No better than them

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If there's the second choise, then the antrocity of the Western Allies related to the original discussion was to not fight against the Soviets directly after the end of WWII. Would they've won that war?

I was speaking about atrocities in general, not specifically that one. This was a response to PBI, who was talking about any atrocities in the war.

EDIT: And by the way:

"Expulsion is the method which, in so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting. There will be no mixture of populations to cause endless trouble...A clean sweep will be made. I am not alarmed by these transferences, which are more possible in modern conditions..."

Guess who said that?

[Incongruous]

Didn't the expulsions and murders of civilian Germans happen on the eastern side? You know those areas that Stalin conquerered?

Did Stalin have a meeting with the other allies where he presented the expulsion idea, startin strong with having vengeful Soviet troops scaring (and killing) the German civillians to flee? And then finish that job? Or did it happen without knowledge of the Western Allies at a time where the alliance were soon to crumble?

If there's the second choise, then the antrocity of the Western Allies related to the original discussion was to not fight against the Soviets directly after the end of WWII. Would they've won that war?

Umm, yeah he did, and Churchill thought it was grand idea, so yes the Western Allies knew what was going to happen.

The Western Allies would have been well informed of Stalins great policies on ethnicically focused transportation. One of the most effective in the world.

[LittleGrizzly]

So actually neither was worse and they were both evil and cruel men? I would've never guessed...

I wasn't claiming hitler was worse than stalin, i claimed the nazis were worse than the soviet union.... i would probably give hitler the edge if it came down to it....

And that's why the germans had it coming and deserved it and the russians didn't, I guess.

I never claimed the germans had it coming, i was merely stating i don't think you can put the nazis on the same moral level as the soviet union, though it is similar to comparing to piles of crap, they both stink, just the one smells a little bit more....

Well, as you said, we cannot know their intentions so how can you say that hitler's intentions were worse?

I wasn't claiming hitlers intention's to be worse than stalin's.... my argument is not about intention i have said a few times... to sum it up im judging the evilness of the regimes by thier actions as that is the fairest way we can judge them..

If we were to just judge by intention im sure almost everyone in ww2 had good intentions, so that would make everyone who took part in ww2 eqaul in terms of morality... which is obviously completely wrong, we have to look at the actions before the war and during the war to judge the morality of individual nations.

By that definition i come to the conclusion the nazis were worse than the soviet union.... and thus worse than the allied side... which is basically the argument i have been making, someone compared the allies to the nazi's in terms of morality.... and the su being the worst part of the allied side it seemed to make sense to argue the moral equivalence of the two to make my argument.

And that is also the point of my posts, to point out the relativity of things and just argue with a few people who thought they could make some populist blanket statements about WW2 like: "the germans had it coming".

I have absolutely no problem with demonizing the nazis, but when you extend it to germans in general, you hit me and people like him as well, and that's when I may just decide to argue a bit.

If that is one of your points then i agree, i have said throughout the thread that i agree, extreme circumstances sometimes give out extreme circumstances (30's germany and hitler) but the people who turn to extreme during these times do not deserve punishment and death more than any other people, it could have been anyone in the position of the germans so unnessecary death (anything outside the war effort) is undeserved

[Husar]

I think we can agree there Grizzly and since you said it could happen to anyone...

Link

[LittleGrizzly]

I think we can agree there Grizzly and since you said it could happen to anyone...

Link

I hadn't heard of that one, the one i was specifically thinking of was the brown eyes one...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott

You could have put any nationality of people, american's, brits, palestinians, eskimos, aslong as you put them in the germans position and events unfold in the same way and anyone would be in that situation, which is why i do not judge too harshly as i could easily have been a soldier back in nazi germany and no matter how rational and logical i like to think i am, its alot harder to be sure of yourself when everyone else thinks differently....

All this is making me think so much of the palestinian situation, i have asked this a few times, people who feel that germany was put in a bad place and then through hitler and the nazis did some terrible things... partially because of the situation it was put in, do you give palestinians the same credit ? are they different because of thier religion of thier method of warfare ? PJ and Frag im talking to you mainly here...

[PBI]

When somebody murders somebody else, you do not punish the people who raised the murderer. It is the same situation here - the Allies still had a choice on whether they wanted to commit atrocities or not, and they chose to do it anyways. You can't shield them from blame.

It was hardly an objective choice though was it?

I would maintain that in the same situation, most normal people would have done the same thing. And that situation was entirely engineered by the Nazi's waging of aggressive war.

I certainly do not maintain that the German people in any way "had it coming"; on the contrary, they were victims of a terrible atrocity through, for the most part, no fault of their own. But they have Hitler to blame for bringing down destruction upon them, not the Western Allies. They were victims of the Nazis quite as much as anyone else.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

It was hardly an objective choice though was it?

