Someone is WRONG on the Internet!
POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Saturday, July 20, 2024 14:12
VIEWED: 4231
PAGE 5 of 8
The main point I want to make here is this:
We didn't solve the problem. Not talking to Nazi Germany resulted in millions of deaths. Not talking to Mao resulted in more. Talking to the Japanese could have avoided more deaths than any single action.
But it's not just our enemies we failed to negotiate with. We didn't talk to Stalin. Or Chiang Kai Shek.
Our war saved no one. In fact, it killed millions more. It was not a solution. If Japan had one the war, fewer people would have died, and that's pretty much a guarantee.
Now, sure, this is a thread jack because it's not about netiquette. But it is about communication. I was just detailing how you could possibly have used communication to solve a problem that violence very much has proven that it could not solve.
CTTS
I would agree that the Nazis were extreme, and wretched, but I would just say that if you don't debate with extremists you force yourself to resort to violence, a resoundingly failed policy.
But you are correct that if you *think* that Nazis can't be reasoned with, you guarantee your failure. If instead, you tell yourself that they can be reasoned with, you at least stand a chance.
Part of my view comes from the fact that the solution we chose did not only not prevent the holocaust, it may have caused it.
The original relocation plan worked out by Eichmann and the Zionist leaders of the Israeli colonial govt. in Palestine was to transport 600,000 german jews by rail to I think it was greece, where they were to be put on a boat for Israel.
The war increased the need for slave labor. The lack of the dialogue or any international oversight on the transfer allowed those jews to be sidelined into a slave labor program. As the war drew on, the need for slaves grew, as Germany was defeated, the panic set in. I don't know if this panic was an effort to kill all the remaining jews, I'm dubious because I think by this point they had largely ran out of actual jews, and were using poles and russians, whom they called jews but really weren't. It may have been that they simply didn't want to leave any witnesses to their horrible crimes.
Quote:
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.
To be fair, I'm being more fair to Germany than I normally would be because I'm defending the process of negotiation as preferable to war.
Also, piques. Spell check doesn't catch everything.
Quote:
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.
It happens when you lose a war. Also, our media is heavily jewish. It bothers me more that Germany is cannonized as Great Satan. This makes it #1 evil.
Think about it. If evil regimes could be put on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the Evilest, then Nazi Germany is a 10. I could then say Stalin was a 10, and Mao was a 10, and Pol Pot was a 10. And no one would disagree.
But then think about Nazis as #1 evil. Now if I say Stalin, Mao, or Sar are #1, I suddenly have an argument. I could argue:
Stalin killed more foreigners than any other regime in history
Mao killed more of his own people than anyone else
Saloth Sar killed a higher % of his own people. (Now rwanda has eclipsed that, but for the real history books it's Paraguay's Francisco Solano Lopez)
Lopez is actually the worst leader in world history, but you have to be a history geek to even have heard of him. He launched his country into multiple wars, ultimately killing 90% of his own population.
Quote:Quote:
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.NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
On this last point, it's simply not the case that there was no forum for debate. There were debates all throughout the war, it's just that we weren't willing to negotiate with either Germany or Japan.
Germans would not have been easy to negotiate, that much I grant. There very first demand would have been the right to their own economic structure separate from ours. This I think we were pigheaded in denying then, and we are pigheaded in denying to Iran now.
The second demand would have been for us to recognize borders that *they* considered to be Germany. This was much more problematic, because, though all of those areas had Germans, some of those areas also had a large number of non-Germans, and there was an additional problem that Austria, though full of German speaking people, had no desire at all to be ruled by Berlin.
Still, it was a place that negotiations could have started.
I would open with the economic issue, and the trade embargoes on energy. I would make sure to do so because I would want to start with "What we can do for you." I might add safe transport of Jews. This would give me three things to offer Germany.
Then my counter would be to make really strong demands. I would not just claim czechoslovakia, hungary, poland to be independent, I would claim Austria.
This would infuriate the Germans who would leave the room. That would be a most excellent starting point, because there would be people in the German govt. who would disagree with Hitler's entourage storming out. I would figure at the end of the series of negotiations, I would have lost Austria, but I certainly would have no intention of giving it away at the beginning.
