Nazi Evil

so in your opinion literacy does not extend to speech? that is the weirdest idea i ever heard.


my mis/spellings are ok, because english is NOT my native language, unlike mr NUCULAR there.

this for is used by the majority of rural americans BECAUSE they have necer seen the written form of the word, since they do NOT READ=illiterate.

you have no idea how my english speech is all about, so any comment is void of any value.


this is offtopic. stop trying to get Victor to lock this thread up. let's speak about nazi morality .

Suparatu,

You are getting this argument on the cheap, you don't actually argue or make any points to support your view you just state something.

This is a boring and pointless argument or discussion.

I wonder if you are even that interested in the Nazis in themselves, and don't just have some kind of beef against George Bush, and what in the UK we call 'politically correct' attitudes about wearing Nazi regalia in public.

If you want to wear a Gauleiter's uniform when you are pushing your trolley around the supermarket and get hassle from the police, it pains my heart. But bringing the Nazis into this on that kind of basis is trivial and pointless and is spoiling the discussion.

I am thinking about a new discussion which you will be more at home in than this one. it is going to be called:

'Were the Nazis evil Giraffes made of wood with Human heads and isn't this essential with respect to the current Iraq conflict'

In this discussion you can talk at length about Iraq and write pithy little responses along the lines of:

Saudadesdefrancesinhas: The Nazis were nasty wooden giraffe things

Suparatu: No, they were political extremists etcetera. Iraq Iraq Iraq.

I doubt anybody could bring counter-arguments to this:

Ian Kershaw, Hitler, Vol. 2: Nemesis 1936-1945 , Penguin, London, 2000 p.841

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...=60&#entry55576

Never in history, previously unprobed depths of inhumanity, the most profound collapse of civilisation. These are big words and strong opinions.

I doubt anybody could bring counter-arguments to this:

Ian Kershaw, Hitler, Vol. 2: Nemesis 1936-1945 , Penguin, London, 2000 p.841

http://www.worldwar2.ro/forum/index.php?sh...=60&#entry55576

Never in history, previously unprobed depths of inhumanity, the most profound collapse of civilisation. These are big words and strong opinions.

I know, if you read all the biography it goes into a lot of detail about exactly why and what.

There are hundreds of pages of it.

Professor Kershaw was probably sick of Hitler by the end. The judgement is quite nuanced and moderate compared to many books about Hitler.

I would very much recommend the book, it has been called by lots of historians in the definitive biography of Hitler, and you can get it in many different languages.

In these debates about the Nazis it would be great if people other than me could quote sources for where they get the factual basis for their point of view from. It would be genuinely interesting to see what different view points exist, provided they have some historical basis to refer to and don't seem totally subjective.

I forgot in the last post:

"Never in history, previously unprobed depths of inhumanity, the most profound collapse of civilisation. These are big words and strong opinions."

Well, 50 million dead is a big figure worthy of big words.

You could think of counter arguments for this (whether they would be totally valid), I can think of some but I'm not going to write against the points I have been making yet.

Two off-topic posts were deleted. Stop the typos nonsense.

Suparatu, stop whining. You were the one who started it in the first place. Everybody makes mistakes. Let's try to be mature about this.

The best thing from this thread is the fact that not that many romanians are here to comment on it. which is telling quite a lot. the only people that are very virulent against what i say are people from the west. which, yet again, tells a lot about a lot.

what i think irritates you most are not my arguments, but the fact that i DARE to chalange a view you share. that is it.

also, this is a discussion about morality. quoting what histrorians said about hitler/s regime is like quoting the bible in a military school = totally innapropriate.

believe me, i can find just as many quotes saying that the nazis were not evil, but it would not be accepted because it is not mainstream history. which, if you thibk about it, as many here did not, it is not about hsitory, not at all.

it is about battling preconceptions.
nazis are evil
the west can only do good.

which is largely incorrect.

together, the british empire and the american flagwavers must have killed 10 people for any one perosn hitler managed to.

genocides are common along history. some are EVIL, some are unfortunate events.

the deliberate bombing of Dresden was a terrible act, and the Allies and their grandkids i have no doubt are very sorry about and lose sleep about it every night

What people from the west (since they are pretty much the only ones foaming at the mouth in this thread) have this terrible double standard blinders over their eyes and they will never admit to the fact that there were no angels in that war. some were more politically extreme than others, but none were angels..

examples about westyern genocides are quickly dismissed, since "weare sorry about it", like that matters. ask the Boers, who were the first beneficiaries of a life inside a prison camp.

oh, you though Hitler invented those? shows how much you know...

of the indian nations killed by the white men....

Nooo, those were not genocides, BECAUSE WE WON AND NOW WE ARE SORRY. yeah right.


In the end it all boils down to this.

You say nazis were evil. i say evil is not a way do describe political actions. Hitler was not crazy, he was calculated.

if he had won the war, roosevelt would have been the great murderer, alongside Stalin.

THE end.

Double standard is ling in western mindset.

oh, and spare me with the quotes from whoever of whatever. they are meaningless in a discussion about nuances of descriptive terms.

OFF TOPIC! Superdude, be mature and take Victors advice,

"Suparatu, stop whining. You were the one who started it in the first place. Everybody makes mistakes. Let's try to be mature about this. "

You had your chance, and it seems like nobody (Romanian or from the West) is rushing to agree with your posts.

Time for us to move on.

N C R.

Here is another quote you might find interesting (or not) where a famous authoritarian ruler (does he still have the record for the longest running personal dictatorship in history?) from the WEST notes how a fascist regime is special and different, and why he rejected it:

'Fascist Dictatorship tends towards pagan caesarism, towards a new state that knows no limits or restraint in morality or law, which marches directly towards it's goal without constraint. The New Portuguese State (which Salazar had just set up when this text was published), on the other hand, cannot avoid having, and would not even consider doing without, certain limits of a moral order to act as guides for it's action.'

Salazar, in 1933 (!)

(from Antonio Ferro, Salazar: le Portugal et son chef p.147)

Nazis evil: because they consciously rejected any moral limits on their action, and caused huge suffering as a result. Not because the Allies just happened to fight them...


This post has been edited by saudadesdefrancesinhas on November 02, 2006 12:13 pm

Suparatu,

You seem to think that you are

i) Really smart because you 'dare' to challenge a view supposedly everyone who criticises you shares

(I wonder if you have been even actually reading what I have been posting!)

but then you make a daft statement like 'quoting the bible in a military school = totally inappropriate'. Is this because you are Romanian and religion was so long excluded from National life?

Bibles and soldiers go fairly well together...or at least in the past they were intimately and closely intertwined in most Nations. You seem to have just decided yourself, with no real basis, that they don't. You probably haven't even thought of it.

The same can be said about quoting historians in a debate about Nazi morality. If you want to talk about morals please outline the basis of your moral thought to make it easier. The historians quoted are examples of judging the Nazi regime in the light of a moderate and non religious moral attitude acceptable in academic and historical circles.

ii) The quotes you might be able to find or not aught not to be judged on whether they are mainstream history or not, but on to what extent they are based on secure source material.

You aught to battle your own preconceptions Suparatu, I have never stated that the West can do only good, that would be ridiculous, given that:

GERMANY AND THE NAZIS ARE THE WEST as much as the UK or FRANCE.

You seem stuck in a communist mindset with regard to the WEST.

What you write just proves that, however smart you think you are, you are incapable of any subtle form of argument.

You find out what the difference between the use and purpose of concentration camps in the Boer war, concentration camps in the Third Reich up until 1940 (or in the UK during the war, or in France, I bet you didn't know we had them here too during those years!) and concentration camps in the Final Solution 1943-45 was.

You are smart enough to know that just because something has the same name it is not necessarily the same thing, with the same significance.

I have never said the Nazis were uniquely evil either.

I suspect, given that you use a term like the WEST at all, that you know nothing about the WEST itself. This actually colours everything you say, because you make assumptions that you know better than everyone who actually lives in the WEST what the WEST (using this term is stupid) thinks etc.

I will spell out the core of my argument again, in huge letters and in bold print so that you can't miss it:

THE NAZIS STAND OUT NOT BECAUSE THEY INVENTED SOMETHING NEW IN THE WAY OF EVIL, BUT BECAUSE OF THE UNUSUAL DESTRUCTION AND DEVASTATION THEIR VERY EXTREME IDEAS AND ACTIONS CAUSED.

