Someone is WRONG on the Internet!
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Saturday, July 20, 2024 14:12
VIEWED: 4231
PAGE 4 of 8
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I've never really understood that idea that legislation = being forced at gunpoint
Why not ?
I mean, that's essentially what it IS.
I wrote up a good bit about that here before, about how even a measly parking ticket could, if someone refused to comply, result in a bloody and lethal confrontation, but damned if I can seem to find it at the moment and I don't have time to re-write it this insant...
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Curious that an argument of the very nature of that being mocked on the opening post should break out on this thread. How ironic. I'll try to bear that in mind.
Also, as a holocaust victim descendant I find it highly ironic that I've been forced into the position of defending Nazi Germany.
Everything is negotiable. Most people are not motivated by evil, and Germans are no exception.
CTS is correct of course, any amount of research reveals this, as does any conversation with a German.
Jews had been deported to Israel, everyone who was in germany at the time knew that.
Internally, it was a far more reasonable society than a largely jewish hollywood portrays it, which is not at all surprising. When the muslims of the mideast make films about the Iraq war, they're not going to show us in a good light either.
Not to say that it was a sane society, it wasn't, just that it wasn't a more insane society than Stalin's Russia or Mao's China.
I don't actually buy the Final Solution, because I think that this was an effort to shift blame.
The holocaust was largely a corporate operation. The jews who had been given permission by both govts. Germany and Israel to migrate, were hijacked along the way, by Nazi SS and taken to camps, run by corporations, often headquartered in Germany, but just as often in Switzerland, France, Britain or the US. Evil corporations are always up for slave labor. When they ran out of jews they started grabbing random poles and russians and just calling them jews.
That much is well documented as well.
The thing is that the views of Europeans and others around the world were much more in line with the Nazis than anyone would care to admit. The Jews were mostly inferior for being slavs, something widely believed. Britain and France were still enslave and slaughtering racial inferiors in Africa even after the war. But the idea that Eugenics was a uniquely German perspective is simply not credible.
The point being that the jewish question could have been debated if anyone cared, which they didn't. The English and the Americans felt the same way.
The idea that Germany could have maintained control of even a random country like Nigeria, I find preposterous, let alone the whole world. It's one thing to capture a capital building and say you own the country in a time of war when your army is in that country, it's quite another to dominate it. The most serious domination pulled off yet was probably the Soviets in Eastern Europe, but it took all of their resources to quell a population 1/2 their size, and they eventually lost. China, BTW, is in a similar state now.
The reality is that Germany's main problem was Hitler. One bullet would have removed him, and put Goering in charge, which is what eventually happened (No, I don't buy the suicide theory either. The Germans shot the fuhrer so they could surrender before becoming a soviet territory.)
Goering opposed the war from the start, so if that bullet had been fired earlier, there would have been no war. Without a war there would be no holocaust, because you really can't carry something like that out without the cover of war.
There would have been a nasty deportation of 600,000 jews to Israel, the sort of thing that European govts. have done many times, recently 300,000 people were deported forcibly to Serbia from Croatia. This year, 30,000 from France to Romania. It wouldn't be unique, but it would have been unpleasant, and people would have died.
So, the Germans had racist policies. Sure. But you're not so naive as to think that's what the war was about. The English and Americans had racist policies. We wouldn't let jews in either.
Point 6 I'll chalk down to speculation. I know they intended to conquer everywhere that German was spoken, including places where other languages, such as Czech were spoken, as that's where my family lived, them being Czech jews, and not Germans.
7) At any point. Talking is always an option. It would have been far easier prior to 1938. It's worth remembering that the US and Germany
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
That's funny. Because "using violence to force others to do their bidding" is exactly what legislation is all about. And exactly why I oppose GW legislation. By your standards, I probably shouldn't enter into a discussion with yourself.
Very interesting.
I've never really understood that idea that legislation = being forced at gunpoint
Of course it is. That's exactly what it is.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
see below.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I've never really understood that idea that legislation = being forced at gunpoint
Why not ?
I mean, that's essentially what it IS.
I wrote up a good bit about that here before, about how even a measly parking ticket could, if someone refused to comply, result in a bloody and lethal confrontation, but damned if I can seem to find it at the moment and I don't have time to re-write it this insant...
-F
maybe that's the US. I don't see people being forced to comply at gunpoint, unless they themselves are due to committ violence. I might add that many countries in the world don't have police with guns, and still have legislation that the majority of people follow without feeling threatened.
It's one of those totally meaningless statements like "guns don't kill people, people kill people"
laws of one form or another have existed as long as people have. That's how societies function. If your cops are gun happy in their enforcement, take away their guns.
DT, meandering around for what point again? How about 'in a nutshell'?
I tried, I really did, to reply. But I really missed the relevance of it all. I find your view of history somewhat scewed and to discuss your post would lead us into a debate of the context of WW2, which wasn't ever the point was it? You are debating about a whole lot of stuff that I never said, never even inferred. You are making a lot of assumptions about what I believe.
I still assert that it's not always possible or desirable to find middle ground on extremist views, but carry on if you will about the history of WW2.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Magon
I was simply pointing out the issues and times in which negotiation could have been had with Nazi Germany.