It's worth noting that the whole situation is our fault. The allies that is, and I don't just mean the idiocy of the war debt. If David Lloyd George, with Wilson and Clemenceau hadn't decided to break up the empire, which was the most moronic thing to do, and was undoubtedly motivated by the misguided league of nations, then WWII would have been impossible.
Think about it. Germany invaded the newly independent states of Austria, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. This was easy, none of them has a military, or a budget to speak of. If instead, Germany was forced with the option of invading the Hapsburg Archduchy of Austria, aka, the Empire, it would have been such obvious suicide that they never would have even considered it. In fact, I will virtually guarantee you that Hitler would have spent all of his time trying to negotiate Austria into an alliance, and would have been willing to sacrifice everything short of German independence to do so.
If we really wanted to defend against the rise of German militarism, reassembling the empire actually would have been worth doing, now that I think of it. That would be a far better negotiating position to be in than the outside.
Say in 1934 you see Germany as a radical rising power. By 1936 you're really scared. You still have two years to arrange to undo what you did in 1919.
The reality was that our NWO crowd was involved on both sides, and they didn't want to compromise with an OWO power like the Hapsburgs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Wow. You’re entitled to your reality, but I’m glad I don’t live in it. How you believe that an economic treaty could have saved the jews and others is beyond me...and did you mistype that, or were you actually saying “the spread of Nazi Germany could have been accomplished through economic treaty”? You really believe that? We’ll HAVE to agree to disagree on those points, I can’t even begin to debate them, they’re so out-there to me.
The reality is that western powers were salivating at the idea that Germans and Russians would exterminate each other in a genocidal war with a little push, and might cleanse the earth of its jewish infection in the process.
The spread of Nazi Germany and the saving of the jews, as well as many more Russians and Poles could have been easily accomplish through an economic treaty that granted them economic self determination. The reality is that western powers were salivating at the idea that Germans and Russians would exterminate each other in a genocidal war with a little push, and might cleanse the earth of its jewish infection in the process
Top among all world leaders ruminating this wet dream nightly was Winston Churchill. FDR would have joined Churchill in bed if he could have. He was too busy focusing on his own Manifest Destiny empire of the Pacific.
I’ll leave I to Magons’s post to constitute my own reply, as she’s done it quite well. I also disagree that legislation equals forced at gunpoint. Sure, some legislation would put you in jail, but most legislation involves financial penalties, etc., which is far from gunpoint. Refusing to comply to a parking ticket would only turn into a “bloodbath” if the person refusing made it so, otherwise it would be a legal matter. The vast majority of legislation has nothing to do with violence or forcing at gunpoint. To view it that way would be to say that not fastening my seat belt means a cop would shoot me. It’s way afield of reality, for me. In essence, again Magons has pegged it as far as I’m concerned, withQuote:
as well as with the rest of that post, from what I read going down the line.
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.... 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.
That “The holocaust was largely a corporate operation” is well documented; well, I’d question the documentation, I’m afraid.
I also feel that “I still assert that it's not always possible or desirable to find middle ground on extremist views”. It’s just not possible with people who are truly extremists; they can’t hear you, they wouldn’t listen if they could; and nothing will change their minds. It’s commendable that you try, but a flat statement that communication is always possible isn’t logical, given the real world, to me. CTTS, I think the concept is about those who have extremely extreme views—we have them right here—who literally aren’t interested in communicating, only spouting. I’ve tried to have discussions with any number of them, but they respond with insults and attacks, and only repeat their points adamantly, no matter how hard you try to communicate. I gave up on most of those long ago, because there’s nothing to be gained by beating your head against a wall. I don’t think you could communicate with those of the Wesboro Church, for example.
I didn’t finish your last two posts, DT, it just got to be too much. I agree with what was said at the beginning of this thread, and what the thread was about, but while you explained why your first post was so long, all your OTHER posts were equally long or longer. I know my posts are frequently too long...part of the reason is that I’m only here in the morning, so go down a thread and reply to every post I think is worth responding to, so as long as the thread, so my respo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I also disagree that legislation equals forced at gunpoint. Sure, some legislation would put you in jail, but most legislation involves financial penalties, etc., which is far from gunpoint.
Niki, what happens if I don't pay my "financial penalties"?
