Good point.
National Socialism vs. Communism.
-
Could you guys start a new thread?
-
YEA start something like “Poland and not Germany started world war two” Those were real funny especially if you add in Heydrichs narrative of the Gleiwitz incident like it was a fact.
-
-
@Imperious:
YEA start something like “Poland and not Germany started world war two” Those were real funny especially if you add in Heydrichs narrative of the Gleiwitz incident like it was a fact.
…or what about this > It was France that started two world wars, not Germany, and when it went wrong USA had to bail them out.
-
How about a thread on: " Churchill forced Germany into invading country after country looking for food to feed Herman Goering" Or “If it wasn’t for Hitler, Germany would have staved to death due to that devil Winston Churchill” Or “The Allied rebuilding of postwar Europe was the greatest crime of History which cost 1 billion lives”. any of these are viable candidates for comedy.
here is a typical neo nazi espousing this garbage…
-
Here, here, IL!
-
To address the points made by IL–not once in this thread (or in any of my posts here these last few years) have I cited a neo-Nazi or other extremist source. My references have consistently been from highly respected mainstream sources; or at worst from Wikipedia. The key claims made by Wikipedia have been buttressed by other, more prestigious mainstream sources.
I can understand repeating Allied lies if one doesn’t know they’re lies. I did that myself, back before I’d learned better. But I’d always been guided by the conviction that there is such a thing as absolute truth, and that one can learn what that absolute truth is by studying hard enough. There are those here who don’t seem to share that conviction. Those who seem to believe that the truth is whatever they want it to have been; or whatever the Allied propagandists made up. For example: I have shown that the Nazis simply could not have fed everyone within their borders; and that the reason this was the case was the Allied food blockade. IL’s response to that truth was to attack me, personally, for having pointed it out. He then proceeded to simply ignore that particular truth in his moral calculus regarding who was right or wrong in the war. Of course repetitions of Allied propaganda (as he and others have done in this thread and elsewhere) are going to feel right to those who have spent their entire sentient lifetimes exposed to such propaganda. The question we should be asking is not whether Allied propaganda feels right. Rather, we should ask to what extent, if any, that propaganda was based on objective reality.
Typically, a religion will contain factual claims, as well as moral conclusions based on those claims. Often, it will also contain a story about how that religion came into being. A story which, if believed, demonstrates the validity of the religion, and the evil of those who oppose it. While the Allied propaganda effort is not generally considered a religion in the traditional sense, it contains the above-described elements of a religion. There are factual claims intended to support the good-versus-evil mythos. There are moral conclusions based on those factual claims. “Eugenics is wrong because the Nazis believed in it,” for example. Large numbers of WWII history books are written with the deliberate intent of making the Allies look better than they were, and the Nazis worse than they were, in order to promote the Allied view. If (for example) Soviet mass murders are mentioned at all–which is far from guaranteed in any Allied-friendly history book–we are not told the names of the victims, shown their pictures, or told anything about their life stories. Soviet and Western democratic war crimes are either omitted completely or (at best) treated as statistics. Nazi war crimes are treated as tragedies. Extenuating circumstances (such as Allied-imposed famine conditions in German-held Europe) are simply ignored.
Personally, I find the Allied religion shallow, hypocritical, and insipid. That does not mean I’m a Nazi. People had views about morality before Allied propagandists created their worthless religion. They will go on having views of morality long after the Allied religion is dead and buried. In the meantime, there will be those here who will treat me as a heretic. What they fail to realize is that being a heretic is the only acceptable option, if the religion in question does not (and was never intended to) reflect morality or truth.
-
You should worry more about NAZI lies, the kind espoused by them to excuse themselves from some of the worst crimes in History….at Nuremberg and as such nonsense to excuse behaviors in Hitlers speeches. If Hitler could not feed everybody, he could just easily surrender, stop killing everybody, stop invading every nation, stop feeding Herman, and stop causing everyone else to starve by sinking merchant ships. to blame the agents that stopped the idiot Hitler from killing millions is no greater than reasoning of a child.
To use and advocate this line of reasoning is a travesty in light of the real facts.
