Victory in Germany

“Victory in Germany!”

I have a friend in Germany now, who said everyone has a car, a place to park it and a home. They must have won in 1945 then right?

“Allied forces storm beaches: Germany retreats”

They must have recovered, re-formed their ranks, and pushed the Allies off the beaches, and back into the Black Sea.

“Bells toll! Victory! Bliss in Munich!”

[Photo: Sailor kissing nurse in streets. Munich, Germany. 1945]

~~~

Why is history so hard. Why couldn’t I be good at math. Why did I have to get stuck in the humanities stream. Anyway, here’s what I have so far for my intro, tell me what you think:

In 2055, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Allister Barn in Barn vs. Simon and Schuster, upholding the 1st Amendment and the Freedom of Information Act. The decision was appealed, but the ruling was subsequently upheld. Headlines were purported to have read, “Victory for Freedom! Washington upholds 1st Amendment in landmark case!” In May of 2056, citizens throughout the country protested the decision but “Decoy Documents” or “Decoys”, as they were called by opponents of free speech, were already in press. Publishers, under law, were prohibited from the discrimination of historical accounts based on validity, and were required by law to publish all manuscripts in accordance with the first amendment pending private market analysis demonstrating that reasonable profitability1 could be attained. This ruling was then extended to academic and professional journals. Shortly thereafter, The New Free Speech Act criminalized international academic collaboration, which was characterized as a treasonous (albeit tacit) attempt to discredit, and by extension, hinder, and thus deprive The American People of their right to free speech. In response to the passage of this act, parades were said to have been organized; people exclaimed freedom had been restored, equality achieved, the silent majority heard at last.

Shortly following these events, much interest was placed on the study of decoy documents. “Decoys” are claimed to be greater in number for “charged” historical events, which include, but are not limited to: wars, aerospace initiatives, landmark court cases, etc., and are estimated to outnumber non-decoy documents by hundreds to one (print only) and possibly up to tens of thousands to one (print and digital media). The authors of this study also stated that the accuracy of these estimates is contingent upon the time their article was accessed (Splinter et al. 2077).

Thirty years after Barn vs. Simon and Schuster, The Organization for the Identification of Decoy Documents were victorious in bringing litigation to court that proposed that documents with a high degree of plausibility published in academic journals be earmarked, Historical History. Although publicly unfavorable, anti-decoy proponents (also known as followers of the “anti-freedom movement”) rejoiced when the court agreed to hear the proceeding. They claimed that this marked the first time a governing body acknowledged the existence of the central argument of The Organization in what is now known as the Failure to Thrive hypothesis. This hypothesis was originally drafted in 2078 by economist Dr. Alfred Justice, which suggests that the economy of the United States is in a state of decline due to the infiltration of decoy documents in academic journals and elsewhere. Although the litigation was ultimately unsuccessful, a not-for-profit campaign was set up to research a litany of historical documents in attempt to earmark Historical History, thus separating it from General History.

The single largest undertaking since that time has been deemed The Great War Project, which aims to investigate a large war that is said to have occurred in the early 20th century. The sheer number of documents describing this event has many scholars classifying it as a “charged” event that has a high likelihood of containing Historical History. Theorists hypothesize this war was monumental and greatly disrupted the global balance of power.

The aim of this dissertation is to provide addenda of support for Dr. Pristine Marshall’s collated work entitled, The Great War of 1942–1945 (Simon & Schuster, 2098), which hypothesizes that Axis forces, comprised of Germany, Japan, and Indochina, won The Great War, resulting in the defeat of the United Kingdom, Russia, France, Canada and the United States. Dr. Pristine begins his work by acknowledging the near dire economic state of the United States (one of few scholars to publish such views). However, his views separate from others, including The Organization for the Identification of Decoy Documents, in that he attributes progressive economic decline to the United States losing The Great War. Mainstream scholarly thought asserts that the United States’ economy never fully recovered from the loss, primarily as a result of i) the high cost burden of war, and ii) the crippling taxation from Germany that followed that has been theorized to have extended into the late 1970’s. It was during this time that United States was granted sovereignty in response to helping Germany recover from the massive debt it incurred upon defeating the Russians in 1945 (Schneider et al. 2065; Jefferson et al. 2067; Fleishmann et al 2072; and numerous others).

The central hypothesize of this dissertation is that

1. After a period of intense litigation, Reasonable profitability was ultimately defined in section 184(d)(5) of the New Free Speech Act (2064).

The preceding assignment was written after conducting thirty-five interviews with residents of “Casa de mañana” who claim to be eyewitnesses of the events that occurred during the 2055–2065 time period outlined above. I uncovered no potential conflicts of interest among the residents. Prior to taking up residence at Casa de mañana, the thirty-five occupants resided in 16 states across the nation. Interviewees were of diverse ethnicities, gender identities and claim to be of various political affiliations. Thus, the legislation events previously outlined in the Background section of this dissertation can be considered to be of “plausible plausibility” according to the Russell Model of Evidentiary Credibility guidelines.

Anyway, that’s all I got for now. Tell me what you think Aleks, I don’t know. I don’t know what I’m doing anymore.

Lots of love, chat soon,

~ Juni