I hated history at school and often spent the time doodling in the margin of my exercise book or staring aimlessly out of the window until such time i could drop it like a hot potato and choose something interesting like Art & Design instead.
What i did miss out on was the Second World War and exactly what Hitler and the Nazi's were all about. Everything gleaned since has been from films and documentaries but the general feeling was that the Nazi's were evil because they killed lots of people. Since the 1940's there have been lots of wars and millions of people have been killed, the Iraq invasion has killed over a million people so far but nobody has called the British Labour Party or the American Republicans Nazi's so maybe it isn't in the number.
Maybe it is the fact that the Nazi's whipped up the crowd with falsehoods to support their highly dodgy invasion of Czechoslovakia and Poland but again, that's exactly what Bush & Blair did and to the United Nations and their own citizens.
Possibly it is because the Nazi's not just invaded a country but took over the Government but haven't we recently removed the Afghan and Iraq leaders and put our own guys in?
So it must be that the Nazi's violently and barbarically killed Jews in such large numbers but haven't the descendants of those same Jews just been killing captive Palestinians, and for the past 60 years, in massive numbers with the aid of chemical weapons?
As i said at the start, my grip on history is shaky at best but the Vikings, Romans and British have at some point invaded and barbarically killed others in large numbers, America and Israel have been the busiest when it comes to invading, fighting wars and taking over other peoples land since the Nazi regime. So i ask, why are the Nazis vilified for doing what they did when at some point or another since, it seems someone else has done the same thing?
24 comments:
Good question. Because they can get away with it?
I do wonder Annie why the Nazi's are held up as the most evil for invading and killing people and that is exactly what we have done throughout history and continue to do. Why not the Romans who invaded more countries or the Vikings who slaughtered everyone they met or the British who were putting prisoners in concentration camps a long time before the Nazis did it.
Seems the worst ones since Hitlers gang have managed to get away with it.
Well, what a refreshing post! Congratulations, Paul.
Questions do need to be asked about events that occurred in the past and are occurring at the present time. Stock answers, based on massive indoctrination and deliberate disinformation, from apologists and appeasers must be rejected.
There is no difference between what the Nazis tried to do and what the Americans have been doing since WW2.
The only real difference is that the leaders of America are better liars!
I can't get to leave any comments on your blog David as it says that i am not a member of Falling on A Bruise.
I think it is a reasonable question to ask what made the Nazis stand out as the most evil when history and current history is full of countries doing the same thing to the people of other countries. Aren't they all as evil as each other?
Paul, when Lucy first mentioned this commenting problem I assumed it was a problem with her site that had been fixed. This explains why I haven't heard from her for a long time.
I got my boy to check the scene out as he's the computer expert. His words follow:
"I managed to log onto and comment on the DC site using my Blogger Account so I don't see why you are having problems if you use yours.
If you can't comment still, then try omitting your website URL when filling out the comment box."
Well, I sure hope that works for you. Meanwhile, I find it surprising you don't have the usual suspects howling with protests over your post. Perhaps they can't handle your honesty?
Cheers.
Hmm...
I'm pretty certain you've somewhat overstepped your poetic license with metaphor and hyperbole.
The whole United States, Israel, Nazi thing... well...
Anyways the Soviets and Chinese Communists killed a lot more. And Bush and Blair weren't trying to kill however many, and they didn't actually kill so many. The Arabs took care of each other in Iraq for the most part.
And while it is touching to romanticize the plight of the Arabs in the Southern Levant, I'm pretty sure they (as a stereotypical nation aggregate) aren't innocent victims. Although you do have to give a bit of heat to the British for promising the Southern Levant to three different groups of people. Obviously only one can get any one bit. I guess we could give it back to the Turks who had it before the British.
And Godwin's Law got triggered pretty early on.
-Nog
I think the real reasons why we consider the Nazis to be the worst might have something to do with all the shouting, the dodgy haircuts, and the funny walk.
And the skulls of course!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEle_DLDg9Y
Lucy added me David but she seems to think it must be a problem with how this is set up as she has the same problem but not all the time with some other sites. I will try and leave out the URL next time.
As for people howling at me, i have no problem with howling back at them if they can't act properly.
Nog, United States Dems & Reps, Israels Parties, British Labour & Cons, Stalins Party, Maos Communist Party, Milosevic's Serbian Party and many many others. All responible for killing large numbers of people, all invaded somewhere else, all as bad as each other and if not why not? Because the Nazis killed more or invaded more countries or something else? Ideology perhaps?