-
Imperious Leader wrote:
You should worry more about NAZI lies
If you can be more specific about which Nazi lies you think I should be worrying more about, perhaps we can have a discussion.
If Hitler could not feed everybody, he could just easily surrender
Neither Britain nor the U.S. nor the Soviet Union ever offered Hitler any peace terms other than unconditional surrender. After Operation Barbarossa, that unconditional surrender was to be to all the Allies, including the U.S.S.R. There is no reason at all to believe that unconditional surrender would have stopped the killing. On the contrary: the killing continued in West Germany (Morgenthau Plan) and East Germany (Soviet atrocities and ethnic cleansing efforts) after the war was over. Surrendering unconditionally would also have been a case of rewarding bad behavior (the Allies’ use of famine as a weapon).
stop killing everybody
Far from “killing everybody,” Hitler did not kill enough people to eliminate the famine conditions the Allies had created. As a result of his failure to solve Germany’s food problems, large groups of people–such as Soviet POWs working in German weapons factories–could not be adequately fed.
and stop causing everyone else to starve by sinking merchant ships
Suppose Hitler had halted u-boat attacks against Allied merchant shipping. Do you think the Allied leaders would have reciprocated by ending their food blockade of Germany? I don’t.
If on the other hand the British people had gotten hungry enough, perhaps they would have voted their warmongering politicians out of office, and replaced them with different, more honest and peaceful politicians. I realize the German attacks against Allied merchant shipping might have seemed like a case of fighting hunger with hunger. But unless Hitler had had the wisdom to go forward with von Manstein’s planned invasion of Britain, I don’t really see what other options he had to end the Allies’ murderous food blockade.
to blame the agents that stopped the idiot Hitler from killing millions is no greater than reasoning of a child.
Prevention of mass murder was never, ever the Allied intent. Had the Allies not wanted millions of innocent people to die, they would never have imposed their murderous food blockade in the first place. They knew that many more Poles would die with the blockade than without it. Yet they imposed it anyway, supposedly in their overall efforts to “help” Poland. Allied leaders showed about as much sympathy to Polish or other victims of their own food blockade as they had a decade earlier to the 7 million Ukrainian victims of the Holodomor. Which is to say, no sympathy at all. To describe the Allies as opposing mass murder is absurd.
To use and advocate this line of reasoning is a travesty in light of the real facts.
As I hope this thread has made clear, the Allies’ actions can only be justified if the real facts are ignored.
-
Neither Britain nor the U.S. nor the Soviet Union ever offered Hitler any peace terms other than unconditional surrender.
Wrong. They ( Germany) had till 11am on the 3rd to get out of Poland. Hitler didn’t budge. The Soviet Union offered in October 41 by asking Hitler what would be the terms for surrender
(discussed or negotiated between Stalins staff and Hitlers staff) , and the result was the cost was too great.Also, Germany didn’t need to get any peace terms. Rather she needed to stop invading every country and return to her borders. Germany didn’t deserve any peace terms because of the nature of her transgressions. Unconditional Surrender was offered because it fit the crime of fighting a war of extermination.
Far from “killing everybody,” Hitler did not kill enough people to eliminate the famine conditions the Allies had created. As a result of his failure to solve Germany’s food problems, large groups of people–such as Soviet POWs working in German weapons factories–could not be adequately fed.
Hitler was able to feed the fat lemming Herman, proving Germany had no famine issues. Also, Germany could just say “we will stop invading countries and stop killing every race we don’t like” and have plenty of food. Germany created the conditions of rationing food due to her acts against the international community. You should be blaming Germany for creating the condition in the first place.
Suppose Hitler had halted u-boat attacks against Allied merchant shipping. Do you think the Allied leaders would have reciprocated by ending their food blockade of Germany? I don’t.
If Hitler surrendered, the Allies would have ended the blockade. Just like a criminal who was told to put down the gun and starts pointing at the police…resulting in a dead suspect. You love to keep missing that point as much as i love to keep reminding you of it.
If on the other hand the British people had gotten hungry enough, perhaps they would have voted their warmongering politicians out of office, and replaced them with different, more honest and peaceful politicians. I realize the German attacks against Allied merchant shipping might have seemed like a case of fighting hunger with hunger. But unless Hitler had had the wisdom to go forward with von Manstein’s planned invasion of Britain, I don’t really see what other options he had to end the Allies’ murderous food blockade.
