Skip to main content

View Diary: "Accidental" Giant Navy Swastika Building Was No Accident (190 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well (5+ / 0-)

    I'd say you've thrown in a lot of documentation showing what Mr Segol believes.  

    Proving intent vs accident is tricky at best, though, and what may seem plainly intentional to one person can be totally accidental to the one who did it.

    How many thousands of papers did Rear Admiral Wooding sign during the course of his career?  Did he read every single one, or whip off stacks of signatures on forms passed to him by a petty officer every morning?  Without a time machine and direct observation, there is no real way to tell whether he seriously looked at the 'vicinity map' when signing or not.

    Throwing in the comment about the beard on a frieze saying Moses advocates sinning actually detracts from the rest of the argument, as it sounds like a tinfoil hat type of thing.

    Dunno if Segol is right or not, but I think he should be looking more for evidence of anti-Semitism at the architectural firm than the Navy.  I find it extremely hard to believe that servicemen, many of whom probably fought in WW 2, would intentionally use a symbol of the main enemy of that war.

    But really, as I said above, one man's intent is another's coincidence.

    Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

    by drbloodaxe on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:26:33 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Incorrect. Please deal with the facts (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      homogenius, scoff0165

      You're trying to change the subject:

      1. The Navy's explanation
      1. Documents that appear to contradict the Navy's explanation.
      •  Um no. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jagger, jimmyboyo

        My 'subject' was the weakness of some of the arguments presented in your article.

        And if you try to explain something today that took place 50 years ago, are you sure your explanation is going to be right?

        If pressed for an explanation, you'll no doubt try to give one, but without having been the person on the ground at the time, your explanation is not necessarily going to be dead on.

        That still doesn't make it 'a coverup'.

        Documents that appear to contradict the Navy's explanation.

        Were those documents in the hands of the person trying to explain something that happened 50 years ago?  If not, then they didn't have all the info to make their 'best guess explanation' as correct as possible.

        I don't deny there may have been anti-Semitism involved in the design of the building, but I think you're trying to build a conspiracy theory here now, when there are simpler explanations.

        Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

        by drbloodaxe on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:36:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I didn't allege a "coverup". That's your term. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          scoff0165

          The Navy may simply be lying about the origin of the building, which could actually have been the decision of the Rear Admiral alone. We just don't know.

          We can safely assume the Navy is now very embarrassed that it has let the building stand for several decades and that they'd rather minimize the controversy.

          •  And, I'm rather dubious about your criticisms... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Joy Busey, nymosyn, scoff0165

            The Coronado NAB complex was constructed about 2 decades after hundreds of thousands of US soldiers were killed or wounded fighting the Nazis.

            Many of those who fought and survived would have been in their 40's when the Coronado NAB building was put up.

            As an analogy, imagine that a US Army base were to, this year, construct a giant barracks in the shape of a symbol that clearly, unequivocally evoked the ideology of the Viet Cong.

            A winning proposition ?

            As for your - claim that the Rear Admiral who signed off on the NAB swastika building simply signed lots and lots of documents, well...

            I'm rather dubious given the scale and footprint of the Coronado swastika barracks. It almost like saying the design of the pyramids was due to administrative oversight.

            •  My dubiousness :) (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jimmyboyo

              As for your - claim that the Rear Admiral who signed off on the NAB swastika building simply signed lots and lots of documents, well...

              I didn't 'claim' that.  I put it forth as one possibility about as equally likely in my mind as the rear admiral being an anti-Semite with no other corroborating evidence to his positions.

              The higher up you are on any chain, the more paperwork you generally have to deal with, and the more you tend to rely on subordinates to sort out the important things from the mere signing off on of things that are already underway.

              Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

              by drbloodaxe on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:13:38 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Granted. (0+ / 0-)

            coverup, and in other comments 'conspiracy' were my own word choices.

            Those are words I tend to use when people allege intent to mislead and/or 'lying' on a fairly long term or large scale.

            But I do agree with the rest of that particular comment.

            We just don't know.

            We can safely assume the Navy is now very embarrassed that it has let the building stand for several decades and that they'd rather minimize the controversy.

            Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

            by drbloodaxe on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:10:27 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That reminds me.... (0+ / 0-)

              I probably should have thrown a "Kudos to the navy" for deciding to do something about the building. That's commendable.

              Before Google Earth it was a non-issue except, maybe, for a few on the base in question who noticed and were bothered.

              Google Earth changed all that.

              Does a giant swastika building, unobserved, cause harm ? In general I'd say no.

              But, I have to wonder about US Naval personnel who have noticed the building... what do they think ? Do they consider the building some sort of official endorsement of fascist ideas ?

        •  You're kidding, right? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Troutfishing

          I was born - into the U.S. Navy - a bit more than 50 years ago. In 1968 I was a senior in high school. It was an eventful year, there was a war going on that relied upon draftees, and the Navy enjoyed the enlisted presence of lots and lots of guys who didn't want to go to VietNam and didn't want to run away. The Navy had/has a nuclear power school in San Diego. Lots of those enlistees were Jews who would know a swastika when they saw one.

          I can assure you my father, 'planning officer' at Subic for the theatre during the Korean conflict, would have known a swastika if he saw one, 50 years ago or 39 years ago. Before, during and after the construction of these buildings, more than a few Naval personnel of various rank would have known it's a swastika. Flights come in and out all the time, even to an 'amphibious' station. Naval pilots and their Naval passengers would see that it's a swastika.

          This story from the Navy is not credible.

          Satan himself had a 33% approval rating even as he was booted out of heaven.

          by Joy Busey on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 09:01:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well then (0+ / 0-)

            Given all that you just said about flights coming in all the time, how do you explain that it's never been an issue until now?  Are you implying that everyone in the Navy is anti-Semitic?  (Or at least all of those pilots and their passengers?)

            That's the part that isn't credible to me.  Everyone keeps talking about how 'everyone knows a swastika when they see it' and some add that 'all sorts of people would have seen the plans' and 'seen it from the air'.  And yet it doesn't seem to have EVER in 50+ years been an issue until google earth came along.

            What exactly would be a credible story to you that could also be credible to me? (Ie, explain how nobody else in 50 yrs has had a problem with it.)

            Got a problem with my posts? Email me, and let's resolve it.

            by drbloodaxe on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 11:26:43 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Once again... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Joy Busey

              Who in the  US military member would make noise about it ? Prior to Google Earth, they'd likely have been assumed to be stark raving mad. Trying call public attention the NAB swastika building would probably a quick end to a career.

              •  I think the good doctor... (0+ / 0-)

                ...is just having a little trouble figuring out why it took an angry American with Israeli dual citizenship and Google to get all upset about the building. Everyone who could see it from the air or draw a plot map of the complex knew it's a swastika. For 39 years.

                They just thought it was funnier than shit, and you shovel a lot of that in the military. I'm quite able to believe no one (outside of the architect, perhaps) had any real evil intent, which is what MAKES it so funny. Like a Freudian slip... §;o)

                Satan himself had a 33% approval rating even as he was booted out of heaven.

                by Joy Busey on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 08:00:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  You're not familiar with the military... (0+ / 0-)

              ...are you? I can pretty much guarantee this building has been a notable landmark for everyone who ever saw and recognized it for what it was, from the air or the ground. A highly humorous confirmation of just how oxymoronic the system really is, top to bottom.

              If you happen to be living in that oxymoronic system for short or long chunks of your life, such comic relief is a necessary outlet. Who would want to knock it down, when it's such a hoot just as it is?

              Satan himself had a 33% approval rating even as he was booted out of heaven.

              by Joy Busey on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:51:26 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  A fascinating (0+ / 0-)

        nazident.

        My novel is full of sex, drink, incest, suicides, dope, horseracing, murder, scandalous legal procedure and ends with a good public hanging--attended by 30,000

        by Salo on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:37:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  That Moses frieze thing (4+ / 0-)

      almost made me stop reading the diary.

      Without some corroborating evidence, it's like the purple teletubbie.

      You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into. - Jonathan Swift

      by A Mad Mad World on Fri Sep 28, 2007 at 07:47:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site