I would maintain that in the same situation, most normal people would have done the same thing. And that situation was entirely engineered by the Nazi's waging of aggressive war.

I certainly do not maintain that the German people in any way "had it coming"; on the contrary, they were victims of a terrible atrocity through, for the most part, no fault of their own. But they have Hitler to blame for bringing down destruction upon them, not the Western Allies. They were victims of the Nazis quite as much as anyone else.

In the end it is the will of the MAN that dictates his actions, not anyone elses. They had the option and they chose the way they did...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I certainly do not maintain that the German people in any way "had it coming"; on the contrary, they were victims of a terrible atrocity through, for the most part, no fault of their own. But they have Hitler to blame for bringing down destruction upon them, not the Western Allies.

In criminal law, you are held accountable for your own actions, regardless of who began the series of events. This is like a robber breaking into your home and vandalizing it, causing horrific damage - but you still manage to subdue and restrain him. Instead of waiting for the police to arrive, you then shoot him. Understandable? Maybe, maybe not. Responsible and just? Certainly not.

Was Hitler to blame? Indirectly, yes, I agree. But ultimately and directly, the Allies were accountable for their own actions.

[Sarmatian]

In criminal law, you are held accountable for your own actions, regardless of who began the series of events. This is like a robber breaking into your home and vandalizing it, causing horrific damage - but you still manage to subdue and restrain him. Instead of waiting for the police to arrive, you then shoot him. Understandable? Maybe, maybe not. Responsible and just? Certainly not.

Was Hitler to blame? Indirectly, yes, I agree. But ultimately and directly, the Allies were accountable for their own actions.

Unfortunately, criminal law get's thrown out the window in war time, especially in case of a war like WW2. For many of the nations in eastern Europe it was literally life or death fight. It wasn't merely an occupation of your country by the enemy. Using every method you can against the aggressor, distasteful as it may be, it's certainly preferential to being totally exterminated or living as a slave race.

Yes, there have been atrocities committed by the allies. Unfortunately, that's common in war. Find me a "clean" war, where one side is totally innocent of war crimes. Go as far back as Alexander. Why do you think no one mentions German and Austrian crimes in the WW1? At least in Europe, similar countries were involved. Central Powers lost. If it was about let's place the blame on the loser, the same could have been done in WW1. And believe me, there were many atrocities committed by German and Austrian armies. For example, Austrian army setting fire under the bed of a wounded Serbian soldier and roasting him alive. Actually, you don't have to believe me, here is the official report made by Archibald Reiss, famous criminologist and Professor at the University of Lausanne. Very popular rhyme among Austrian and German soldiers during invasion of Serbia was "Serben muss sterben". And yet in Serbia, no one really holds a grudge against Germans or Austrians for WW1 (actually no one holds a grudge against Germans for WW2, only a grudge against Nazis). Why? Well, because these things happen in war, and considering the scale of the war, all those crimes, horrific as they have been, can all be considered sporadic or isolated incidents, compared to methodical, planned, systematic exterminations performed by Nazi Germany in the WW2. Yes there have been Allied crimes, as there have war crimes committed by each side in each war in the history of humanity, all the way back to the time when we first figured out how profitable it is to kill each other.

And no, treaty of Versailles is no excuse. It was much milder in terms then treaty of Brest-Litovsk or the treaty that Germany intended to force on the Entente had it won the war, according to German documents.

In the end, when you consider ideology behind it, scale of the crimes, who was the aggressor etc... it's clearly seen that Nazi Germany can not be absolved from blame. But keep in mind, Nazi Germany and Nazis, not Germany and Germans.

[Koga No Goshi]

In criminal law, you are held accountable for your own actions, regardless of who began the series of events. This is like a robber breaking into your home and vandalizing it, causing horrific damage - but you still manage to subdue and restrain him. Instead of waiting for the police to arrive, you then shoot him. Understandable? Maybe, maybe not. Responsible and just? Certainly not.

Was Hitler to blame? Indirectly, yes, I agree. But ultimately and directly, the Allies were accountable for their own actions.

How was Hitler "indirectly" to blame for anything? Are you implying he wasn't a dictator, wasn't in authoritarian command, that a lot was being carried out without his knowledge or input?

It's not the call for fairness that irritates anyone. It's the constant subtle defense of Nazi Germany and Hitler that offends people, which yourself and others have wormed around in various pretzel shapes to do while still making the pretense of a rational discussion.

If someone wants to say Hitler was nothing specially bad, come out and just say it.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

How was Hitler "indirectly" to blame for anything? Are you implying he wasn't a dictator, wasn't in authoritarian command, that a lot was being carried out without his knowledge or input?