This is what Hess went to England for and what he said, yea lets use the reasoning of NAZI’s and their talking points. Hitler just could have surrendered and Herman could be fed three buffets a day and get plenty of perfume for his fat body.
Prevention of mass murder was never, ever the Allied intent. Had the Allies not wanted millions of innocent people to die, they would never have imposed their murderous food blockade in the first place. They knew that many more Poles would die with the blockade than without it. Yet they imposed it anyway, supposedly in their overall efforts to “help” Poland. Allied leaders showed about as much sympathy to Polish or other victims of their own food blockade as they had a decade earlier to the 7 million Ukrainian victims of the Holodomor. Which is to say, no sympathy at all. To describe the Allies as opposing mass murder is absurd.
Hitler should have just left Poland alone. They had all the food they could eat before September 1939, before Hitler stole everything. Blame Hitler for attacking Poland and killing every Jew in Poland, not the Allies. The Allies are only guilty of opposing Hitlers invasion of Poland.
As I hope this thread has made clear, the Allies’ actions can only be justified if the real facts are ignored.
I hope this thread has made clear that if you commit a heinous crime against humanity, the international community will use all means to defeat you and to blame them for defeating you is the reasoning of a child.
-
@Imperious:
The Allies are only guilty of opposing Hitlers invasion of Poland.
So, the Allies actually were guilty of something ?
-
Kurt, I sincerely hope you don’t feel like you are being branded as a heretic for stating your opinions and views based on what seems to be an enormous amount of invested learning. While I may not agree with everything you say, I will always, happily defend, to the death, your right to say it in an open, public forum without violent discourse. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading through these arguments and hope they continue in as much fashion as they have, previously, without anyone becoming too butt hurt.
Additionally, I can agree that many historical events have and should always be reevaluated and constantly discussed to not only determine newly discovered things, but to also better understand exactly what transpired. For example, as a Southerner, I was raised on and taught in school that the US Civil War was not completely predicated upon slavery. That, there were many other things that led to the secession which did not directly involve slavery. On the other hand, many of my northern friends have confided in me that they were not taught the same way, and they and I were surprised at this. The same goes for the initiation of the Great War. Where, Serbia’s Black Hand group takes most of the blame. We all now understand that there were a great many things that built that house of cards and that the Archduke’s assassination was just one of the many cards within that house that caused it to collapse.
-
Kurt, I sincerely hope you don’t feel like you are being branded as a heretic for stating your opinions and views based on what seems to be an enormous amount of invested learning. While I may not agree with everything you say, I will always, happily defend, to the death, your right to say it in an open, public forum without violent discourse.
I agree.
-
Nobody says for him to shut up, what we do say is his ideas are ridiculous and entertaining at the same time. We also have the responsibility to extrapolate this so he doesn’t go further in the deep end and think these positions solid reasoning because they are not. That can only help him in the long run.
-
Absolutely, I get it. That was just my two cents. Carry on. 8-)
-
Defending free speech (or posting) is to defend yours too IL.
You and I have different ways of confronting views with which we disagree, but that’s our prerogative, as it is Kurt’s to keep bashing his head against the wall. My head hurts, but have I learned anything?!
-
I feel like I keep bashing my head against the wall by coming back to look at this thread. Either I love punishment or I am oddly fascinated by the lack any progress. There is a huge amount of time and effort invested here by certain individuals, but there is no net difference (and really no difference at all) in stances since this ‘discussion’ was begun.
I really need to just stop clicking on this thread when I hit Show new replies to your posts.
-
I feel like I keep bashing my head against the wall by coming back to look at this thread. Either I love punishment or I am oddly fascinated by the lack any progress. There is a huge amount of time and effort invested here by certain individuals, but there is no net difference (and really no difference at all) in stances since this ‘discussion’ was begun.
I really need to just stop clicking on this thread when I hit Show new replies to your posts.
Ha ha ha ha ha World War II History addict as me, ha ha ha…
This week they let the ol’ aunti out again. I love to watch and listening to her.