Some people think that spouting lots of indoctrination and pub talk is evidence of thinking.
You're right, Paul. Ideology turns people into intellectual sheep!
Paul,
Are you looking for a serious answer?
The level of abstraction you are using here is makes everything but losing a war unjustifiable.
Hitler imprisoned federal judges and elected officials that disagreed with him. In the US 100 senators and 434 out of 435 congress people voted to invade.
Hilter invaded countries because he thought it was rightfully German territory. While the US was wrong about Iraq having WMDs, the whole world agreed that Iraq had them, and Saddam acted like he had them - he didn't expect his bluff to be called. Plus, like Lybia and Syria, if Saddam had let the US look for Al Qeida in Iraq the US would not have invaded.
Hitler had no intention of leaving any nation he occupied. The US will get our of Iraq (eventually), just like we got out of Kuwait and Iraq in 1991.
Hitler was pursuing the extinction or slavery of all races except the arian race.
Hitler killed millions of Jews - most of them German - his own citizens. While many non-mil Iraqis were killed, most were killed by their fellow Iraqis and by Syrians and Iranians - not the US.
Israel killing non-mil people in the Gaza while trying to kill militants is not the same as Germany killing non-mil Jews as their primary target. And, the equating of the US to Germany by linking the actions of Israel to the US is non-sense. That is like saying that Japan killed the Jews since Germany and Japan had a pact.
Q
"While the US was wrong about Iraq having WMDs, the whole world agreed that Iraq had them, and Saddam acted like he had them - he didn't expect his bluff to be called."
Q- I agree with most of what you wrote, mate, but the bit above is pure Kool-Aid.
"if Saddam had let the US look for Al Qeida in Iraq the US would not have invaded."
Oh, and that bit is obviously very weird too. The invasion was about looking for Al Qaeda now?
Shucks, they should've asked me, I could have told them they'd find a shitload more of those guys in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan... Al Qaeda had no particular presence in Iraq prior to the US-led invasion... And 'Al Qaeda' is a very nebulous thing to try and define anyway - (e.g. at what point does someone who's had his kids' heads blown off by an American bomber - and who therefore decides to start planting IEDs in the way of American tanks - become a 'member' of Al Qaeda?).
It's a bit scary these ideas are still floating around the place. Fair enough to make the case that the Nazis were worse than the Bushies - most of us will agree with you - but it's not helpful to keep on perpetuating long-debunked theories.
Paul, I didn't know that you had made the case that the Nazis were worse than the Bushies. I can't find that claim anywhere in your post or comments although Cheezy obviously thinks he can.
I thought you said that: "why are the Nazis vilified for doing what they did when at some point or another since, it seems someone else has done the same thing?"
Perhaps Cheezy could point out where you made the claim. Either that or withdraw his spurious, red-herring allegation!
David - it's time for your next mogadon.
My comment "Fair enough to make the case that the Nazis were worse than the Bushies" was not in response to anything Paul said. It was written in response to Q's post, which was... wait for it... about how the Nazis were worse than the Bushies. Which is an opinion that I agree with.
I put Q's post up the top of my comment, to try and make it clear that it was Q's post I was discussing. I'm sorry if it's all a bit confusing for you.
That's all right, Cheezy. I realize that writing clearly is not your strong suit.
Usually, if you are addressing a particular commenter the convention is to mention their name.
Undoubtedly, you do your best! We can't ask for more.
Cheers.
"I realize that writing clearly is not your strong suit."
Righto David... but y'know, I really appreciate all the effort you put in to understand my strange witterings. Thing is, I aspire to be like this guy on the internet who has this phenomenal writing ability that enables him to say - with pretty much every post that he makes, 'people who disagree with me are real dumb'.
Now that's real writing skill.
It cuts right to the chase. The rest of us seem to get distracted by things like logical argument and evidence - y'know, things requiring intellect. Whereas secretly we all want to be like this guy.
OK, sarcasm over. I'm sorry to bore the rest of you, but this next bit is just for the special student sitting at the back of the class scratching himself with a ruler...
Point #1: The comment you found fault with begins with a quote and then my first sentence says "Oh, and that bit is obviously very weird too."
Point #2: The word too signifies I am about to make an ancillary point to one I had previously made.