Saying that Hitler was directly to blame for the expulsion of the Germans from the East is a bit much, regardless of how much you despise him - which I do. Did he provoke the Allies to do it? Yes, you could say that. That still doesn't mean that he committed the crime of expelling Germans from the East - unless you misunderstood my post.

Remember, I'm referring to the expulsion of Germans from the East, which Hitler was not guilty of. I am not referring to the Holocaust, which Hitler was certainly guilty of.

It's not the call for fairness that irritates anyone.

Then we have reached an accord.

It's the constant subtle defense of Nazi Germany and Hitler that offends people, which yourself and others have wormed around in various pretzel shapes to do while still making the pretense of a rational discussion.

Hardly. Why would I defend scum like Hitler? He is the reason why many of my family members did not live to die of old age. The Nazis are a large part of the reason why German was in ruin after the war. I would never defend Hitler or the Nazi Party. I've stated repeatedly in this thread and others that I'm glad the Allies won the war.

However, blame should go where blame is due, and you cannot directly blame Hitler for the expulsion of Germans from the East. He was a leading factor in provoking the expulsions, in the same way that you could say Versailles was a leading cause of the Second World War, but he was not, himself, guilty of that crime.

I would be interested in hearing how people think Hitler himself committed the crime of the expulsions. I can understand how he could have provoked them, but I think that it's fairly obvious that...

It was the largest of a number of expulsions in various Central and Eastern European countries affecting a number of nationalities. The Allies had agreed on a policy of expulsions, and the Soviet Union implemented the policy with American and British acquiescence. The policy had been agreed on by the Allies as part of the reconfiguration of postwar Europe.

You seem to think that I'm somehow excusing Hitler of some crime, and I'd be very interested as to how you came to that conclusion, because I, frankly, don't have a clue.

[Incongruous]

How was Hitler "indirectly" to blame for anything? Are you implying he wasn't a dictator, wasn't in authoritarian command, that a lot was being carried out without his knowledge or input?

It's not the call for fairness that irritates anyone. It's the constant subtle defense of Nazi Germany and Hitler that offends people, which yourself and others have wormed around in various pretzel shapes to do while still making the pretense of a rational discussion.

If someone wants to say Hitler was nothing specially bad, come out and just say it.

Yeah Koga, I love the Nazis!
Just like I love those evil Jihad Palestinians!


Churchill could have said, no, simple and straight to the Czechs, thus absolving himself of the crime, he could have said, no, to the Russian deportations and mass murders, but he did not he thought all this was great.

Now, I am eternally greatful to the man and his men for saving my country from the Nazis, but great men all do great evil, and for the sake of those killed, their hands tied and children crying, during the war
I think it is healthy to discuss the issue. I think we can agree that killing children is killing children, no matter what?

Now, we can blame Hitler, just like the prison guards blamed Hitler, its just as pathetic. Those to blame are held much closer to the chest.

[Koga No Goshi]

Yeah Koga, I love the Nazis!
Just like I love those evil Jihad Palestinians!


Churchill could have said, no, simple and straight to the Czechs, thus absolving himself of the crime, he could have said, no, to the Russian deportations and mass murders, but he did not he thought all this was great.

Now, I am eternally greatful to the man and his men for saving my country from the Nazis, but great men all do great evil, and for the sake of those killed, their hands tied and children crying, during the war
I think it is healthy to discuss the issue. I think we can agree that killing children is killing children, no matter what?

Now, we can blame Hitler, just like the prison guards blamed Hitler, its just as pathetic. Those to blame are held much closer to the chest.

Crimes of wartime hysteria and ethnically-based intolerance. Conceded. How this makes the Allies and the Axis moral equivalents has been the constant bone of contention throughout this thread. One of the ways to do that is to keep making argument after argument that Hitler was not really so bad as he's made out, another way would be to argue that the Germans in general were so little in the know about Nazi ideology and tactical/strategic actions that they can't be held responsible in general.

Bopa, when you have stories of several million ethnic Germans being rounded up just because they were ethnic Germans, and put into industrial ovens or gas chambers in a concerted effort by the Allied leadership, you will have my complete agreement that there was moral equivalence or that the sides were both so much into the dark gray that it's pointless to chastise the Nazi side of the conflict. What I don't understand is your rather obtuse stubbornness in not accepting the multiple concessions from several of us that "yes, what happened to evicted/harassed/persecuted ethnic Germans wasn't right" as not good enough, and keep railing and railing on this one point in a war where people were being incinerated in ovens and nuclear blasts and metropolis firebombing air raids. What are you looking for, exactly? If you think this one point completely tosses the "moral balance of the war" you won't get that out of me or most of the people here most likely. *Shrug*

[Meneldil]

Be glad that Germany hasn't been razed to the ground in 1945, because that's what it deserved.