Quote:OK, let's pursue this. I refuse to comply with my parking ticket. I get a summons to go to court. I am ordered to pay it in court, but I still refuse to pay it. (Now let's assume I am a pacifist and refuse to resort to violence. But I also refuse to pay that parking ticket.)
Refusing to comply to a parking ticket would only turn into a “bloodbath” if the person refusing made it so, otherwise it would be a legal matter.
What happens next?
Quote:Eventually, the cop will use violence against me to enforce the seat belt law. He may not shoot me, but he will assault me, kidnap me, and incarcerate me against my will. If I resist being imprisoned with any force at all, even if it is to push back when he pushes me into his kidnap-mobile, he will MOST DEFINITELY put a gun to my head. If I resist with any more force than that, and he WILL shoot me.
To view it that way would be to say that not fastening my seat belt means a cop would shoot me.
That is where the "force" in "enforce" comes in.
--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, thanks. Brain farts are sure embarrassing. Sorry.
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Also, piques. Spell check doesn't catch everything.
--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I also disagree that legislation equals forced at gunpoint. Sure, some legislation would put you in jail, but most legislation involves financial penalties, etc., which is far from gunpoint.
Niki, what happens if I don't pay my "financial penalties"?Quote:OK, let's pursue this. I refuse to comply with my parking ticket. I get a summons to go to court. I am ordered to pay it in court, but I still refuse to pay it. (Now let's assume I am a pacifist and refuse to resort to violence. But I also refuse to pay that parking ticket.)
Refusing to comply to a parking ticket would only turn into a “bloodbath” if the person refusing made it so, otherwise it would be a legal matter.
What happens next?Quote:Eventually, the cop will use violence against me to enforce the seat belt law. He may not shoot me, but he will assault me, kidnap me, and incarcerate me against my will. If I resist being imprisoned with any force at all, even if it is to push back when he pushes me into his kidnap-mobile, he will MOST DEFINITELY put a gun to my head. If I resist with any more force than that, and he WILL shoot me.
To view it that way would be to say that not fastening my seat belt means a cop would shoot me.
That is where the "force" in "enforce" comes in.
--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
Okay, I'll weigh in. Without a doubt our police have been milatarized. From the guns they carry to the tanks at the station. That is all to make us fear the police and the PTB. It has been proven that the police use more and more force. They are increasingly tied to the national guard as well as the army. From Fusion centers to possible FEMA camps, planning for marshall law, and WTO security...local law enforcement is used.
Think ruby ridge.
How often do police kill, taze, abuse those that pay their salary?
Compared to the rest of the world, the land of the free jail how many?
Why?
Are most people in jail for violent offenses against another person? Or for violating a law made by politicians to pander to a group...drug laws, etc...?
But my point is go cross that imaginary line at area 51 and then ask...."did that guy just shoot me?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Wow. You’re entitled to your reality, but I’m glad I don’t live in it.
Unfortunately, my only other option is to be delusional.
Quote:
How you believe that an economic treaty could have saved the jews and others is beyond me…
I studied the subject, that's all.
Quote:
and did you mistype that, or were you actually saying “the spread of Nazi Germany could have been accomplished through economic treaty”? You really believe that?
No, that theory is called the EU. That was Goering's baby, EEC, its predecessor or "The fourth Reich" The Euro still carries Goering's fourth reich symbol on it. Make of that what you will, but..
No, that's not what I was saying. I was saying that the german plan prior to the pivotal 1938 was one of self sufficiency. Through sanctions, blockades, energy embargoes and an unwillingness to negotiate, we pushed them towards plan B.
Quote:
I also disagree that legislation equals forced at gunpoint.
Why? That's what makes it legislation. If it weren't law, it would be optional. Like an economic incentive.
Quote:
I might add that many countries in the world don't have police with guns, and still have legislation
That's nonsense. Of course they have guns. They just don't let you have guns. But they have armies. If they didn't, you would never accept their ridiculous mandates. Come on, you disagree with govt. policies over the last ten years as much as anyone. You honestly mean to tell me that you wouldn't just walk into the Oval Office at some point when Bush was in the bathroom and sit down in the big chair and say "President Niki here, Okay, we're getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and no more torture." What's stopping you? You're respect for the sovereign authority and human genius of George W. Bush? Or the fact that his guys have guns and wouldn't let you do that?
