|
| Thread: WWII : Who Saved The World |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Vlaad
Admirable
Legendary Hero
ghost of the past
|
posted November 20, 2004 04:35 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You seek to deny German soldiers the right to be remembered for their countrie's crimes, and yet would you deny a Russian for Stalin's?
You are not misunderstood here, but the fact is a common German soldier "with no choice and minute influence on the matter" (which I still STRONGLY doubt) remains an aggressor.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 20, 2004 06:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You are not misunderstood here, but the fact is a common German soldier "with no choice and minute influence on the matter" (which I still STRONGLY doubt) remains an aggressor.
Tell that to Finland and Poland.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 20, 2004 06:58 PM |
|
|
I Accept Full Responsibility
I will take the blame for what I endorsed by posting the link and text. It was my fault. I apologize to Vlaad and Svarog. After reading through these recent posts, I think I know what I did wrong.
I wrote to "honor" the soldiers and then said that they fought for their own form of "freedom and liberty". I think this is why so many are infuriated. I will not delete what I wrote so that everyone will know it was me that said such things and not PrivateHudson.
I do still agree with his very meticulous and carefully worded responses. He has said the common soldier who had no choice deserves to be remembered. He did not say 'honored' or that they fought for 'freedom and liberty'. I think remberence is an entirely different and less notable circumstance than the words I used. I think that PrivateHudson has correctly detailed the principle of bad generalizations. He is a great opponent of this sort of thinking and I am lucky to read his well-researched posts.
I will say something that might make a bit more sense to Vlaad and Svarog. I am american yes? You both know that americans are lazy more often than not. I see this every day. I have always been perplexed as to the common German work ethic. Even if they were wrong, they always worked very hard and became the most prosperous industrialized nation in the world. This was not due to its military strength but instead the common German citizen. Look also at this quote from the link I posted earlier:Quote:
During World War II, the United States, which had little previous experience with foreign POWs, hastily threw up 700 internment camps to detain 425,000 enemy soldiers, who were arriving sometimes at a rate of 30,000 a month.
The German internees are still remembered for their skills and hard work. With most of America's young men overseas, the POWs helped overcome a labor shortage by harvesting crops and doing other physical labor for 80 cents a day.
I simply wish more americans would be as hard working as the Germans were. My country is getting fat and complacent. I sometimes wonder if we aren't opening ourselves to an attack from another by simply acting so arrogant. Arrogance can cause the death of America as easily as it did the Germans. They were also racist and fascist but arrogance cannot be discounted from the many unfavorable atributes.
I think long and hard about this on many occasions. I wonder what it truly was that enabled these people to recover like they did from the first world war. I may never know but sometimes I wish we americans had as much will to be good workers as they did. I also wish some americans would be as loyal the Japanese did. I also wish we had as much spunk as the French did. I also wish we had as much faith as the Brittish did. I guess I have a lot of wishes. I suppose I wish for the good traits excluding the bad ones.
Once again I apologize for my careless words earlier and I hope you would forgive me. I was wrong to say that.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 21, 2004 05:01 AM |
|
|
Our disagreements:
1. You believe Germans didn’t ideologically support Hitler, but were forced to serve him.
2. You believe the Germans didn’t know what Nazism was and what it represented.
I’m afraid most (non-neonazi) historians would disagree with these two sentences. What historians today try to show, and what you vulgarly misinterpret trying to imitate them, is that the common German people weren’t savage monsters, such as a sane person would believe observing the naked WW2 facts without their background, but rather misguided normal people who under the circumstances of the historical moment, understandably acted as they did. But understanding their actions is totally different from paying them respect for those.
Concerning our first disagreement, wasn’t it a fact that the people elected Hitler, massively supported him and his “foreign campaigns” on a clear openly expressed ideological platform. What’s more, as Vlaad precisely noted, even if they were forced to serve him (which they were not; they were manipulated to support him, i could say most precisely), and this relates mostly with those who hated him, that doesn’t abolish them from their responsibility for the evil actions they did. And much less makes them a war hero role model.
Concerning the second issue, I agree with you that Goebels did his best to hide the less-appealing aspects of the war. But you would agree with me that an ideological supremacy of Nazist ideology reigned among the intellectuals, was implemented in schools and universities, and I mean, as clearly and explicitly as it can get. Propagating hatred against the Jews, the supremacy and pureness of the Aryan race, their mission to conquer and control weaker nations and all that crap. Nazi ideology was never a hidden conspiracy, but a national political agenda, which started to effectualize with the Anschluss in 1938, and had a massive support among all classes.
Knowing what they knew, the majority of Germans failed to make the moral choice to reject the economical gains they got under an evil regime with blood on their hands.
Quote:
Quote:
With something that happened in 1945, you try to justify something that happened before then, which I find entirely ridiculous.
Again no, never said or indicated this. I would again suggest you read up on this subject as you will note that Russian attacks were not specifically targetting Germans but virtually everyone, including Russians. This is important as it throws the whole "revenge" theory right out.
I’m not talking about the Russians. I’m not defending them. How more explicit than that do you want me to be? You missed completely my point here. If you try to justify German behavior in 1945 with the Russians (which btw, is a mute unproved point, but at least makes some sense), there’s no way to justify Nazi aggressions (with common German soldiers as executors) before that period. And you still didn’t address this.
Quote:
Thousands of allied veterans have come to accept this because they recognised in the common German soldier the same lack of choice, the same fears, the same hopes.
It’s the human side in question here, not the soldier side. Its normal that the Germans were human beings who wished they didn’t have to fight the war, who feared if they’d survive it, who hoped for a better future for themselves and their families. But human beings also make terrible mistakes sometimes, that they/we should not be proud of.
Quote:
Again, my term was remember, not honour.
Yes, “remember with pride”, was your exact term. Sorry for the opposite meaning I denoted to it.
If it was “remember”, we wouldn’t have a disagreement here, because I absolutely believe that we should never forget the horrible mistakes people sometimes make. Let’s not turn this into a semantics debate, cause we both knew what you meant.
Quote:
People have been placing flowers on the grave of German (my defenition since I tend to make one) soldiers for quite some time. I believe the German chancellor was even allowed to take part in the D-Day commemorations. It's called moving with the times.
People may place flowers on German graves, if there lie their loved ones, but you’ll never see an official rally, or state sponsored manifestation for honoring Nazi (my definition, since I think using “German” for those people who died for fascist ideals, is offensive for todays Germans) casualties.
Schroeder indeed was present in Normandy this year, but you’re mixing the pots. The manifestation was to honor the fallen Allied soldiers, and the Chancellor’s attendance could only be saluted as an act of respect for them and a deep feeling of regret and guilt for what happened.
Moving with the times, is progressive, positivist attitude, PH, but what happens if we don’t learn our lessons from the history, if we don’t have a relationship with our past? Then you’re not moving forwards, because every forward has a past, without which it wouldn’t be forward, but just a dangerous move in an unidentified direction.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 21, 2004 05:06 AM |
|
|
This isn't an argument for or against anyone.
Consis, have you ever read The Wave, by Ron Jones? It talks about this very subject. It is about a history teacher who creates an experiment that goes horribly out of control. True story out of California, very interesting. Svarog, you should read it too.
Here's a website about it. The Wave
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 21, 2004 05:36 AM |
|
|
Fascinating Wolfman
Absolutely fascinating.....riveting to say the least! I applaud your finding this information. I should also like to learn from it myself. I believe I've successfully shown that I have, as yet, a great deal more to learn in life. As both Svarog and any learn'ed scholar would re-inforce, 'to ignore history is to inevitably repeat it'. That, to me, is damnation from our own ecology.
I've very much enjoyed reading Svarog's and PrivateHudson's postings. It's good to listen especially if you're like me and don't know as much as you might think.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 21, 2004 04:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You believe Germans didn’t ideologically support Hitler, but were forced to serve him
Not to the extent that they would have supported the Holocaust no, at least the vast majority of them wouldn't have. The SS did, the party probably would have, some idealogical nutjobs may well of, and a small percentage of the people at large, the rest I doubt it.
Quote:
You believe the Germans didn’t know what Nazism was and what it represented.
Again, not to the extent of the extreme it went to. I also pointed out that what they did know about it they were prepared initially to ignore in favour of the benefits it brought.
Quote:
I’m afraid most (non-neonazi) historians would disagree with these two sentences.
They probably would since you worded them carefully enough. Thank you for the insult though.
Quote:
Concerning our first disagreement, wasn’t it a fact that the people elected Hitler, massively supported him and his “foreign campaigns” on a clear openly expressed ideological platform.
People did not elect Hitler, that is one of the biggest lies of the 20th Century. Hitler never recieved enough votes prior to when he began rigging elections to win a majority. In 1933, with most of his political opponents out of the way want to know what percentage he got? That would be 43%. This is after the Reichstag fire and the removal of civil liberties and he still failed to recieve an overal majority of the people! Hitler lost out to Hindenberg for President in two votes, and never got much more than 40% of the vote. The last properly democratic election in 1932? He got 33%. Hitler was not elected, he forced his way into power and retained it the way dictators always do. Supression, propaganda and military/police muscle. He was voted for yes, he was not elected by a majority, even when he was only using brute force to intimidate.
A variety of things brought him to power, but more than half of Germany voting for him was never one of them. Yes the majority of them supported his initial drive to retake land they saw as German, the majority of Germans (and for that matter others too like the Americans) saw the Versailles treaty as far too harsh and welcomed someone capable of spitting on it.
Quote:
But you would agree with me that an ideological supremacy of Nazist ideology reigned among the intellectuals, was implemented in schools and universities, and I mean, as clearly and explicitly as it can get. Propagating hatred against the Jews, the supremacy and pureness of the Aryan race, their mission to conquer and control weaker nations and all that crap. Nazi ideology was never a hidden conspiracy, but a national political agenda, which started to effectualize with the Anschluss in 1938, and had a massive support among all classes.
For a start Hitler was well in power before this date and secure in it. For seconds, it's a big leap between ignoring hatred and supremacy and ignoring a holocaust you know is going on (which I've never been convinced most people did for sure know). Extreme circumstances lead to extreme measures, if you want to argue that they shouldn't have then fine, it doesn't escape the fact that most soldiers in WWII probably didn't even have any affect whatsoever on the decision that brought Hitler to power in the first place. You want to blame people with no affect on a decision for what someone else chose to do, it's just wrong. Hitler did not do these things with Schools and so on until he secured his power base. By then anything was possible, and resistance, to misquote a trekkie was all but futile.
A good friend of mine on another forum pointed out something important about his popularity, and I'll quote him as he says it better than I could ever do.
From the standpoint that Hitler did NOT sell himself as a Jew-hater at all. He only did so when it was what his particular audience wanted to hear. Hitler gave many speeches in which he didn't even mention Jews. That was the brilliance of Hitler the politician, in that he was trying, and usually succeeding, in being all things to all people. That he did possess, at his core, an intense hatred for Jews, I don't believe that that stance is what won him popular support. He did that largely through his Third Reich rhetoric, and brutal suppression of the opposition.
I'm not sure, either, that the promise of a meal on the table and a return to normalcy was enough to do the trick. Sure, that's what people wanted, but it's something they'd been promised over and over again, with tepid results at best. No, I think it was the fierceness with which the Nazis spread their message from the beginning that appealed to people. The Nazis were, from the beginning, the party of returning Germany to her former glory through refuting Versailles and growing imperialism. It took the Social Democrats and Communists a long time to catch on to the fact that this is the message that Germans really wanted to hear. It was easy to keep the Nazis marginalized in the beginning, as the Social Dems had such a wide support base. But as conditions worsened, it became harder to sell the Social Democrat message, and the appeal of the Nazis message grew larger and larger. The most telling sign of this can be seen in election propoganda from the early 1930's - the Social Dems finally put out a message of a return to the strong, militaristic Germany of the past, but by then it was too late.
You feel free to assume that Germans wanted every aspect of Hitler's theories though, even if the facts don't actually support this.
Quote:
If you try to justify German behavior in 1945 with the Russians (which btw, is a mute unproved point, but at least makes some sense), there’s no way to justify Nazi aggressions (with common German soldiers as executors) before that period. And you still didn’t address this.
Yes I did, I said there was no rhyme or reason for it. I would though point out that one can hardly blame a 17 year old soldier in 1945 for what happened in 1941-43 for example. I'm also pointing out that not applying your own logic to the soldiers of one of the allied armies is nothing short of Hypocrisy, that is why I am pointing specifically to Russian crimes. Russia was not fighting for democracy and freedom when she annexed parts of Poland and tried to crush Finland. She was not seeking to establish freedom in Poland in 1944 when she betrayed the uprising. She was not seeking to help establish a free Germany when she carted hundreds of thousands of German POWs off into camps in Russia never to be seen again, whilst her propaganda screamed for retribution against the Germans. She was certainly not after revenge when she allowed her soldiers to have a free-for-all in eastern europe.
This was state policy, these are the very issues with which you decry Germans for supporting their leader in. Russians did not choose Stalin for a leader, Germans did not choose Hitler for one. Nevertheless, you demand that people fighting for a morally corrupt regime have no right to pride, rememberance or honour. This is why you should at the very least be demanding that we refuse to allow the Russians the same as you seek to deny the Germans. Anything else is two faced, this argument is nothing to do with justifying German actions (this is what only the third time I've had to say this?) and everything to do with double standards.
On Russia though, it very much has been proved. Nearly a million Germans don't just disappear from Eastern Prussia, and 10,000 Berlin women don't committ suicide over nothing for example. Unless you fancy arguing that it is Cold War/Western propaganda.
Quote:
Yes, “remember with pride”, was your exact term. Let’s not turn this into a semantics debate, cause we both knew what you meant.
No lets as your fond of twisting what I said. I said remember, and if their actions need it with pride. Please note the difference as quite clearly you don't know what I meant, especially since I was being quite specific about it and ensuring the point was different from Consis' for example.
Quote:
but what happens if we don’t learn our lessons from the history, if we don’t have a relationship with our past?
Learning from our past requires us to do something more than repeating worn out cliches about what Germans did and knew. Learning from our past requires us to understand why they supported Hitler and reminding ourselves not to fall into that mistake again, learning from our past requires us to at least recognise that German soldiers were fighting for their own ideals, not what you assume their ideals were from afar. Learning requires us to approach things with an open mind, not the bias of our nationality or initial culture.
It's very easy to accuse others with terms like "neo-nazi" and similar. This gives the impression that by twisting their points and suggesting that they do not agree with what you consider to be the norm, that means they must be attempting to revise history. I am not doing any of that. I'm simply suggesting that German soldiers who had virtually no choice in their role during WWII have as much right as allied ones to be remembered. This has nothing to do with ignoring German war crimes, and nothing to do with ignoring the role Germans played in Hitler's madness. It has everything to do with determining what extent that role went to, and why they would do so. Just because I happen to disagree with you and your "emminent historians" does not make me a supporter of Neo-Nazi historians. I would say that it is because Germans knew and cared so little of what Hitler would dowhen in power that we should concentrate on. We should because it teaches us to examine each of our motives for voting for someone. It tells us to make absolutely sure of a candidates reasoning and background. It forces us to remember that we cannot afford to be complacent about who we elect again.
Oh I'm sure you'll point out that you never actually said I was a revisionist or Neo-Nazi, I don't imagine you would, you just hint towards it...
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 21, 2004 05:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
People did not elect Hitler, that is one of the biggest lies of the 20th Century. Hitler never recieved enough votes prior to when he began rigging elections to win a majority. In 1933, with most of his political opponents out of the way want to know what percentage he got? That would be 43%.
That's what Clinton recieved in the 1992 election, and he was democraticly elected. What is the difference?
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 21, 2004 05:56 PM |
|
|
Different systems of election. Hitler was looking for absolute power, the ability to outvote and stamp out every single over party with his party alone, he never managed it. Hitler wasn't elected without violence at polls, intimidation. The Communist party (a major rival till then and as Svarog will tell you a resistance factor afterwards) had been thrown out of the parliment*, and the following took place:
President Hindenburg and Chancellor Hitler invoke Article 48 of the Weimar Constitution, which permits the suspension of civil liberties in time of national emergency. This Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State abrogates the following constitutional protections:
* Free expression of opinion
* Freedom of the press
* Right of assembly and association
* Right to privacy of postal and electronic communications
* Protection against unlawful searches and seizures
* Individual property rights
* States' right of self-government
* The following was said on one site about this:
When Hitler heard the news about the fire he gave orders that all leaders of the German Communist Party should "be hanged that very night." Paul von Hindenburg vetoed this decision but did agree that Hitler should take "dictatorial powers". KPD candidates in the election were arrested and Hermann Goering announced that the Nazi Party planned "to exterminate" German communists.
One can hardly call those elections comparable to Clinton's. Kind of like Clinton closing down fox, refusing to allow the Republican convention, arresting half the candidates for one of the independents and declaring state law irrelevant.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 21, 2004 06:00 PM |
|
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 21, 2004 08:56 PM |
|
|
Question For Svarog:
Svarog,
Let's pretend the year is 1945 and you are the supreme allied commander. The soviets have finished ransacking Berlin. Now is the time that you and the other allied leaders must meet with Stalin and collectively decide what to do with the remnants of the German people. What will you do with this post-war country and its people?
I think this would help clarify your position and opinions.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 22, 2004 05:32 AM |
|
|
I’ll restrain from the quoting spree you’re usually accustomed to, as I see you miss my points over and over again. What facts about common Germans and Nazism had to be said, were already said. Now a little philosophical touch.
It is big and sad illusion that dictatorship is implemented through violence and recognized by it. No, tyranny is an emotional and ethical bond between the tyrant and his subdued. The birth of the bloodiest tyranny in the history in mankind was actually a gentle and emotional story about democracy. The magnetism of Hitler stemmed from his confidence in what he spoke, and the convincingness when he set out his goals. That honesty between him and the masses set up a powerful emotional relation, that kept him in charge until the last days of his empire’s death, with large support during all that time (despite the formal, not completely, but practically democratic, election, that is mentioned by PH; the popular support started increasing ever since that moment). The masses, recognizing that honesty and believing in it, without thinking, accepted and acted towards the Machiavelian discourse of the dictator.
So you see, PH, that winning the ideological struggle and achieving full support among the masses are in fact two interconnected concepts. There’s nothing more logical that in order for a dictatorship to succeed, they both have to be simultaneously present.
You mention the Holocaust, and don’t believe the Germans supported it. But it depends on how you define it. If by Holocaust you include the entire process of stigmatizing, prosecuting and cleaning the country from the Jews, then yes, the Germans were well aware that it took place and supported it. The part they werent aware was happening was the so called “final solution to the Jewish question”, the operation which started in the summer of 1941, that invented the monstrous concentration camps. That was the only part of Nazi atrocities they had no knowledge of. However, it doesn’t change my position in the debate even slightly.
As to why you don’t hold common Nazi soldiers accountable for their actions prior to 1945. You give two reasons:
One: I’ll have to quote you here: “I would though point out that one can hardly blame a 17 year old soldier in 1945 for what happened in 1941-43 for example.” This was a ridiculous argument that discredits your intelligence, I must say. Does this mean that 17yearolds arent guilty, but 22yearolds which have fought 41-43 are?
And two: “The Russians served for a corrupted dictatorial regime, just as the Germans.” Any comparison between the Germans and the Soviets, on any moral criterias, is ungrateful and completely communistophobicly biased. As I said, sporadic war crimes by the Soviets during the 1945 campaign should be condemned, but the fact remains that they fought against pure evil, and achieved victory. The German sin wasn’t having a dictator, but embracing a nazi ideology. In this respect, its inappropriate to make paralels between Nazi and Soviet behavior. I could argue that Stalin wasn’t much of a liberator (freedom bringer), but he was a deliverer (destroyer of evil) for Eastern Europe. That’s why we don’t see people today remembering him or his role in Eastern Europe with respect, but we do see people remembering the Soviet troops with respect for their fight against the Nazis. Also, Communism in Eastern Europe came from within as much as it was imported from Russia. And although its practice in Eastern Europe was tyrannical during Stalin, its sad to suggest identifying it with Hitler’s regime.
One thing is still not clear to me. Which actions done by Nazi soldiers you think should be remembered in pride? Give examples.
Quote:
What will you do with this post-war country and its people?
I don’t see how this can help clarifying my position, especially because I consider myself to have been explicit and clear on the issue at debate here.
Still, if it matters to you, Consis, I would probably make sure it stays politically as one entity, but expelling Soviet military presence could hardly happen, and joint control would be out of question. Arranging for elections as early as possible for one single German government is a provision I would insist on in the peace agreement (also not likely to be accepted by Stalin), even though the country would have to stay military divided.
Given the circumstances, I think the Allies got out the best of the situation.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 22, 2004 07:58 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 22 Nov 2004
|
In Response...
The reason I ask is because I want to see your logic applied to real life. I want to see how realistic it sounds to apply what you think to a set of real-life concerns.
You would press for elections as soon as possible? How realistic is it to have elections after the Russians did what they did to Berlin?
If you are an allied commander you must be thinking like the times. In the back of your mind you must be thinking how unpredictable it was that these people recovered from the first world war to become the leading military and economic power. This is not a risk you can afford to take another chance with.
You agree that they must be divided because of this. Now both you and the Soviet Union have dissolved this country's police and military. What will you do to maintain law and order? How can they hold elections if people are afraid to leave their houses? 10,000 of their women committed suicide. Millions of their own countrymen have either been taken prisoner or killed. These creatures are now foodless, shelterless, and without government. Their will has been broken and they live in fear.
I simply want to know what you would do to these now helpless human beings that have not only lost the war but also their dignity and identity.
Also, what sort of punishment would your German pow's receive? Would they be held indefinitely or would they be allowed to return home after a time? Or would you simply execute them for being Nazis?
My reasoning for all these questions is a point I've been trying to make about your logic. My point is that after the allied and Soviets won the war, judgment must be handed out. During this crucial time, the judicial countries have the opportunity to prove how different they truly were from their enemies. If you seek to crush their spirits as they did your own peoples and cities then you are no better than those whom you have conquered. But, if in this very moment, you decide that they deserve compassion and the chance to correct their mistakes then you have shown yourself to be worthy of the victory you achieved. Good vs. evil can sometimes elude the world until after the war is over and the time for judgment is upon the defeated. That is to say that we may not know the truth until after the fighting is done. As in the Soviets, the world was awakened to the next world war through the brisk chilling possibility of human extinction as a result of the cold war. All of that after we fought for the same goals not but a few years earlier.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 22, 2004 09:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I’ll restrain from the quoting spree you’re usually accustomed to, as I see you miss my points over and over again.
I don't ignore them, I consider them wrong, difference. If you don't like my style, tough. I do, and I don't see a reason to change it, no more than you see one to take most of what I say totally the wrong way to accuse me of things that my actual writings rarely support.
Quote:
What facts about common Germans and Nazism had to be said, were already said
And in many cases, such as the elections, you have been proved wrong.
Quote:
Now a little philosophical touch.
It is big and sad illusion that dictatorship is implemented through violence and recognized by it. No, tyranny is an emotional and ethical bond between the tyrant and his subdued. The birth of the bloodiest tyranny in the history in mankind was actually a gentle and emotional story about democracy
Quote:
The magnetism of Hitler stemmed from his confidence in what he spoke, and the convincingness when he set out his goals. That honesty between him and the masses set up a powerful emotional relation, that kept him in charge until the last days of his empire’s death, with large support during all that time
None of this I said or hinted at either. I believe his popularity stemmed from the ability to get what Germans saw as important done. His war popularity was another matter entirely.
Quote:
despite the formal, not completely, but practically democratic, election, that is mentioned by PH; the popular support started increasing ever since that moment).
It's a sad day if you think that the 1933 elections were democratic. Given his style, the 1932 elections weren't much like democracy either. Of course his popularity rose since then, the doubters saw he could actually achieve what he claimed to be able to, he began to abuse propaganda more and was able to more. He dominated people's lives and thoughts, it's not rocket science to expect it to increase really.
Quote:
So you see, PH, that winning the ideological struggle and achieving full support among the masses are in fact two interconnected concepts.
Achieving support was little to do with the ideological arguments, and everything to do with practical results. Achieving full support had much to do with crushing opposition and dominating people. I thought I'd mention that since you appear to believe that the results issue doesn't come into the equation at any point. You're making the argument on his support pointless by drawing the wrong conclusions again and again about what I am saying. *sighs*
Quote:
If by Holocaust you include the entire process of stigmatizing, prosecuting and cleaning the country from the Jews, then yes, the Germans were well aware that it took place and supported it.
Most of which took place after Hitler had secured his position. People became blind to what did not affect them, they believed in ignoring the rumours or not investigating them. It's not wise, but I don't think you could say "supported" so much as willingly ignored what they could do little about in the majority of cases.
Quote:
That was the only part of Nazi atrocities they had no knowledge of. However, it doesn’t change my position in the debate even slightly.
So... Russian soldiers being aware of political purges and "doing nothing" or "supporting them" as you might call it, is nothing to you because they didn't know that millions died under Stalin?
Quote:
This was a ridiculous argument that discredits your intelligence, I must say. Does this mean that 17yearolds arent guilty, but 22yearolds which have fought 41-43 are?
Not really, it's simply pointing out that the vast majority of the German soldiers either did not vote in the elections that brought Hitler to power, and in 1945, a good percentage didn't even take part in the cleansing of the earlier wars. It's called recognising that people with no influence on events should not be held accountable for them. It's called recognising responsibility where they had one. I'm quite happy to say that I would decry someone that had voted for Hitler, or joined the Wermacht by choice after he rose to power, or joined the SS, or whatever. I do not seek to lay blame at the feet of people that had no choice in the matter, that seems to be your aim, a collective blame for which you're selective in the country you blame. You blame a group for the actions when some could not control, had no infuence over, or did not support those actions. You condemn them and their war years for actions they did not take. I take the opinion that each has the right to be judged on what they did, not where and when they were born.
Quote:
Any comparison between the Germans and the Soviets, on any moral criterias, is ungrateful and completely communistophobicly biased.
So.... All those Russians that died in camps, all those German POWs that never came back from Russia, all those civilians that were "removed" from East Prussia, all the purges, all the deaths under Stalin, all of those don't count to you? Is it better to slaughter people for political paranoia than racial hatred? You say it's biased, I say it's called calling Russia under Stalin what it was, evil. It's nothing to do with anti-communism, it's recognising a regime was evil, and the fact that just because the reasons were not genetic in most cases is little reason to consider it better than another that was. Am I anti-Stalin? Damn right I am, because he was an evil dictator. I see no reason to ignore this simply because we in the west were lucky enough that Hitler was stupid enough to attack Russia. I don't consider holding that view to be anti-communist, especially since I don't consider Stalin to have been particularly communist but rather abusing the rhetoric to support his needs.