First of all, the Germans have to take most of the blame for what happened. Were they all nazis supporters or activists ? Of course not, but as long as they refused to stand up against the National Socialist party, it makes them guilty by association.

Mind you, in France, we had quite a lot of antisemitists and nazi supporters, and some of them were actually even more crazy than the craziest nazis.
They thought they were right, they thought they were fighting for France (either by joining the SS or publishing crap-ass nazi propaganda), they really feared a jewish conspiracy to take over the world. That's all nice and dandy, but I still spit on their graves and hope they rot in hell.
And I blame the huge majority of French who decided to not see what was going on and to accept - relunctantly or not - the Vichy regime. Some people decided to stand up for freedom, democracy and human rights, and gave their life for that. Was it stupid and crazy ? Hell yeah. Was it impossible ? No.

Secondly, that whole 'WWII was an honourable war fought by honourable men who tried to protect their land' is nothing but a bunch of crap. German regular soldiers have been responsible for a whole lot of war crimes outside of the Holocaust. Someone already listed a few of these, they were not only commited by SS units, but also by the regular grunt. Ever heard about what happened to african soldiers fighting in the French army in 1940 ?

Thirdly, if you think that the allies, be it the western ones or the soviets, were nearly as bad as the Germans, imagine what would have happened to Germany at the end of the war if it trully was the case. Nazis would slaughter whole villages for any reason. A german soldier killed by partisans ? That's 10 civilians executed. A Nazi official ? That's 50 civilians. How much germans should have been killed by the evil-baby-eating soviets to advenge their loss if we go that way ?
So yeah, once again, be glad that Germany hasn't been transformed into a wasteland, because that's probably what I would have advocated by then. Instead of that, despite the millions of people killed, the thousand of cities burnt to the ground, despite the atrocities, the slaughters, we decided to open our arms and to help the Germans rebuilding their country.

Was there a double standard ? Yeah, of course. Katyn and other soviet war crimes should have been judged as well. But saying that even the Soviets were as bad as the Nazis is a total lapse in reality.
For all I care, Auschwitz is worth 1 million of Katyn. Call that emotional appeal, but if there's one thing in human history that deserves to be labeled as Evil, it's the IIIrd Reich.

There's nothing honourable in fighting for the IIIrd Reich. What would have been honourable was to stand up and fight against it. Germans who did that trully deserve my respect.

[Incongruous]

Crimes of wartime hysteria and ethnically-based intolerance. Conceded. How this makes the Allies and the Axis moral equivalents has been the constant bone of contention throughout this thread. One of the ways to do that is to keep making argument after argument that Hitler was not really so bad as he's made out, another way would be to argue that the Germans in general were so little in the know about Nazi ideology and tactical/strategic actions that they can't be held responsible in general.

Bopa, when you have stories of several million ethnic Germans being rounded up just because they were ethnic Germans, and put into industrial ovens or gas chambers in a concerted effort by the Allied leadership, you will have my complete agreement that there was moral equivalence or that the sides were both so much into the dark gray that it's pointless to chastise the Nazi side of the conflict. What I don't understand is your rather obtuse stubbornness in not accepting the multiple concessions from several of us that "yes, what happened to evicted/harassed/persecuted ethnic Germans wasn't right" as not good enough, and keep railing and railing on this one point in a war where people were being incinerated in ovens and nuclear blasts and metropolis firebombing air raids. What are you looking for, exactly? If you think this one point completely tosses the "moral balance of the war" you won't get that out of me or most of the people here most likely. *Shrug*

What I want is for you to accept that the Allies commited acts of mas murder after the war and agreed to them months in advance, that these acts were not required and that the blood was on teh Allies' hands.

Now, as you know, I think the U.S is an agressive and Imperialistic state, who's actions have proven that it holds no qualms in switching sides and tossing out morality whenever it suits, be that government Democrat or Republican, in fact I think the Dems are little worse on that count. Now I know the Allies were not fighting because they hated fascism, because they eneded up supporting it not long after, indeed, America got nice a close with not only Pinochet but also Franco. So no, I do not see one ounce of moral superiority on the side of the leaders of the West. Sure Hitler was way more crazy, but subsequent history has shown, no more evil

[Incongruous]

Be glad that Germany hasn't been razed to the ground in 1945, because that's what it deserved.

First of all, the Germans have to take most of the blame for what happened. Were they all nazis supporters or activists ? Of course not, but as long as they refused to stand up against the National Socialist party, it makes them guilty by association.

Mind you, in France, we had quite a lot of antisemitists and nazi supporters, and some of them were actually even more crazy than the craziest nazis.
They thought they were right, they thought they were fighting for France (either by joining the SS or publishing crap-ass nazi propaganda), they really feared a jewish conspiracy to take over the world. That's all nice and dandy, but I still spit on their graves and hope they rot in hell.
And I blame the huge majority of French who decided to not see what was going on and to accept - relunctantly or not - the Vichy regime. Some people decided to stand up for freedom, democracy and human rights, and gave their life for that. Was it stupid and crazy ? Hell yeah. Was it impossible ? No.

Secondly, that whole 'WWII was an honourable war fought by honourable men who tried to protect their land' is nothing but a bunch of crap. German regular soldiers have been responsible for a whole lot of war crimes outside of the Holocaust. Someone already listed a few of these, they were not only commited by SS units, but also by the regular grunt. Ever heard about what happened to african soldiers fighting in the French army in 1940 ?

Thirdly, if you think that the allies, be it the western ones or the soviets, were nearly as bad as the Germans, imagine what would have happened to Germany at the end of the war if it trully was the case. Nazis would slaughter whole villages for any reason. A german soldier killed by partisans ? That's 10 civilians executed. A Nazi official ? That's 50 civilians. How much germans should have been killed by the evil-baby-eating soviets to advenge their loss if we go that way ?
So yeah, once again, be glad that Germany hasn't been transformed into a wasteland, because that's probably what I would have advocated by then. Instead of that, despite the millions of people killed, the thousand of cities burnt to the ground, despite the atrocities, the slaughters, we decided to open our arms and to help the Germans rebuilding their country.

Was there a double standard ? Yeah, of course. Katyn and other soviet war crimes should have been judged as well. But saying that even the Soviets were as bad as the Nazis is a total lapse in reality.
For all I care, Auschwitz is worth 1 million of Katyn. Call that emotional appeal, but if there's one thing in human history that deserves to be labeled as Evil, it's the IIIrd Reich.

There's nothing honourable in fighting for the IIIrd Reich. What would have been honourable was to stand up and fight against it. Germans who did that trully deserve my respect.

Be Glad Paris wasn't raised to the ground in 1815, because that's what it deserved.

So be glad that the Prussians did not get their way.

Pathetic, that you really beleive an entire nation deserved to be put to the sword, now that may be a justification for the word, evil...

[Brenus]

“Be Glad Paris wasn't raised to the ground in 1815, because that's what it deserved”: In doing what? Building concentration camps and exterminating all specific minorities? Or fighting against all European Countries for 30 years?
Don’t remember so when exactly the French voted for Napoleon as an Emperor. Because I much I know, he took power by a Coup d’Etat…

Again good old tactic: Napoleon did commit what we call war crimes (not really against the Prussians, mind you). Hitler did as well, so Napoleon = Hitler. I have to laugh. Napoleon 1790 to 1815, around, Hitler1936 to 1945, one century and something after… Hey, the rules of war did changed in between.

“history has shown, no more evil” Much much more evil. Napoleon legacy is a Code of Justice, metric system and others minor side effect… Just read the Wannsee Conference for at least learn something about Nazism and Nazi leaders and followers…

From: historyplace.com:
“On January, 20, 1942, Reinhard Heydrich, Himmler's second in command of the SS, convened the Wannsee Conference in Berlin with 15 top Nazi bureaucrats to co-ordinate the Final Solution (Endlösung) in which the Nazis would attempt to exterminate the entire Jewish population of Europe, an estimated 11 million persons.
"Europe would be combed of Jews from east to west," Heydrich stated.
The minutes of that meeting have been preserved but were edited by Heydrich substituting the coded language Nazis used when referring to lethal actions to be taken against Jews.
"Instead of emigration, there is now a further possible solution to which the Führer has already signified his consent - namely deportation to the east," Heydrich stated for example when referring to mass deportations of Jews to ghettos in occupied Poland and then on to the soon-opened death camps at Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka.
"...eliminated by natural causes," refers to death by a combination of hard labour and starvation.
"...treated accordingly," refers to execution by SS firing squads or death by gassing - also seen in other Nazi correspondence in a variety of connotations such as "special treatment" and "special actions" regarding the Jews.”

From: www.scrapbookpages.com
During his trial in Jerusalem, Eichmann testified as follows during session 107 on July 24, 1961:
What I know is that the gentlemen convened their session, and then in very plain terms - not in the language that I had to use in the minutes, but in absolutely blunt terms - they addressed the issue, with no mincing of words. And my memory of all this would be doubtful, were it not for the fact that I distinctly recall saying to myself at the time, Look, just look at Stuckart, the perpetual law-abiding bureaucrat, always punctilious and fussy, and now what a different tone! The language was anything but in conformity with the legal protocol of clause and paragraph. I should add that this is the only thing from the conference that still has stayed clearly in my mind.
When the Presiding Judge asked Eichmann what Stuckart had said "in general" "on this topic," Eichmann answered, "The discussion covered killing, elimination, and annihilation."

