Member
krazyfrenchman, i didn't mean to stroke your fur the wrong way.
What i meant to say was:
If the Axis had won, what would history being saying about them? Would the atrocities be hidden, and disguised?
I remember as a child seeing old WWII propaganda posters dehumanizing the enemy to help the war effort - it makes it easier to fight them if you don't look at them as equals.
I am in no way dissagreeing with you. I am actually 100% in accordance.
I was just raising the point of how history tells stories from the side of the Victor and how it has only been in the latter half of the century with Human-rights movement that we are now understanding that perhaps history isn't always fact; that perhaps History is filtered by those who win the conflict; that perhaps evil things done by the winning side never makes into the History book.
I hope i didn't offend anyone. i am not trying to stoke the fire, just make my point.
Senior Member
Krazyfrenchman, I'm afraid that this relativistic "nobody is right or wrong" is just parroting of the "higher" educational process of today. The fact is that the naked aggression of the Germans was alone responsible for the slaughter we call WWII.
Naziism had to be crushed and cost was no object in money or lives. Germans would overwhelmingly agree with that today. Hitler was a psychopathic god. Psychopathic gods bode ill for their people, the more so if they are victorious. Long-term negotiation and peaceful (most of the time) contest as between the Soviet Union and the western world was not possible in 1939.
Interestingly, sometimes, as in the American Civil War, the history is rewritten by the losers! During the 1870s through the civil rights movements of the sixties, the southern losers succeeded in rewriting a war which was begun over slavery, fought to repudiate that right and whose victory ended slavery forever in the US, as a simple war about states' rights vs. federal rights. The "noble" southerners have recast their shameful guilt as defending the real principles of the founders of the US. Most people accept that fallacy as fact today.
Any other examples of where the losers wrote the history? It happens!
In a small way Das Boot is a rewriting of history by the losers. Real German submariners are not too fond of Das Boot or of the book Iron Coffins. Many of them believe these overglorify the German navy, whitewashing their participation in something quite evil and not to be proud of. I can understand and partially agree with that position. But I also recognize the skill and personal courage of those men, even if exerted for an evil cause.
In a similar situation, what would each of us do? I doubt many of us can answer that question. If we could, we might not like the answer at all.
Senior Member
The facets of a world conflict are many and can not be judged simply by looking at one facet of such a conflict. Hitler attempted to hold the world hostage by holding his own people hostage.
The German military of that time period was not wholly staffed by volunteers. In fact, most were abducted at gunpoint. I have spoken to many people who lived through that nightmare and they all witnessed the Nazi recruiters taking every pair of boots they could find, at gunpoint. It was join or die where you stand.
Given that situation, A man does some very quick soul searching and admittedly, most of us would make the wrong choice too.
So, rather than argue symantics or ideologies, I enjoy "playing " a simulation. That's all it is.
Just my two cents worth. Where's my change?
Senior Member
Oooh, this one's fun! Here's my two cents and it's nothing new.
1. Germany was unjustly blamed by the victors of WW1 for the whole war, creating the vacuum for national socilaism and a Hiltler.
2. There was a Hitler to fill that vacuum.
3. The German people felt a growing pride in themselves and a right wing nationalism flowered. (US take note, we've been skirting the edges)
4. Hitler was a drug addict being given amphetamines daily by his Dr. This is going to effect your judgement.
5. Hitler was sick with growing palsey from about 1934 on also effecting judgement.
6. These are not excuses for the crimes eventually committed, but help explain how things spiralled out of control.
7. All armys have problems with soldiers committing crimes. All armys tend to dehumanize their enemies to build the will to fight. Hitler also used the jews for this to focus domestic angst. (US stop calling Muslims "towelheads", see any parallels?)
Now, what if Hitler had managed his power and war machine better? What if his goals were more realistic? That's one for discussion over drinks by the firepit.
Vlaba
Senior Member
Cool! Where do I begin here. Guess I'll start at the beginning.Originally posted by Vlaba:
Oooh, this one's fun! Here's my two cents and it's nothing new.
OK, wrong. Kaiser Wilhelm took advantage of the treaty situation to execute a long-standing von Schlieffen plan, issued at the Kaiser's request in 1905. This was a prepared plan to take over continental Europe by first handcuffing the impotent French (beaten in two weeks during the Franco-Prussian war of 1870) with the Entente Cordiale and destroying the Russians before they could mobilize. It was already planned to ignore the neutrality of the low countries and roll into France along the English channel. Just because the excuse to initiate that plan of conquest was fortuitous, doesn't mean the plan itself was "unjustly blamed." The Germans were the aggressors and justly blamed.1. Germany was unjustly blamed by the victors of WW1 for the whole war, creating the vacuum for national socilaism and a Hiltler.
Yup, there was. You're one for two. Great for a baseball player!2. There was a Hitler to fill that vacuum.