Quote:
As I said, sporadic war crimes by the Soviets during the 1945 campaign should be condemned, but the fact remains that they fought against pure evil, and achieved victory
Whereas an awful lot of Eastern Europeans fought against Evil by siding with another evil, ie against Stalin in the Wermacht and SS. Stalin's Russia was every little bit as evil as Hitler's Germany. People don't fight for a tyranical regime by choice for no reason after all.
Quote:
The German sin wasn’t having a dictator, but embracing a nazi ideology. In this respect, its inappropriate to make paralels between Nazi and Soviet behavior.
I disagree, Stalinism was as dangerous and as "embraced" one could argue.
Quote:
I could argue that Stalin wasn’t much of a liberator (freedom bringer), but he was a deliverer (destroyer of evil) for Eastern Europe
Which is of course why hundreds of thousands of Eastern Europeans were so eager to fight against him and regime, which I would note brought it's own brand of evil to the region at around the same time.
Quote:
Also, Communism in Eastern Europe came from within as much as it was imported from Russia. And although its practice in Eastern Europe was tyrannical during Stalin, its sad to suggest identifying it with Hitler’s regime.
I compare it to Hitler's because millions under his regime died (outside of the wars even) for political paranoia. I don't tend to think that is any better than genocide to be frank. Also in many cases, communism may well have existed in europe at the time and been a force, but it is also true to say that Stalin removed or rejected communists who had somehow survived in those countries with handpicked members who had fled to Russia and he could control. Stalin was not blind to abbandonning people in Eastern europe as suited him either, such as the Warsaw uprising, abbandonned to avoid the embarassment of them liberating their own capital.
Quote:
One thing is still not clear to me. Which actions done by Nazi soldiers you think should be remembered in pride? Give examples.
I refuse to answer such a leading question, however I will answer what German soldiers did. The majority of the africa campaign was fought with dignity and decency. In 1944/45, with Holland starving, the Germans "allowed" (ie ignored) allied planes to overfly the country dropping supplies. In the Arnhem campaign, contary to standing orders, the SS commander repeatedly offered cease-fires to the British and gave the British soldiers respect and so on. I could offer more, you will no doubt play down all of them anyway though, or dismiss them since I did not answer the question you asked, or because they are outweighed by others.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted November 23, 2004 02:43 AM |
|
|
Consis,
Quote:
You agree that they must be divided because of this.
I don’t think they must be politically divided, I think unfortunately it’s inevitable. Naturally the military power would be shared by Allied and Soviet troops, but having one political leaderhip as soon as possible is an imperative in order to keep the country together. As I said, unrealistic.
Quote:
Also, what sort of punishment would your German pow's receive? Would they be held indefinitely or would they be allowed to return home after a time? Or would you simply execute them for being Nazis?
After the capitulation, there are no POWs anymore. Naturally high-ranking in command are tried in front of a court, but the common soldiers are set free.
PH,
Quote:
You blame a group for the actions when some could not control, had no infuence over, or did not support those actions.
Stay blind as long as you want to. In all the instances I put a “collective” guilt on the German people (the great majority of them, as I emphasize all the time), at least one of these was the case. Each of my moral “convicts” individually either voted for Hitler, openly supported him, or carried out the orders without objection.
The same logic I apply to the Russians, but the difference is that I consider Stalinism to be a far less evil tyranny than Nazism (for many reasons, which I prefer to leave for some other time). I wonder what the Allies would have to say concerning your declarative political daltonism, especially because they obviously sided with evil as great as Nazism during WW2.
If we left you judge each soldier, each German citizens individually, I doubt there’d be more than a handful of people worthy to pass that test and be rememberd with dignity (Schindler being one of them). And I respect how you concluded this in the end line of your post. Even though I’m astonished that you think the practicalities of waging an imperialist genocidal war is something worth to be mentioned, and much less deserving of respect.
I will no longer debate this with you, PH, as I think the topic has been exhausted. Been a pleasure.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted November 23, 2004 06:30 AM |
|
|
Wow Svarog.
Just answer me one question.
Do you have any idea how many capitalists were killed to make your Che Guevera beret?
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 23, 2004 09:30 AM |
|
|
Sorry Svarog, but i have to disagree with you .
(especially because i´m german.. )
You can´t blame a whole nation or the majority coz of the "faults" their leader made. You know very well, that 98% of all people are NOT able to lead, but they fall into the force, which we call "Herdentrieb" in german. I didn´t found a translation for that, but you could know that from the animals. If the leading bull of a horde of bisons runs in one direction, others will follow him. The more follow, the more stronger and faster this horde will run in that direction. And finally, the whole horde runs in the same directions. You will need MANY bisons now, who turn left (or right) and change the direction and get enough followers to turn the WHOLE horde left (or right). But if they will ALL fall down a cliff now, can u blame them ALL?