You stated that it couldn't be done, as if it were a religious belief, and seem to see no interest in why or how or when it actually *could* be done.
There's always room for negotiation, which is why police have negotiators. They didn't preselect psychos with guns to go negotiate with, they just believed that negotiation was always possible.
Decannonizing Nazi Germany as "Great Satan" and instead seeing it as a tragic failed state full of humans capable of reason is what we need to do if we're going to be able to negotiate with Jihadists, or Globalists or any of the current extremist ideologies currently roaming the planet.
Right now I think the closest parallel to Nazi Germany is the United States. We invade countries because we want the territory, we don't care about the people, we maintain torture chambers and prisons and concentration camps, kill millions of civilians, including some of our own citizens, largely based on their religion. Here at home our govt. claims as much power as it can possibly get away with, and the Patriot Act draws many of its ideas on power from the Germany emergency powers act, our Govt. seizes control of populations and corporations one way or another and forces them to support the war machine, which takes up the majority of our budget, plunges us into infinite debt, and we restrict the civil liberties of our citizens with abusive police forces while using a corrupt pro-govt. media empire to misinform and hide the truth.
Ultimately, being able to say that you could negotiate with Nazi Germany, which was your example but a good one, is necessary for us being able to negotiate with today's great satan, the United States.
Also, your argument suggests that sometimes "force is the answer." I feel I constantly have to remind people that in the subject of the holocaust we did NOT succeed. It's a common myth that we "found the answer" in force. No. We didn't. We failed. If we had succeeded, we would have prevented the holocaust. Our use of force clearly did not solve the problem. Maybe we should have tried negotiating.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
maybe that's the US. I don't see people being forced to comply at gunpoint, unless they themselves are due to committ violence.
Let's talk about this. Let's take a piece of hypothetical non-violent legislation you support. Say, mandatory cap-and-trade throughout Australia.
1. What would this law require Australians to do?
Let's say, limit themselves to 1000 liters of gasoline a year. If they go overboard, they are required to pay a fine, which would be routed to Aussies who used less than 1000 liters of gasoline.
2. Imagine someone who violated this law.
Bob used 2000 liters in one year. He was fined $500 for his overage. Bob did not pay his fine by his deadline.
3. What happens to this person when he doesn't comply and ignores this law?
Please help me understand what happens to Bob at this point.
4. What happens if this person continues to ignore this law (non-violently)?
How do Australian authorities enforce the law? Ultimately, what happens to Bob?
--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Maybe your definition of "extreme" is more extreme than mine.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
I still assert that it's not always possible or desirable to find middle ground on extremist views, but carry on if you will about the history of WW2.
In all seriousness, maybe you categorize views as "extreme" a lot sooner than I would. If *I* don't think Nazis are extreme, surely it is possible and desirable for ME to find middle ground with their views? Or do you think I should abide by YOUR standard of "extreme," or the majority's standard of "extreme"?
If so, I should not be able (not possible) or should not be supported (not desirable) to have an earnest dialogue with the most unpopular views on the planet. Is this what you mean? Or do you only apply this "not possible/desirable" rule to yourself?
--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT, thank you for taking the time to describe this view of WWII history. Some of it was consistent with what I know so far, but there was a lot that I wasn't aware of. It certainly peaks my interest to research it more. Thank you.
I have German friends who complain about the unending demonization of the German people and German WWII politics, esp in movies. I understand their point. After so much vilification, Germany has become a caricature. I think analyses like yours are important understand the complexity of the issues.
Quote:If you ever find this out, please let me know.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
3) There was a distinct change in power structure and influence that suggests to me a changing of the guard at some level.
The third one is one I need to research. Who changed at what positions that made the swing towards a radical policy change.
I do know that after this change, apparently things got very bad, very quickly. My high school German teacher left Germany at this point and never went back because the country carried too many bad memories.
I am afraid the same type of change might occur in the USA, where it goes from mild to moderate prejudice against Muslims and illegal aliens to radical policies and actions against them.
--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don't understand this analogy because "beating the crap out of you" never happened. The Nazi DT debated with did not beat the crap out of him.
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Let me give you an example. If you and someone else have an argument about, say GW, and to get their point across they start to beat the crap out of you. Do you keep trying to debate GW with them, or do you get them to stop in anyway you can -
Now let's consider original Nazis. Talking to an original Nazi when Nazis were in power is completely hypothetical. You can ASSUME that he would have just beat the crap out of you rather than debate, but you don't KNOW that. Therefore to preclude all hypothetical debate with a Nazi based on the assumption that he would have certainly beat the crap out of you is a bit premature.
Why not say, "Yes, it would be acceptable to have TRIED to negotiate with the Nazis in Germany. If they start to beat the crap out of you however, you would have had to stop debating until the violence ended." OK, I can live with that.
But what I hear you saying is (please correct me if I am wrong), "Nazi views are so utterly violent that it would be immoral to try to negotiate or compromise towards their position, whether they actually use violence on you during the negotiation or not. Any compromise would mean you have become more violent, which is unacceptable (because it would be immoral)."
I think DT (again, I may be wrong) is trying to point out that not every single one of their views was violent, and on those issues we could find common ground.
--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME