opposed this theory as soon as it was a topic of discusssion in the news.You are way off with this theory you just come up with. It as never been -not even argued- on TVnews that this theory could be true.
I don’t know of any decent newspaper spreading this as a fact, and believe it or not, I’m french: in your mind, we’re all burning american flags constantly, when we are not making plans for overthrowing your power…You’re trying to make up a conspiracy theory the other way around I guess.
But anyway, I think that 1/3 of germans believing that is not a lot, since they should all KNOW it:
(let me explain before screaming so loud): the US created Ossama: he was trained, provided with guns, rocket launchers, money, and everything else he needed by the CIA to fight against communists in the 70’s and 80’s:
When you play with fire, you can burn yourself in return!!!
the US government created terrorism in the arabic world to use it as an undercover ally against russia…there is your change! (I still don’t support terrrorism- just in case you’re wondering)
Vincent, I have asked you before and got no reply… Why did that conspiracy book become a best seller in France of all places?
the US government created terrorism in the arabic world to use it as an undercover ally against russia
Terrorism??? Osama fought the soviet troops – not the soviet civilians. Get your facts straight.
The US trained Bin Laden and Co for guerilla, and subversiv actions…call it whatever you want, but I do still think that he only came up with such a plan because of the perfect training he got from CIA.
about the book, the reason for this success in France probably is that the writer is french!!
If you want to believe that all french hate americans, go ahead, but it isn’t true. Politics in France is not 250 years old as in the US, and it is now in our genes not to trust blindly what the government says it happened.(I thought the reps were also on this trend, but maybe not when it’s in their favor)
I heard about this book, and people spoke about it on TV just after it was released in shops in 2002, but I HAVE NEVER SEEN IT!! None of my friends bought it. I don’t know how many copies of it were actually sold, but I’m rather sure that “the Bible” and “de la democratie en Amérique” by Tocqueville are still ahead.
Don’t try to make such a big noise about it, because it was written by ONE person (that happened to be french), and no one is talking about it anymore. This theory is still a theory (and I totally support the fact that people think about a diversity of possibility rather than sticking to what the Pentagon wants people to believe). It will surely remain a theory until facts (we’re still waiting for JFK, so don’t be too impatient either) corroborate or bust it.
BTW, President Chirac was the FIRST foreign leader in NYC after 9/11…so calm down on the anti-americanism in France. This is (also) a lie, and propaganda (unless extrem-right american newspaper know better than me what’s in french minds-which I doubt).
I see more anti-french propaganda just in this blog than anti-americanism in the whole Parisian area!
Let’s get one things straight. The CIA did fund and train some of the mujihadeen in Afghanistan.
Osama bin Laden was not one of them. He did not need, nor would he have taken CIA money because he hated the US even then, and was already wealthy at the time. Nor was he trained by the CIA.
Most of the mujihadeen who were trained with the CIA ended up fighting with the Northern Alliance against the Taliban, and some of them are still aiding the CIA in the fight against al-Qaeda.
Furthermore, the level of anti-American invective coming from even a mainstream paper like Le Monde is simply staggering. How else can one explain such cartoons like this or this piece from Le Monde Diplomatique?
Look at your own words. You argue that France isn’t anti-American, then you yourself make the argument that the Pentagon covered up September 11. That’s as wrong as saying that the Holocaust is "just a theory".
By reading the European press, you’d think that America was some rogue nation just randomly attacking poor innocent countries. The horrendous anti-American bias of the European press isn’t a theory – it’s a fact that is proven by more and more evidence each day.
You say that the French aren’t like us unsophisticated Americans – you don’t believe what your government says. Then you spout the same line of conspiracy theory that was nicely scripted for you by your anti-American media. It’s not that hard to get the facts about September 11, or why we went to war in Iraq. It’s not hard to put two and two together to see that if we wanted oil it doesn’t make a hell of a lot of sense to spend far more than its worth on a war that could have potentially caused a major disruption in oil supply.
But no, that seems lost on the European population who never seems to question the horror stories they’re spoon fed each and every day.
It is Europe that is endangering the transatlantic alliance day after day. If you want to treat the Americans like a bunch of ill-bred cowboys that you have the right to boss around despite being military pygmies entirely dependent on our aid, that’s your perogative. Just don’t expect us to treat you like partners unless you’re willing to do the same.
but I do still think that he only came up with such a plan because of the perfect training he got from CIA.
Right. Cause its such a comlicated plan. From who did the french partisans got such a “plan”? CIA, too?
because it was written by ONE person (that happened to be french)
The problem is not with ONE person who’s french, the problem is that his book is a best seller.
President Chirac was the FIRST foreign leader in NYC after 9/11…
Talk is cheap.
anti-french propaganda
What’s propoganda? I am stating facts. The fact that that book is a best seller in France is a *fact*. Do you dispute it?
Osama fought the soviet troops – not the soviet civilians. Get your facts straight.
So I guess when he blew up those guys on the USS Cole, that wasn’t really terrorism, was it? Since they were soldiers? Funny, then, that we called it a “terrorist bomb”.