This comes back to the original point I made when this discussion started; in many ways Nazism was based on ideas that were common in many Western and plenty of Eastern European countries in the 20s and 30s. What made the Nazis different was the literalness and the seriousness with which they implemented these ideas, making them into a coherent ideology and world view.

The fact that, rather than genocides happening beyond their control, they actively implemented and encouraged them, making sure they would happen quickly and on a huge scale.

THERE IS NO EVIDENT OPPOSITION BETWEEN THE 'WEST' AND THE NAZIS, but THERE AUGHT TO ALWAYS BE A BATTLE AGAINST RACIST TOTALITARIAN WAR-MONGERING BIGOTS wherever they are found, the US, the UK, France, Russia etc.

same can be said about you, since you have constantly avoided my arguments with sobbing tales of "well nazis would have wanted to kill romanians too.."

you clearly have not heard of sarcasm. geez. this is the second time this happens.

I am still convinced that saint peter is not the best example to follow when confronted with a artillery barrage. but that is just me. wars are fought BECAUSE of religion, not using religion as guidance for tactics and strategy. i wonder if you feel different.

My basis is this> morality and warface do not mix so well since it is usually more visible in the case of the ones that lose, and thus in the end quite void of importance.

because it would be impossible for a person from the west to think that, right? in the west people do not think like this. they are open minded and think only like "nazis are evil", right?

well, we can't all be NUCULAR, right?

The boer concentration camps were made up because the english were annoyed the kids and wives of the boer fighters were aiding them. so they stuck them in those places and kept them and grinded them down until the boer fighters had enough of it.

you woud propably lose the bet. i bet you did not know of the concentration camps in the US for the german and japanese people, some of which were released much after the war was over.

michelson morley experiment totally denies your claim.

one outside a systems is more likely to be objective about the system than one living inside the system. my level of knowledge of the western world is aeons ahead of your knowledgre of the communist world, which you gave as an example when saying that i am a prisoner of communist mentality.

how do i know that? because the communism was EVIL too. at least the books your must have read told this story. incidentally i think that communism was bad too so here we agree.

thank you for proving my point. nazis were politically extreme.

political calculation of the economics of combat. who would want to waste a lot of time on their opponent when it has the option of finishing him off quickly.

i totally agree. add israel to that list

Hi Guys,

The talk about "Concentration Camps" is not very productive in terms of Nazi evil or otherwise. It was the Extermination Camps that arguably made the Nazi regime stand out, not its Concentration Camps.

Cheers,

Sid.

same can be said about you, since you have constantly avoided my arguments with sobbing tales of "well nazis would have wanted to kill romanians too.."

you clearly have not heard of sarcasm. geez. this is the second time this happens.

I am still convinced that saint peter is not the best example to follow when confronted with a artillery barrage. but that is just me. wars are fought BECAUSE of religion, not using religion as guidance for tactics and strategy. i wonder if you feel different.

My basis is this> morality and warface do not mix so well since it is usually more visible in the case of the ones that lose, and thus in the end quite void of importance.

because it would be impossible for a person from the west to think that, right? in the west people do not think like this. they are open minded and think only like "nazis are evil", right?

well, we can't all be NUCULAR, right?

The boer concentration camps were made up because the english were annoyed the kids and wives of the boer fighters were aiding them. so they stuck them in those places and kept them and grinded them down until the boer fighters had enough of it.

you woud propably lose the bet. i bet you did not know of the concentration camps in the US for the german and japanese people, some of which were released much after the war was over.

michelson morley experiment totally denies your claim.

one outside a systems is more likely to be objective about the system than one living inside the system. my level of knowledge of the western world is aeons ahead of your knowledgre of the communist world, which you gave as an example when saying that i am a prisoner of communist mentality.

how do i know that? because the communism was EVIL too. at least the books your must have read told this story. incidentally i think that communism was bad too so here we agree.

thank you for proving my point. nazis were politically extreme.

political calculation of the economics of combat. who would want to waste a lot of time on their opponent when it has the option of finishing him off quickly.

i totally agree. add israel to that list

Suparatu,

I have to say, charitably, most of what you said this time is just b*****ks!

running out of arguments, are we, sausagedefrrachise?

"sausagedefrrachise"

not another superlube attempt at wit ??

Kevin in Deva.