Quote:
That “The holocaust was largely a corporate operation” is well documented; well, I’d question the documentation, I’m afraid.
Lol. I'm sorry. Allow me to appreciate the absurdity of the situation. I try to pin evil on international corporations, and you insist on pinning it on socialist big government. I think I woke up in bizarro world.
Quote:
It’s just not possible with people who are truly extremists; they can’t hear you
Nonsense. I know a guy who negotiates with islamic terrorists. You know what he says the most powerful interrogation tool is? The Koran. He says "Read it, know it, know it better than they do." Yes, they can be reasoned with as it turns out, all you have to do is have more information than they do. Extreme beliefs don't generally come from superior knowledge, but a lack of it.
Quote:
they wouldn’t listen if they could; and nothing will change their minds.
If they don't listen, you work on your diplomatic communication skills and try again.
Quote:
It’s commendable that you try, but a flat statement that communication is always possible isn’t logical
If you had to assume one, that I was either right or wrong, which world would you rather live in?
Quote:
I’ve tried to have discussions with any number of them
Try harder? I debated a guy who had actually run a concentration camp where 100,000 people were killed. It's hard to get more unreasonable than that. But I admit I've been bested. I was present for a debate between the state war reporter for the Serb Socialist forces debating a tortured prisoner of War from the Kosovar Mujahideen. Now, picture those two in a room together, having a debate about the war, the nature of the two societies, and how the situation could play out, and how the national character of the two played into the result. Now, I'll add that these two men had never met each other, they both entered the room where I was, and started this debate. I was in awe of both of them.
The conclusion of the debate was also interesting. They agreed that Serb military intelligence and the Mujahideen Imams should have debated the situation beforehand, and tried t
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
For what it's worth, I read your argument, DT and found it very illuminating.
I have studied genocides throughout history. I won't claim to be a thorough historian, but the little that I understood from history, I have found one common thread in all the genocides.
It's not ideology or hatred or superiority. It's economics.
Quote:I LOL'ed on that one too. You can't win, DT. You can't win.
Lol. I'm sorry. Allow me to appreciate the absurdity of the situation. I try to pin evil on international corporations, and you insist on pinning it on socialist big government. I think I woke up in bizarro world.
--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT, again I can’t get through your long post. I did get far enough to notice that Quote:
Totally untrue. I blame what happened on many, many factors, none of which is “socialist big government”. You make too many assumptions as to what I think and state them as fact. I wish you would stop doing that.
I try to pin evil on international corporations, and you insist on pinning it on socialist big government.
So I should have said “not possible with SOME extremists”. I’d like to see you try and communicate with one of the hard-core Westborough Church members, or any number of terrorists. To say you can communicate with ANYONE, that if you can’t it’s the fault of your communication skills. You’re talking in absolutes; THAT alone leaves no room for communication!
Try harder? Jezus, DT, where have you been for the last year? It’s not a matter of “communicating”—ANYTHING I write, literally anything, gets a come-back of the nastiest kind. Often not having anything to do with my post, just nasty spewing. You’re really going black-and-white here; if you haven’t seen the ways in which they “communicate” with me, there can be no discussion. You’re deliberately ignoring the fact that there is no attempt to communicate, only to attack!
Interestingly, this thread started out about how people get wrapped up in someone being “wrong” on the internet. That seems to be precisely what you’ve been doing with me, and I think I’m going to pay attention to the very first comic posted and get OUT of these long-winded, non-communication debates. You aren’t being realistic in telling me I could communicate with Kane, Whozit and their ilk if I just “communicated better”.
You started out with a lecture on netiquette; jumped off into Nazi Germany, and now have rolled around to lecturing me on something that I really think, if you thought about it objectively for one good moment, you'd find is absurd.
Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:To be fair, everyone in RWED seems to have done it. Maybe not Anthony. But everyone else.
Originally posted by Niki2:
You make too many assumptions as to what I think and state them as fact. I wish you would stop doing that.
I wish everyone would stop doing it.
Hey, we've come around full circle to the topic of this thread!
--Can't Take (my gorram) Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME