12 ms·

Charlie Chaplin Was Almost Assassinated in Japan to Start a War

64 points by TheSpine 6y ago

TMWNN 6y ago
Stalin wanted to assassinate John Wayne because of his anti-Communism.(https://web.archive.org/web/20080602054832/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=%2Farts%2F2004%2F06%2F04%2Fbfstalin04.xml&page=5 https://web.archive.org/web/20080602054832/http://www.telegr...)
- TheSpine 6y ago
  I swear, fiction isn't as good as fact. If you made that into a movie, people would say the plot line was ridiculous.
- mc32 6y ago
  That would have been too heavy handed. Yuri Bezmenov has an interview where he explains the more subtle way the USSR would weaken the US (after Stalin’s time) Yuri was right. All along the US thought it was projecting soft power via Hollywood movies, and it did and does but there are other dimensions to the whole thing, and given our system of governance there is no way to avoid getting to where we are. In the USSR and China today, it’s not up to factions to make up or derive what ones principles are, what the mores are, who the authorities are. There is no equivocation, it always comes from the state. Teachers, professors, etc., anyone questioning certain tenets would get nudges or more aggressive tactics to cease those lines of thinking.
  - throwanem 6y ago
    I believe the interview you mention is https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jFfrWKHB1Gc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jFfrWKHB1Gc - I'm not yet familiar with it myself. edit: And having duly familiarized myself, I have to say, I appreciate you mentioning it! High-grade Bircher nonsense is tough to come by these days, and it makes a nice, nostalgic diversion from its more modern and more dangerous conspiracy-theory descendants, like antivax stuff and QAnon. Nothing but respect for Bezmenov and his obvious grift, but it's not a surprise to me that anyone still peddling this nonsense with a straight face in 2020 would do so in a way that's cagey. I mean, you could hardly expect to be taken seriously if you were more upfront with it, could you?
  - LiquidSky 6y ago
    Could you explain what Bezmenov is right about? It's not clear from your comment. What was the subtle way the USSR would weaken the US?
  - herbstein 6y ago
    Yuri Bezmenov was also a nobody who instantly became a darling of the American far-right. The interview you're referring to is by the Alex Jones-like conspiracy nut G. Edward Griffin. Bezmenov became "famous" by reinforcing every far-right fear of "communist indoctrination" in American society. I would love to know how you think this has manifested in American society. The interview you're talking about is from 1984, and he's warning how these effects will start manifesting in the next 10-15-20 years. He, in fact, defected in early 1970. Let's be generous and say the changes would come after roughly 25 years. Where is the sweeping ideological and policy changes that in the mid-90s made the US so much more subversive and/or communist? I see little to no evidence of this. In fact, the Bezmenov interview is carted out by all people trying to explain a change in the political landscape. Current-day liberals (in the American sense) use the (context-less) interview to claim it's indicative of current Russian measures. At the same time Republicans use it to prove that there's a "both sides", and that issues like trans rights and the internment camps are simply subversive claims by a foreign power. Both of these narratives try to show that the "us" isn't inherently flawed, but that we're deliberately pushed in a "subversive" direction by an evil, all-powerful force. It's a comforting truth, in a way. You maintain the positive self-image while gaining a common enemy. Sure, you're mad at the other side for falling for the lie. But ultimately the common enemy is even worse. Edit: Changed the second paragraph to reflect the year he defected
    - ravenstine 6y ago
      > Yuri Bezmenov was also a nobody who instantly became a darling of the American far-right. The interview you're referring to is by the Alex Jones-like conspiracy nut G. Edward Griffin. Bezmenov became "famous" by reinforcing every far-right fear of "communist indoctrination" in American society. You're engaging in weak thinking known as "guilt by association". Whatever merit the rest of your statements have, it's totally irrelevant whether the "far-right" likes Bezmenov or if the person who interviewed him was a "conspiracy theorist". It's weak because it says nothing about Bezmenov himself, and at worst it is an attempt to shut down any counter argument. (association to the "far-right" and "conspiracy theorist" are common tactics to shut down arguments)
      - 6y ago
- yoloswagins 6y ago
  I am reasonably certain that Stalin had Warren Bechtel, one of the builders of Hoover Dam, die on a visit to Russia. "Dad" Bechtel was a virulent anti-communist.
dhosek 6y ago
It's interesting to note how little I know about pre-WWII Japan. Here's the naval treaty mentioned in passing in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty My history classes spent a lot of time on what led to Hitler and Mussolini but absolutely nothing on what led to the Japanese membership in the Axis.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  If you are interested in this, I'd recommend Hardcore History's "Supernova in the East" series. Here's the first part: https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-62-Supernova-in-the-East-i/ https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-62-Supern...
  - rgacote 6y ago
    All of the Hard Core History podcasts are incredibly informative and in-depth. Definite recommend.
- RegnisGnaw 6y ago
  I was raised in China and our education was almost the exact opposite. Very little on the European WWII and mostly (95%) on the evil Japanese empire.
  - ci5er 6y ago
    I lived in Japan for about 10 years, and have subsequently made a lot of Chinese, HK, TW and SG friends (partly because of the businesses I have been in), and except for the TW and SG folks whose opinions seemed to be mixed by generation, there is a lot of focus in modern history education on how badly the Japanese behaved leading up to WWII and in WWII. And, fair enough! But there doesn't to be much education on any side of the aisle about the 1000-or-so years leading up to their mutual antagonism. I don't think that anyone is served by having sections of their history books snipped out - and the Japanese are no saints in this regard either. (Of course, I say this in the US, now, when some people are trying to have literature and history books snipped out)
Jolter 6y ago
I can’t get over a writing quirk of this author. Is there a word for this inconsistent use of tense? “When Chaplin asked what happened, Ken would say his father had been assassinated. He’d travel with the Prime Minister’s son to the palace and see the blood-stained floors.” Unless I’m mistaken, this is considered poor style in English, isn’t it? Was - would be “Chaplin didn’t understand Japanese, but knew they were in danger. He’d immediately put his acting skills into play.”
- eloisius 6y ago
  I have to go back and fix this kind of inconsistency in my own writing occasionally. I'd agree that it's poor style. Even without the inconsistency, I never like it when things that are clearly from the past are written in whatever tense you call it where you make everything "would." Subject would present tense verb only seems appropriate when you're describing something both past and _in general_. "He would leave his shoes by the door when he came home from work."
- jml7c5 6y ago
  I think it's just confused word use. The author seems to treat 'would' as a "past tense operator". In programming terms, the author appears to be under the impression that past_tense("action") -> "would action". The correct function is past_tense("action") -> "actioned". (Or whatever weird conjugation "action" has.) The tense this article's passages (mostly) use is "future-in-the-past" tense, where the verb 'will' becomes 'would'. It is used when one transports the reader to a specific moment in time, looking omnisciently into the future. For example, these sentences (in present/present/future, respectively): "It is 1845. John Johnson wakes up. His wife will bake a cake in celebration." become (in past/past/future-in-the-past, respectively): "It was 1845. John Johnson woke up. His wife would bake a cake in celebration." If we transport the sentences you quoted from past->present and future-in-the-past->future, they become: "Chaplin asks what happened. Ken will say his father has been assassinated. He will travel with [...]". The second sentence becomes: "Chaplin doesn't understand Japanese, but he knows he is in danger. He will immediately put his acting skills into play." These are grammatically correct, but I believe there are a few cases where the author gets it wrong. In general, there are so many tense changes (and changes in the 'specific moment' as described earlier) that it is probably unreasonable to consider the whole document grammatically correct even if one could break the document into isolated pieces of correctness.