She is now outfitted with a updated virtual Cockpit and the newest equippment.
Ol’ Tante Ju… -
I am oddly fascinated by the lack any progress
LOL.
That’s the entertainment value, along with at least one poster thinking that using the Socratic method will turn Kurt into having a more reasonable point of view only to be disillusioned quickly.
It makes for great tabloid style discourse. The best skit was Poland starting ww2 IMO. LOL!!
-
WraithZer0 wrote:
Kurt, I sincerely hope you don’t feel like you are being branded as a heretic for stating
your opinions and views based on what seems to be an enormous amount of invested learning.First, thanks for your good post. :) I’ve had deep theological debates with strongly religious people. Arguments in which I’ve questioned some of their core theological tenets. I know from personal experience how deeply religious people respond to their core values being questioned.
There are strong parallels between those responses and much of what we’ve seen in this thread. In both cases, I’d make a key point which told against the other side’s position. If I made it well enough, and presented strong enough evidence clearly enough, the response would be . . . to ignore it. As an example of that in this discussion, I’ve pointed out that Germany simply could not feed its own people. I’ve provided evidence to that effect: statements by Herbert Hoover, evidence by a highly respected historian (Tooze), etc. Some of the more reasonable participants in this debate acknowledged that point. But others plowed ahead exactly as though Germany had granaries filled to bursting. For these people, the Allies’ deliberate use of famine didn’t kill anyone. Or if it did, the deaths should be blamed on Germany for having started the war. By that logic, all governments should be permitted to engage in war crimes, as long as those governments avoid the cardinal sin of throwing the first punch. Even worse was the claim that the existence of a single overweight German (Goering) proves the non-existence of famine conditions within German-occupied Europe.
If someone deliberately chooses to be illogical and unreasonable, there is nothing I can do to force that person to adopt a more rational approach. That is true of religious fanatics, and is doubly true of those who deliberately defend the big lies the Allies told, and the war crimes they committed, after those lies and war crimes have been exposed. There is no arguing with such people, no progress to be made.
There is, however, a different purpose to be served in arguments such as these. Back when I was in high school, I ran cross country and track. I pushed myself as hard as possible every single day, as a test of the strength of my will. Standing up for the truth, in a world filled with lies, tests a different form of strength. Part of being a complete human being is knowing that you can stand up to the majority when the majority is wrong. A man should be like a rock jutting out from the ocean: not a leaf to be swept about by every passing current or breeze.
Those who fanatically repeat the Allies’ big lies–those who personally attack those who question the Allies’ lying version of history–are actually doing the rest of us a favor. Standing up to that kind of social pressure is a test of character–a test not everyone is willing or able to pass. Many good people will choose not to stand up to the Allies’ lies, or worse, will become persuaded by those lies. But every person who is good enough and strong enough to stand up to those lies is a person worth having by your side. You know people like that will not turn out to be fair weather friends. They will not abandon you just because things get a little rough. This separation of the wheat from the chaff would not be possible in the absence of widespread social pressure in favor of acceptance of the Allies’ lies. For those who create such social pressure: thank you.
That, there were many other things that led to the secession which did not directly involve slavery.
I would agree with that. For example: before the Civil War, our country was called the united States. After the war, the capitalization changed. I’ve also heard (but have not yet investigated) allegations that Abraham Lincoln shut down newspapers which disagreed with him or which wrote to oppose the war. If that happened, it would have represented a very serious violation of the First Amendment.
On the other hand, many of my northern friends have confided in me that they were not taught the same way
School systems typically teach children to adopt the values and beliefs of the ruling elites; whomever those elites might be. It is rare that those elites are interested in telling the truth–at least not about politically sensitive subjects. I have relatively little familiarity with the Civil War. On the other hand, nearly every major Allied propaganda claim in either world war was based on a fabrication, a half-truth, or an outright lie. Those lies are presented as truth in history books. The same people willing to lie about one part of history (WWII) might well be willing to lie about another (the Civil War). My perspective about the Civil War is therefore neutral: I’m willing to listen to all sides; and will believe them to the extent they present solid evidence with which to defend their views.
Suggested Topics