Point #3: But where is this previous point? Oh! Look! It's the comment right above. One that starts with the sentence "Q- I agree with most of what you wrote, mate, but the bit above is pure Kool-Aid."
Point #4: Try reading stuff. It helps.
So Cheezy, if Lucy got 150 plus comments as some blogs do, what you're saying is that people should go back and read the 150 comments so they can identify who you are talking about or to.
That is asinine but, coming from you, it's not unexpected!
Cheers.
Q - I hoped for a 'oh, so thats why' answer. I wasnt picking on Bush or America in general, just used them as obvious current examples. I meant throughout history are the Nazis the worst ever and if so because with a bit of googling i imagine we could find plenty of others who have done the same as the Nazis so what makes them the worst ever.
But you didn't have to read 150 comments in order to work out what was going on, David. You just had to read the actual comment that you were referring to in your own comment, and then the one prior to it, which was explicitly referenced in the comment that you were referring to. You just basically had to read it, and have a bit of a think. Hope this helps.
Cheers.
Paul,
I see. Good clarification. In response I sould say the following.
1. The nazi are recent hisory and affected all of the western world - and its historians - so the history hasn't had a chance to be objectively normalized. Though even when it is normalized they will stand out for:
- invading a dozen or more nations with the express intent of eliminating all races except theirs
- rounding up and summarily executing millions of men, women, and children as a starting point for their racial purification
- performing freakish experiments on humans
2. At that time, most of the world agreed on one thing - hitler and the nazi sucked!
3. Many of the people that fought them still live. My grandfather just died 2 years ago and he called the Germans, krauts, and the Japanese, nips, until the day he died. I ask for tolerance on his memory because he lost family members in Europe and the Pacific including a cousin on the Arizona in Pearl Harbor.
Q
Cheezy,
I know that most people think W and the US invaded Iraq for other reasons. I happen to think those are dumb. The two that come to mind are:
1. for oil - like we can't buy all we want from Suadi and Kuwait. I will say that this is at least a possible reason though I think unprobable
2. to get even for Daddy (George H. Bush) or to finish what Daddy started - to me this is loopy thinking
So, I stand by what I consider to be viable reasons:
1. WMDs
2. Trying to track down Al Queada (don't have to smack Suadi Arabia or others because they are cooperating)
3. The threat still posed by Iraq to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait - oil motive disguised
4. Maybe oil
Q
"I'm sorry to bore the rest of you..."
This part-comment from above comes from someone who is not only a complete bore but rarely says anything even remotely intelligent or perceptive!
Cheers.
Paul, there is no difference between what the Nazis did and the use of atomic bombs on Japan, and the carpet bombing of Dresden and Cambodia, and the shock and awe in Iraq and Vietnam and Gaza, etc. Winners write the history and they spin it to suit themselves.
In the case of America, clearly they have been engaged in a stealthy occupation of the world since WW2 hence the large amount of their military bases all over the world and their invasions of countries for their resources and/or to gain a strategic position militarily.
Thanks for your astute question!
David -
Grown up time now, off you go then. Cheers.
Q -
1. These are the WMDs the experts were saying probably weren't there, right? This fails the credibility test.
2. Right. So the answer was to 'smack' a country where Al Qaeda weren't? (And anyone with an ounce of knowledge about the Muslim world knew they weren't?) This one fails the logic test.
3. So Iraq was a threat to Saudi and Kuwait with the WMDs they didn't have? This one is so weak it wasn't even cited at the time.
4. "Maybe oil" Western interest in Iraq has always been mainly about the oil - but it's very political too. There were competing interests in Team Bush - you can basically divide them into the "friends of OPEC" (old Republicans, who wanted the Saudis to retain their price-setting powers) and the "foes of OPEC" (neocons - who are ideologues who wanted to open up the Iraqi oil fields to free competition i.e. basically have multinationals come in and exploit them, busting OPEC wide open). The latter group were the main ones pushing for an invasion of Iraq after 9-11, but at a vital point during the invasion of Iraq - basically when it all starts going tits up, both on the ground in Iraq and when the rationale for the whole adventure starts to fall apart - the first group started holding sway over major decisions.
5. You forgot this one: The need to smack an obvious bad guy in front of a TV audience. The 2004 Presidential election was dependent on this one.
You haven't yet justified your theory about Saddam Hussein's alleged 'bluff'... Myself, I find articles like this well-referenced one a lot more compelling than the conventional wisdom that seems to have evolved in the MSM.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3256
Post a Comment