64 points by TheSpine 6y ago

Stalin wanted to assassinate John Wayne because of his anti-Communism.(https://web.archive.org/web/20080602054832/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=%2Farts%2F2004%2F06%2F04%2Fbfstalin04.xml&page=5 https://web.archive.org/web/20080602054832/http://www.telegr...)

TheSpine 6y ago
I swear, fiction isn't as good as fact. If you made that into a movie, people would say the plot line was ridiculous.
mc32 6y ago
That would have been too heavy handed. Yuri Bezmenov has an interview where he explains the more subtle way the USSR would weaken the US (after Stalin’s time) Yuri was right. All along the US thought it was projecting soft power via Hollywood movies, and it did and does but there are other dimensions to the whole thing, and given our system of governance there is no way to avoid getting to where we are. In the USSR and China today, it’s not up to factions to make up or derive what ones principles are, what the mores are, who the authorities are. There is no equivocation, it always comes from the state. Teachers, professors, etc., anyone questioning certain tenets would get nudges or more aggressive tactics to cease those lines of thinking.
- throwanem 6y ago
  I believe the interview you mention is https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jFfrWKHB1Gc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jFfrWKHB1Gc - I'm not yet familiar with it myself. edit: And having duly familiarized myself, I have to say, I appreciate you mentioning it! High-grade Bircher nonsense is tough to come by these days, and it makes a nice, nostalgic diversion from its more modern and more dangerous conspiracy-theory descendants, like antivax stuff and QAnon. Nothing but respect for Bezmenov and his obvious grift, but it's not a surprise to me that anyone still peddling this nonsense with a straight face in 2020 would do so in a way that's cagey. I mean, you could hardly expect to be taken seriously if you were more upfront with it, could you?
- LiquidSky 6y ago
  Could you explain what Bezmenov is right about? It's not clear from your comment. What was the subtle way the USSR would weaken the US?
- herbstein 6y ago
  Yuri Bezmenov was also a nobody who instantly became a darling of the American far-right. The interview you're referring to is by the Alex Jones-like conspiracy nut G. Edward Griffin. Bezmenov became "famous" by reinforcing every far-right fear of "communist indoctrination" in American society. I would love to know how you think this has manifested in American society. The interview you're talking about is from 1984, and he's warning how these effects will start manifesting in the next 10-15-20 years. He, in fact, defected in early 1970. Let's be generous and say the changes would come after roughly 25 years. Where is the sweeping ideological and policy changes that in the mid-90s made the US so much more subversive and/or communist? I see little to no evidence of this. In fact, the Bezmenov interview is carted out by all people trying to explain a change in the political landscape. Current-day liberals (in the American sense) use the (context-less) interview to claim it's indicative of current Russian measures. At the same time Republicans use it to prove that there's a "both sides", and that issues like trans rights and the internment camps are simply subversive claims by a foreign power. Both of these narratives try to show that the "us" isn't inherently flawed, but that we're deliberately pushed in a "subversive" direction by an evil, all-powerful force. It's a comforting truth, in a way. You maintain the positive self-image while gaining a common enemy. Sure, you're mad at the other side for falling for the lie. But ultimately the common enemy is even worse. Edit: Changed the second paragraph to reflect the year he defected
  - ravenstine 6y ago
    > Yuri Bezmenov was also a nobody who instantly became a darling of the American far-right. The interview you're referring to is by the Alex Jones-like conspiracy nut G. Edward Griffin. Bezmenov became "famous" by reinforcing every far-right fear of "communist indoctrination" in American society. You're engaging in weak thinking known as "guilt by association". Whatever merit the rest of your statements have, it's totally irrelevant whether the "far-right" likes Bezmenov or if the person who interviewed him was a "conspiracy theorist". It's weak because it says nothing about Bezmenov himself, and at worst it is an attempt to shut down any counter argument. (association to the "far-right" and "conspiracy theorist" are common tactics to shut down arguments)
    - 6y ago
yoloswagins 6y ago
I am reasonably certain that Stalin had Warren Bechtel, one of the builders of Hoover Dam, die on a visit to Russia. "Dad" Bechtel was a virulent anti-communist.

dhosek 6y ago

It's interesting to note how little I know about pre-WWII Japan. Here's the naval treaty mentioned in passing in the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty My history classes spent a lot of time on what led to Hitler and Mussolini but absolutely nothing on what led to the Japanese membership in the Axis.

pmoriarty 6y ago
If you are interested in this, I'd recommend Hardcore History's "Supernova in the East" series. Here's the first part: https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-62-Supernova-in-the-East-i/ https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-62-Supern...
- rgacote 6y ago
  All of the Hard Core History podcasts are incredibly informative and in-depth. Definite recommend.
RegnisGnaw 6y ago
I was raised in China and our education was almost the exact opposite. Very little on the European WWII and mostly (95%) on the evil Japanese empire.
- ci5er 6y ago
  I lived in Japan for about 10 years, and have subsequently made a lot of Chinese, HK, TW and SG friends (partly because of the businesses I have been in), and except for the TW and SG folks whose opinions seemed to be mixed by generation, there is a lot of focus in modern history education on how badly the Japanese behaved leading up to WWII and in WWII. And, fair enough! But there doesn't to be much education on any side of the aisle about the 1000-or-so years leading up to their mutual antagonism. I don't think that anyone is served by having sections of their history books snipped out - and the Japanese are no saints in this regard either. (Of course, I say this in the US, now, when some people are trying to have literature and history books snipped out)

Jolter 6y ago

I can’t get over a writing quirk of this author. Is there a word for this inconsistent use of tense? “When Chaplin asked what happened, Ken would say his father had been assassinated. He’d travel with the Prime Minister’s son to the palace and see the blood-stained floors.” Unless I’m mistaken, this is considered poor style in English, isn’t it? Was - would be “Chaplin didn’t understand Japanese, but knew they were in danger. He’d immediately put his acting skills into play.”

eloisius 6y ago
I have to go back and fix this kind of inconsistency in my own writing occasionally. I'd agree that it's poor style. Even without the inconsistency, I never like it when things that are clearly from the past are written in whatever tense you call it where you make everything "would." Subject would present tense verb only seems appropriate when you're describing something both past and _in general_. "He would leave his shoes by the door when he came home from work."
jml7c5 6y ago
I think it's just confused word use. The author seems to treat 'would' as a "past tense operator". In programming terms, the author appears to be under the impression that past_tense("action") -> "would action". The correct function is past_tense("action") -> "actioned". (Or whatever weird conjugation "action" has.) The tense this article's passages (mostly) use is "future-in-the-past" tense, where the verb 'will' becomes 'would'. It is used when one transports the reader to a specific moment in time, looking omnisciently into the future. For example, these sentences (in present/present/future, respectively): "It is 1845. John Johnson wakes up. His wife will bake a cake in celebration." become (in past/past/future-in-the-past, respectively): "It was 1845. John Johnson woke up. His wife would bake a cake in celebration." If we transport the sentences you quoted from past->present and future-in-the-past->future, they become: "Chaplin asks what happened. Ken will say his father has been assassinated. He will travel with [...]". The second sentence becomes: "Chaplin doesn't understand Japanese, but he knows he is in danger. He will immediately put his acting skills into play." These are grammatically correct, but I believe there are a few cases where the author gets it wrong. In general, there are so many tense changes (and changes in the 'specific moment' as described earlier) that it is probably unreasonable to consider the whole document grammatically correct even if one could break the document into isolated pieces of correctness.