Hitler legacy is for the first time a cold blood very well plan of extermination of minorities which were denied the even smaller right to exist.
Hitler didn’t kill as much people than Stalin or Genghis Khan. But if you weren’t seen as a political opponent to Stalin, or if you surrender fast enough to Genghis your life was spared. As a Jew, a Gypsy, or homosexual, no chance to escape because you were killed for what you are, the thing you can’t change. Converting was not accepted, you were a Jew forever (I remind you that to be Jew is to belong to a religion…).
That the difference of Nazism.
If you follow communism, you are not obliged to kill minorities. If you are a true Nazi you are.
If you are a true communist, you are not obliged to conquer by force the world. If you are a true Nazi, yes you do, because WAR is the ultimate test of the Superior Race.
The differences are in the books of reference. Nor Marx or Hegel spoke about the need to kill. Hitler did, and the need for the Vital Space. And the need to conquer and dominate in inferior “races”.

Like if you were saying that Jesus is responsible for the Inquisition, the South America genocide (the Requerimiento 1513) and the Triangle Trade (encouraged after the Contreverse of Valladolid –1550- Bartelome de Las Casas vs Sepulveda).
So according your criteria, Jesus is as much evil than Hitler because Christianity in around 2000 years of existence killed much more than Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot united

[Fragony]

I hadn't heard of that one, the one i was specifically thinking of was the brown eyes one...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elliott

You could have put any nationality of people, american's, brits, palestinians, eskimos, aslong as you put them in the germans position and events unfold in the same way and anyone would be in that situation, which is why i do not judge too harshly as i could easily have been a soldier back in nazi germany and no matter how rational and logical i like to think i am, its alot harder to be sure of yourself when everyone else thinks differently....

All this is making me think so much of the palestinian situation, i have asked this a few times, people who feel that germany was put in a bad place and then through hitler and the nazis did some terrible things... partially because of the situation it was put in, do you give palestinians the same credit ? are they different because of thier religion of thier method of warfare ? PJ and Frag im talking to you mainly here...

Depends on how you look at WW2, the military aspect and the nazi-crimes should be seen as seperate events that happened more or less at the same time, WW2 didn't need a Hitler and the holocaust didn't need a WW2.

As for palestinians, how is that a valid argument, unlike Germany it wasn't Israel that went to war.

[LittleGrizzly]

Depends on how you look at WW2, the military aspect and the nazi-crimes should be seen as seperate events that happened more or less at the same time, WW2 didn't need a Hitler and the holocaust didn't need a WW2.

What i was referring to is the german people were put in an extreme and unfair situation, what arose from this was one of the worst regimes of modern times, i think you agree with me when i say that germany turned to the nazis because of thier extreme situation but that doesn't excuse thier crimes, you agree with me on this ?

As for palestinians, how is that a valid argument, unlike Germany it wasn't Israel that went to war.

I am not on about who started what war or who stole who's land, i am simply saying that the palestinians are currently in an extreme situation, so they started thier suicide bombing and the like because of this situation... but that doesn't excuse thier crimes...

So we have a german population and a palestinian population who both commited heinous crimes because of thier situation, this doesn't excuse either of thier crimes, but this also means that they didn't commit these crimes because they were german/christian palestinian/muslim

they are both victims of circumstance that chose a bad route in anger, so nothing to do with thier religion...

do you agree ?

[Fragony]

What i was referring to is the german people were put in an extreme and unfair situation, what arose from this was one of the worst regimes of modern times, i think you agree with me when i say that germany turned to the nazis because of thier extreme situation but that doesn't excuse thier crimes, you agree with me on this ?


To be honest I don't understand what really happened there, no idea how such a thing as the holocaust could happen.

They are both victims of circumstance that chose a bad route in anger, so nothing to do with thier religion...

do you agree ?


No I don't agree religion is a major factor in this conflict at both sides, even if it is just the tool to mobilise the masses never forget that it actually does just that, and that Palestine itself is a tool in the ideological battleground.

[Koga No Goshi]

To be honest I don't understand what really happened there, no idea how such a thing as the holocaust could happen.

If you view WWII and the rise of Nazi ideology and Hitler as all separate events which shouldn't be lumped together, then of course how the holocaust happened is a total mystery.

They were all connected. Only a somewhat, IMHO, misguided attempt to vindicate a perception of "judgment against all Germans" by separating out the various parts of what Germany did in WWII and saying they weren't related makes the story fall apart and not make sense.

[Incongruous]

“Be Glad Paris wasn't raised to the ground in 1815, because that's what it deserved”: In doing what? Building concentration camps and exterminating all specific minorities? Or fighting against all European Countries for 30 years?
Don’t remember so when exactly the French voted for Napoleon as an Emperor. Because I much I know, he took power by a Coup d’Etat…

Again good old tactic: Napoleon did commit what we call war crimes (not really against the Prussians, mind you). Hitler did as well, so Napoleon = Hitler. I have to laugh. Napoleon 1790 to 1815, around, Hitler1936 to 1945, one century and something after… Hey, the rules of war did changed in between.

“history has shown, no more evil” Much much more evil. Napoleon legacy is a Code of Justice, metric system and others minor side effect… Just read the Wannsee Conference for at least learn something about Nazism and Nazi leaders and followers…

From: historyplace.com:
“On January, 20, 1942, Reinhard Heydrich, Himmler's second in command of the SS, convened the Wannsee Conference in Berlin with 15 top Nazi bureaucrats to co-ordinate the Final Solution (Endlösung) in which the Nazis would attempt to exterminate the entire Jewish population of Europe, an estimated 11 million persons.
"Europe would be combed of Jews from east to west," Heydrich stated.
The minutes of that meeting have been preserved but were edited by Heydrich substituting the coded language Nazis used when referring to lethal actions to be taken against Jews.
"Instead of emigration, there is now a further possible solution to which the Führer has already signified his consent - namely deportation to the east," Heydrich stated for example when referring to mass deportations of Jews to ghettos in occupied Poland and then on to the soon-opened death camps at Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka.
"...eliminated by natural causes," refers to death by a combination of hard labour and starvation.
"...treated accordingly," refers to execution by SS firing squads or death by gassing - also seen in other Nazi correspondence in a variety of connotations such as "special treatment" and "special actions" regarding the Jews.”

From: www.scrapbookpages.com
During his trial in Jerusalem, Eichmann testified as follows during session 107 on July 24, 1961:
What I know is that the gentlemen convened their session, and then in very plain terms - not in the language that I had to use in the minutes, but in absolutely blunt terms - they addressed the issue, with no mincing of words. And my memory of all this would be doubtful, were it not for the fact that I distinctly recall saying to myself at the time, Look, just look at Stuckart, the perpetual law-abiding bureaucrat, always punctilious and fussy, and now what a different tone! The language was anything but in conformity with the legal protocol of clause and paragraph. I should add that this is the only thing from the conference that still has stayed clearly in my mind.
When the Presiding Judge asked Eichmann what Stuckart had said "in general" "on this topic," Eichmann answered, "The discussion covered killing, elimination, and annihilation."

Hitler legacy is for the first time a cold blood very well plan of extermination of minorities which were denied the even smaller right to exist.
Hitler didn’t kill as much people than Stalin or Genghis Khan. But if you weren’t seen as a political opponent to Stalin, or if you surrender fast enough to Genghis your life was spared. As a Jew, a Gypsy, or homosexual, no chance to escape because you were killed for what you are, the thing you can’t change. Converting was not accepted, you were a Jew forever (I remind you that to be Jew is to belong to a religion…).
That the difference of Nazism.
If you follow communism, you are not obliged to kill minorities. If you are a true Nazi you are.
If you are a true communist, you are not obliged to conquer by force the world. If you are a true Nazi, yes you do, because WAR is the ultimate test of the Superior Race.
The differences are in the books of reference. Nor Marx or Hegel spoke about the need to kill. Hitler did, and the need for the Vital Space. And the need to conquer and dominate in inferior “races”.

Like if you were saying that Jesus is responsible for the Inquisition, the South America genocide (the Requerimiento 1513) and the Triangle Trade (encouraged after the Contreverse of Valladolid –1550- Bartelome de Las Casas vs Sepulveda).
So according your criteria, Jesus is as much evil than Hitler because Christianity in around 2000 years of existence killed much more than Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot united

I see you did not notice the smilie I used as an indicator of the absurdity you were talking of, the complete massacare of an entire nation and the destruction of an entire land. I propose that the word evil may be enacted as an apt description of what you proposed, just a suggestion mind you

[LittleGrizzly]

To be honest I don't understand what really happened there, no idea how such a thing as the holocaust could happen.

It snowballed from small seeds of extreme and unfair circumstances, this is what i was taught in history, obviously theres other factors

bad circumstances combined with the wrong guy/party/ideaology at the wrong time can lead absolutely anyone down the wrong path.