But what was cause and what was effect? I submit that the growing pride and "right wing nationalism" (equating US and 1930's German right wings is just silly. I won't go there) came after the Nazis rose to power. They didn't rise to power because of a growing pride and "right wing nationalism." In fact, early 20th century Germans of high class ignored politics altogether, regarding it as below their station in life. The vaccuum left by the non-participation of Germany's best and brightest is what Hitler stepped into. That and the incompetence of the democratic German government.3. The German people felt a growing pride in themselves and a right wing nationalism flowered. (US take note, we've been skirting the edges)
May have been one of many factors. Hitler got the drugs because he asked for them. However, once he took over the comical Nazi Party in Munich, his psychopathic godhood was a constant throughout his remaining life, drugs or no drugs. Face it: he was an evil guy. No excuse justifies that.4. Hitler was a drug addict being given amphetamines daily by his Dr. This is going to effect your judgement.
Palsy has nothing to do with judgment, except that it exposes the prejudiced judgment of those who think it affects judgment. Palsy is nothing but uncontrolled muscular tremors, resulting in apparent clumsiness, which many mistake for stupidity and lack of judgment. The many are very wrong.5. Hitler was sick with growing palsey from about 1934 on also effecting judgement.
Things spiraled out of control because Hitler was an evil psychopathic god. Evil is irrational and does not function to the advantage of the evil-doer. Although evil exists in sane people, more enlightened sane people recognize the irrationality of evil and seek to minimize its effects in their lives. Hitler knew nothing but desires and a powerful sense of self-entitlement. The sole purpose of the world was to worship him. If they would not, he would destroy them, and his own people.6. These are not excuses for the crimes eventually committed, but help explain how things spiralled out of control.
In order for something to "spiral out of control" it must be in control at some point. Hitler had no self-control and no one was willing to control him.
But all armies do not ORDER their soldiers to commit crimes. Ten million Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses and whoever else seemed convenient were murdered, not by the misdeeds of individual soldiers, but by order of their government. They were decorated and celebrated for their acts. "All armies have problems with soldiers committing crimes" trivializes the horrific reality of institutionalized evil. Your statement here is not only wrong but profoundly offensive. Don't worry, we plan to let you live.7. All armys have problems with soldiers committing crimes. All armys tend to dehumanize their enemies to build the will to fight. Hitler also used the jews for this to focus domestic angst. (US stop calling Muslims "towelheads", see any parallels?)
In the US, we don't call all Muslims towelheads. The largest Muslim population in the world lives IN the US as productive citizens who take a virtuous part in our culture. Our last war before the Iraq conflict was on behalf of Muslims in Kosovo subject to a "cultural cleansing" effort by Serbs. This consisted of filling large holes with the bodies of Muslims. We justly fought to stop that. Forgot, didn't you? What does that fact do to your attitude that Americans hate all Muslims? I'll tell you one thing. It's a lie, pushed by Islamic extremists and adopted by some in the US and Europe who are grasping at straws to defend their anti-American posture.
Had Hitler managed his power and war machine better there never would have been a WWII. Germany would have pursued its advantages in industrialization, language, art, will to succeed and take risk to accomplish that and become the foremost country in a vital and prosperous Europe, as they are doing now!Now, what if Hitler had managed his power and war machine better? What if his goals were more realistic? That's one for discussion over drinks by the firepit.
Only one thing mattered to German leaders in WWI and WWII: conquest and subjugation. Those are NEVER under control. They always possess, overpower and humiliate their perpetrators.
Banned
Senior Member
Hope I wasn't over the line. I was trying to constructively, forcefully yes, but enthusiastically engage the subject. Furthermore, nationalism has nothing to do with my positions. I meant no offense to anyone.
My opinions treat ideas, not individuals. If someone espouses an idea that I have skewered and are offended, that is their doing and I take no responsibility for that outcome.
I am, however, not an ideologue. I don't consider any positions sacred and all are up for discussion and I am always open to persuasion.
I think the OP posted in the same spirit and that is good. Difficult subjects can be discussed energetically and civilly.
Senior Member
Cool! Where do I begin here. Guess I'll start at the beginning.Originally posted by RockinRobbins:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vlaba:
Oooh, this one's fun! Here's my two cents and it's nothing new.
OK, wrong. Kaiser Wilhelm took advantage of the treaty situation to execute a long-standing von Schlieffen plan, issued at the Kaiser's request in 1905. This was a prepared plan to take over continental Europe by first handcuffing the impotent French (beaten in two weeks during the Franco-Prussian war of 1870) with the Entente Cordiale and destroying the Russians before they could mobilize. It was already planned to ignore the neutrality of the low countries and roll into France along the English channel. Just because the excuse to initiate that plan of conquest was fortuitous, doesn't mean the plan itself was "unjustly blamed." The Germans were the aggressors and justly blamed.1. Germany was unjustly blamed by the victors of WW1 for the whole war, creating the vacuum for national socilaism and a Hiltler.
Counterpoint 1: War at that time was concidered viable international policy and most nations held plans. Granted, most were not for conquest but defense. I didn't say or mean blameless, but they were not wholly to blame.