Why do u think didn´t the people of Iraq do something against Saddam? Coz the stronger and mightier the leader is, the MORE "leaders" forcing into a different direction you need.
What about Milosevic? (help from other nations was needed to "solve" that problem....thx to america)
What about Honecker? (help from other nations was needed to "solve" that problem...thx to hungary)
What about the Taliban? (help from other nations was needed to "solve" that problem...thx to america)
What about Hitler? (help from other nations was needed to "solve" that problem....thx to the allies)
So, how many "dictators" we will find in history which were "defeated" by their OWN people WITHOUT help from other nations?
Schindler was mentioned here...he did very good things for sure....but he did NOTHING against Hitler though.
So if i will catch 100 bisons out of that horde bisons (which were 300.000) with a lasso and save them from falling down the cliff, i have done a good job.....but i didn´t do ANYTHING against the false direction of the leading bull..
And to stay a bit more on the actualities....do we all blame the WHOLE american nation coz of the (in most of the europeans eyes) fault of the invasion into the Iraq, only because u voted for the leader who decided this?....i don´t think so...
Just my 2 cents....
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 23, 2004 02:48 PM |
|
|
Uhmm... hate to burst the bubble people, but Schindler wasn't German, but Austrian, like Hitler.
Quote:
Each of my moral “convicts” individually either voted for Hitler, openly supported him, or carried out the orders without objection.
Support in this case being very weak and loose term to cover everyone of course.
Quote:
I wonder what the Allies would have to say concerning your declarative political daltonism, especially because they obviously sided with evil as great as Nazism during WW2.
The allies were realists, they knew defeating Germany needed everyone they could get. Nor could Britain and France conceiveably engage Russia and Germany in a war, nor could the allies fight Russia in 1945. Pleanty wanted to, it just wasn't possible. Allied countries did support Finland with supplies and equipment when Russia invaded her though.
Quote:
If we left you judge each soldier, each German citizens individually, I doubt there’d be more than a handful of people worthy to pass that test and be rememberd with dignity (Schindler being one of them). And I respect how you concluded this in the end line of your post
Misinterpretation again, not what I was saying,
Quote:
Even though I’m astonished that you think the practicalities of waging an imperialist genocidal war is something worth to be mentioned, and much less deserving of respect.
In which case one can only again link to Russia with her fighting in Poland, Finland, areas of other countries even before engaging in WWII proper for one. Whatever way you look at it, Stalin's Russia is only sepereated from Hitler's Germany by how you interpret the reasons for the actions of each, not the actions themselves.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted November 23, 2004 03:35 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 23 Nov 2004
|
PrivateHudson,
Your post reminds of how powerful Stalin's Soviet Union was. If the americans had not invented the atom bomb, there would have been no feasible way to stop Stalin from conquering the whole European continent.
I think the allies were masterful in their misinformation campaign against Hitler but I do not think this would have been enough to defeat Stalin's Soviet Union. I think our invention may have done more than stop the Japanese. It may have also deterred the Soviets from using their superior brute strength and numbers to conquer Europe.
What were the allied troop numbers in Europe after Berlin was taken? I can't remember. Something like 300,000 total I think? If this was the number, it would not have been anywhere near enough to stop the Soviet ground might. I can imagine Stalin spitting out more industrial super-factories(much like those in Siberia) all over eastern Europe to better supply his invasion forces. Oh how dreadful that might have been! Perhaps the atom bomb is more important than I thought.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 23, 2004 03:57 PM |
|
|
I don't know the figures off the top of my head. I do know though that the British army had reached it's limits by then. In late 1944 to early 1945 the British began disbanding divisions to replenish losses in others and forcing troops that had previously been engaged in duties such as AA gunnery to serve in infantry companies (with little training too). The manpower shortage in the British army was very acute by 1945. The British economy was not far from collapse either after 6 years of war. America might have been able to continue further, but not without British support. Coupled to this, one of Stalin's aims in reaching the Berlin area first had been the German equivalent of Oppenheimer's research and facilities. Stalin made this a priority, though this was mostly sparked by realisation the US had the bomb and a need to counter this. Also Russia stripped in a number of places German industry as part of the reperations for WWII to help rebuild her country.
Whether Stalin would have tried is anyone's guess, however it is true that in 1945, the Western allies were probably at one of their weakest states of the cold war. Russian military muscle was strong, though her own manpower shortages were also acute. Stalin may not have tried though, Russia had a few of her own problems after all.
|
| |
|
|