No I don't agree religion is a major factor in this conflict at both sides, even if it is just the tool to mobilise the masses never forget that it actually does just that, and that Palestine itself is a tool in the ideological battleground.

Yes religion is used as a tool to help recuit people, but that is just because it is a religion, all religions have helped recruit to defend against or fight the bad guy, it is not limited to islam so stop putting all the issues down to simply being a muslim, there are other factors religion is just the tool of choice for most extremists, its a fault of religions that they have extra effectiveness in recuiting...

So my point is theres nothing actually wrong with muslims, just extreme circumstances can lead to extreme events given a few things coming together, no matter what people they are

[Brenus]

“I propose that the word evil may be enacted as an apt description of what you proposed” Er, what did I propose?

The fact is, as Meneldi accurately point out, Germany as a country and its population were very mildly treated for what happened during WW2. No massive retaliation at the exception of the industrial tools and all industries taken by the Russian as war compensation. It could have been worst and it up to the honour of the Allies to have kept the retaliation as low they could.
It was more than what the Germans were waiting for.

“the german people were put in an extreme and unfair situation” In 1933 when Hitler took power, Germany was in the same situation than all others countries in the turmoil of the 1929 crisis.

Germany was not put in an “unfair” situation, Germany put itself in a situation when declaring war against neutral countries in 1914 which was the result of an aggressive attitude of the last Emperor. Versailles is the combination of the Treaty imposed to France in 1871 and Brest Litowsk. The French paid all the money and didn’t go for Nazism or equivalent.
I am always amused to see the “pro-german” forgetting about these facts.

[Husar]

“Be Glad Paris wasn't raised to the ground in 1815, because that's what it deserved”: In doing what? Building concentration camps and exterminating all specific minorities? Or fighting against all European Countries for 30 years?
Don’t remember so when exactly the French voted for Napoleon as an Emperor. Because I much I know, he took power by a Coup d’Etat…

Yeah, like Hitler's political campaign mentioned that he would burn the Reichstag, then declare himself dictator for lifetime and then start gassing jews and everybody voted for him because they wanted that so much.

[Kralizec]

I don't think the allies, western or Soviet, ever seriously considered killing the bulk of the Germans to prevent another world war. They did consider dismantling all its industry and devolve the whole country into an agrarian society. I recall that the French especially liked this option, but it was shelved when it became clear what the relationship between east and west was going to be like.

Napoleon legacy is a Code of Justice, metric system and others minor side effect… Just read the Wannsee Conference for at least learn something about Nazism and Nazi leaders and followers…

Not that I'd equate Napoleon to Hitler, but France would have gotten the code civil (and not called the "code napoleon") without him, and most if not all of the other goodies as well. AFAIK his attention for modernisation was always kind of selective, like divorce law when he was trying to get rid of Josephine. Post-revolutionary France produced a lot of good things, but to use them to glorify a military dictator whose reign happens to coincide with it...

[LittleGrizzly]

Germany was not put in an “unfair” situation

Well versailles was an unfair and vengeful document, the fact that germany did it to france in the past doesn't excuse it or make it right, i refer to ordaniry german people rather than germany as a nation...

the extreme was in reference to the poverty and downturn after wall street crash ect.

I am always amused to see the “pro-german” forgetting about these facts.

errm i don't know where you got that from, i wasn't one of the people equating the nazis to the allies, im not german nor have german heritadge, the fact i think the situation germany was in had something to do with its crimes is simply the truth...

[Koga No Goshi]

I think few people would argue the treaty after WWI was not a recipe for trouble; however, pointing out that this piece of diplomacy didn't create a stable peace is NOT a justification for the "unfairness" of what Germany did to its neighbors in the ensuing war. "If you'd just given us a better treaty that protected our ability to save face and have dignity, I wouldn't be putting you into work camps and executing your dissidents" doesn't strike me as morally equivalent.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Germany was not put in an “unfair” situation, Germany put itself in a situation when declaring war against neutral countries in 1914 which was the result of an aggressive attitude of the last Emperor. Versailles is the combination of the Treaty imposed to France in 1871 and Brest Litowsk. The French paid all the money and didn’t go for Nazism or equivalent.
I am always amused to see the “pro-german” forgetting about these facts.

Alright, fi...wait, back up there.

Germany put itself in a situation when declaring war against neutral countries in 1914 which was the result of an aggressive attitude of the last Emperor.

Do you actually believe the guilt clause in the Treaty of Versailles, or are you just stirring the pot?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Or are you referring to Belgium?

[Husar]

Well, if I were an evil person I would now said that France learned that taking revenge is not always the best option...oops, I just said it, didn't I?
Of course Germany also learned that and now we can be buddies and friends and make sure it stays that way so in a twisted way something good has come from all that.