Yup, there was. You're one for two. Great for a baseball player!2. There was a Hitler to fill that vacuum.
But what was cause and what was effect? I submit that the growing pride and "right wing nationalism" (equating US and 1930's German right wings is just silly. I won't go there) came after the Nazis rose to power. They didn't rise to power because of a growing pride and "right wing nationalism." In fact, early 20th century Germans of high class ignored politics altogether, regarding it as below their station in life. The vaccuum left by the non-participation of Germany's best and brightest is what Hitler stepped into. That and the incompetence of the democratic German government.3. The German people felt a growing pride in themselves and a right wing nationalism flowered. (US take note, we've been skirting the edges)
Counterpoint 2: The best and brightest, or the wealthiest? The upper class rarely wants to rock the boat and disrupt the gravy train. I say it was decadence and inertia as well, so I don't see that we really disagree on this point. Hmmm, I'm not comparing the US(of which I'm a native)and Germany of the '30's directly, my point is the factors that cause a group of people to do things, or allow things to be done, that they would otherwise consider wrong. The US post 911 has been bending the rules over fear and maybe some sort of mass hysteria.
May have been one of many factors. Hitler got the drugs because he asked for them. However, once he took over the comical Nazi Party in Munich, his psychopathic godhood was a constant throughout his remaining life, drugs or no drugs. Face it: he was an evil guy. No excuse justifies that.4. Hitler was a drug addict being gin amphetamines daily by his Dr. This is going to effect your judgement.
CP3: Agreed.
Palsy has nothing to do with judgment, except that it exposes the prejudiced judgment of those who think it affects judgment. Palsy is nothing but uncontrolled muscular tremors, resulting in apparent clumsiness, which many mistake for stupidity and lack of judgment. The many are very wrong.5. Hitler was sick with growing palsey from about 1934 on also effecting judgement.
CP4: Perhaps not judgment, but a certain inflexability is documented.
Things spiraled out of control because Hitler was an evil psychopathic god. Evil is irrational and does not function to the advantage of the evil-doer. Although evil exists in sane people, more enlightened sane people recognize the irrationality of evil and seek to minimize its effects in their lives. Hitler knew nothing but desires and a powerful sense of self-entitlement. The sole purpose of the world was to worship him. If they would not, he would destroy them, and his own people.6. These are not excuses for the crimes eventually committed, but help explain how things spiralled out of control.
In order for something to "spiral out of control" it must be in control at some point. Hitler had no self-control and no one was willing to control him.
CP5: Agreed.
But all armies do not ORDER their soldiers to commit crimes. Ten million Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses and whoever else seemed convenient were murdered, not by the misdeeds of individual soldiers, but by order of their government. They were decorated and celebrated for their acts. "All armies have problems with soldiers committing crimes" trivializes the horrific reality of institutionalized evil. Your statement here is not only wrong but profoundly offensive. Don't worry, we plan to let you live.7. All armys have problems with soldiers committing crimes. All armys tend to dehumanize their enemies to build the will to fight. Hitler also used the jews for this to focus domestic angst. (US stop calling Muslims "towelheads", see any parallels?)
In the US, we don't call all Muslims towelheads. The largest Muslim population in the world lives IN the US as productive citizens who take a virtuous part in our culture. Our last war before the Iraq conflict was on behalf of Muslims in Kosovo subject to a "cultural cleansing" effort by Serbs. This consisted of filling large holes with the bodies of Muslims. We justly fought to stop that. Forgot, didn't you? What does that fact do to your attitude that Americans hate all Muslims? I'll tell you one thing. It's a lie, pushed by Islamic terrorists and adopted by some in the US and Europe who are grasping at straws to defend their anti-American posture.
CP6: Not meant to be offensive, but it does exist and is offensive simply by existing. Like I've said, I'm from the US and I've heard "towelhead used on too many occasions by otherwise nice people. Not much recently, but during the emotional build up to our current war in Iraq. By the way, my wife is Iraqi and I am somewhat sensitive to these things, so maybe I read more into it.
Had Hitler managed his power and war machine better there never would have been a WWII. Germany would have pursued its advantages in industrialization, language, art, will to succeed and take risk to accomplish that and become the foremost country in a vital and prosperous Europe, as they are doing now!Now, what if Hitler had managed his power and war machine better? What if his goals were more realistic? That's one for discussion over drinks by the firepit.
Only one thing mattered to German leaders in WWI and WWII: conquest and subjugation. Those are NEVER under control. They always possess, overpower and humiliate their perpetrators.
CP7: Agreed.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There, not so bad, eh?
Vlaba
Member
Senior Member
Would that be Ilmari, his brother Aarne, Jan-Mikael or the IT company?Originally posted by antiStalin:
Dear All,
Considering a moderator's perspective, I'm going to change my name to "Juutilainen". I apologize for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
My personal choice would be Jan-Mikael, the hockey player. Go Blackhawks!
Dave