There was a war in afghanistan – there was no war in Yemen. Still funny?
On a different note,
I hate to be a smartass and all that, but I do believe that it was not so much Hitler who said that thing about lies and truths, but it was really Goebbels who said it. ONE of the renderings into English reads: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it people will eventually come to believe it.”
Small difference, I know, but if you are talking history, you should nevertheless try to be accurate. How would you like if in some fifty years, people would confuse Saddam and Osama, Breshnev and Gorbachev (or however you spell their names in English), Chirac and DeGaulle, Honnecker (East German leader) and Kohl (West German leader of the same time), Bush (sr) and Bush (jr)?
Mind you, I am only talking about getting the facts straight.
J.
How would you like if in some fifty years, people would confuse Saddam and Osama, Breshnev and Gorbachev (or however you spell their names in English), Chirac and DeGaulle, Honnecker (East German leader) and Kohl (West German leader of the same time), Bush (sr) and Bush (jr)?
Actually, confusing Hitler and Goebbels is more like confusing Uday and Qusay…
There was a war in afghanistan – there was no war in Yemen. Still funny?
What, it’s terrorism to open hostilities against foriegn soldiers? Does that mean it was terrorism when we started to bomb Iraq? (I mean, I might say so, but that’s a surprising position for you to hold.)
Oh, wait, now I understand your criteria – it’s terrorism when they do it to our soldiers, but it’s legal warfare when we do it to theirs. Makes perfect sense to me. A perfect double standard, that is…
What, it’s terrorism to open hostilities against foriegn soldiers?
In a time of war or in a time of peace?
Does that mean it was terrorism when we started to bomb Iraq?
Uh. No. First of all Saddam knew it was coming because of his failure to comply with UN resolutions. And even if you argue that UN resolutions weren’t on our side – then bombing Baghdad was a declaration of war.
Now, if we had americans dressed in civilian clothing attack Iraqi military officials/soldiers in NYC at a time of peace – that would be terrorism.
Oh, wait, now I understand your criteria
Sorry, but you still don’t. See above.
Politics in France is not 250 years old as in the US, and it is now in our genes not to trust blindly what the government says it happened.
Yet, you seem to follow the French gov’t line 100% when it comes to Iraq. Hmm. So much for 250 years and questioning your gov’t.
When it comes to Iraq, I have to admit that I really like the french official position. But guess what, politic in France is not about american-related topics only!! There are many things I disagree on in regard to the government way of doing things in France, and individuals as well (Chirac is far from being an angel, let me tell you). jayredding.com is not discusssing french politic (which I’m not blaming for in any way), and this is why you dont hear my critics on it.
As for the conspiracy theory on the WTC attack, questionning is a good thing, that does not necessarily lead to disagreement with what officials claim.
It seems like monkey and jay took pretty bad my comment on french/US history of politic comparison. let me fix that:
france(as a nation)=2000 years (at least)
US= ? (set it yourself).of course immigrants were coming from already politicised countries.
This was not an attack against “unsophisticated” american politics. It was just a call against recent statement (in this blog as well of course) considering France as a non-relevant nation.
I have to admit that I really like the french official position.
French foreign policy is basically defined by opposing the American policy.
france(as a nation)=2000 years (at least)
I think it would be more accurate to go back to the French revolution, and not 2000.
considering France as a non-relevant nation.
What *is* the France’s relevancy?
I hate to be a smartass and all that, but I do believe that it was not so much Hitler who said that thing about lies and truths, but it was really Goebbels who said it.
Point well taken. The mistake is mine.
I don’t cover French internal politics mainly because I don’t really know enough about them to really get in-depth on the issue. My specialty is international relations, not comparative politics. I have some general background on French politics, but Merde in France and the The Dissident Frogman are both French bloggers who do a far better job of casting a critical eye on French politics than I ever could. (And they do it in two laungages as well! – anyone wanting to learn some interesting ideomatic French can learn more from reading them than in most French classes.)
As for French foreign policy, it’s a little more complex than simply opposing the US. (Although that’s the short version.) Europe and the US no longer view the world in the same framework. The US operates under the realist philosophy. (Realism is a term from IR that views states as the primary actors in international affairs, analyses states from the standpoint of being rational actors, and recognizes military force as being a logical extension of policy.)
Europe is firmly entrenched in the philosophies of transnational progressivism that views states as being secondary to international institutions, values stability and consensus above all else, and eschews military force as immoral.
The problem I have with the European outlook is that international institutions like the UN have failed in some key areas to produce a more peaceful world. They’re based on optimistic assumptions about human nature and the international system, and they ignore the very real threats of terrorism. It’s not that there’s no room for international organizations – it’s just that they need to be built on the knowledge that not all problems can be solved via diplomacy. Neither Saddam Hussein nor Kim Jung-Il can be talked into peace any more than Adolph Hitler or Benito Mussolini could have been. There are times when diplomacy must give way to force of arms to ensure a real and lasting peace.