Not directly related to the discussion, but interesting. From the October 18th edition of the New York Post:
"German Poll's Nazi Shocker
Berlin-A quarter of Germans believe there were some positive aspects to Nazi rule, according to a poll published yesterday-a finding that comes after a popular talk show host was fired for praising Nazi Germany's attitude toward motherhood.
Pollsters for the Forsa agency, commissioned by by the weekly magazine Stern, asked whether National Socialism had some "good sides, (such as) the construction of the highway system, the elimination of unemployment, the low criminality rate (and) the encouragement of family."
Forsa said 25 percent responded "yes"-but 70 percent said "no."
Stern commissioned the survey after Germany's NDR public broadcaster last month fired talk show host Eva Herman over comments she made about the Third Reich. AP"
Full Version: Shadowrun and Antifa
Of course. One would be hard-pressed to find a regime in the history of this earth so awful that no aspect of it can be look at as better than what came shortly before or after. While horribly regressive in a larger sense, for the time the National Socialist treatment of women was closer to what we might term "enlightened" than abroad or in Germany previously.
I'm more shocked at the 70%, though human blindness doesn't really surprise me much these days.
~J
I'm more shocked at the 70%, though human blindness doesn't really surprise me much these days.
~J
It's such a loaded question that I'm surprised 70% just reflexively shook their head and insisted otherwise.
Yes, there were SOME positive aspects, or it never would have become popular. I'm saddened that only one German in three was willing to admit that.
Yes, there were SOME positive aspects, or it never would have become popular. I'm saddened that only one German in three was willing to admit that.
i'm not. like you said, it's a loaded question, especially since it was asked in Germany. it's like going up to a recent mugging victim and asking if he thinks crime is going down. regardless of the (lies, damn lies and) statistics, i imagine there are few mugging victims who would answer "yes".
for that matter, i don't think it's a very fair to formulate it as yes-or-no. Nazi Germany has, pretty much since WWII, been presented to the public at large as Bad Guys with no redeeming qualities. you are either horrified (in a learned-in-history-class sort of way) by the Holocaust, or you're a Neo-Nazi. there's no in between, or at least that's how the world has been raised to believe. the core problem isn't the selection of facts that are presented or not presented to us in the course of our education, it's how the presentation is made--namely, in terms of black and white, yes or no. framing a question like that in terms of yes or no just reinforces those notions. of course 70% of Germans (and, i'd bet, similar figures for other nations) are going to reply that no, Nazi Germany had no redeeming qualities, because the only other choice the question gives them--regardless of how the question is actually worded, so long as it's framed as yes-or-no--is "yes, i am a skinhead and i want to burn Jews."
for that matter, i don't think it's a very fair to formulate it as yes-or-no. Nazi Germany has, pretty much since WWII, been presented to the public at large as Bad Guys with no redeeming qualities. you are either horrified (in a learned-in-history-class sort of way) by the Holocaust, or you're a Neo-Nazi. there's no in between, or at least that's how the world has been raised to believe. the core problem isn't the selection of facts that are presented or not presented to us in the course of our education, it's how the presentation is made--namely, in terms of black and white, yes or no. framing a question like that in terms of yes or no just reinforces those notions. of course 70% of Germans (and, i'd bet, similar figures for other nations) are going to reply that no, Nazi Germany had no redeeming qualities, because the only other choice the question gives them--regardless of how the question is actually worded, so long as it's framed as yes-or-no--is "yes, i am a skinhead and i want to burn Jews."
| QUOTE (Grinder) |
| Especially not in Germany and Italy. |
I'd blame what happened in Germany on the inherent flaws of the parliamentary system, myself.
I'd go more towards the cultural rage and shame at the Treaty of Versailles (combined with the vast economic damage caused by it), but your kilometerage may vary.
~J
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Of course. One would be hard-pressed to find a regime in the history of this earth so awful that no aspect of it can be look at as better than what came shortly before or after. While horribly regressive in a larger sense, for the time the National Socialist treatment of women was closer to what we might term "enlightened" than abroad or in Germany previously. I'm more shocked at the 70%, though human blindness doesn't really surprise me much these days. ~J |
I don't really see too much of a problem here.
A thing can both be terrible and have some positive aspects.
A pedophile serial killer might be a good cook and come up with an awesome recipe for chili. The cooking and chili are good aspects, but that person is still horrible for it.
You don't see a problem? You grant that the 70% are wrong, but it's ok for some reason? Care to explain that?
~J
~J
The 70% aren't wrong. They're responding carefully to a loaded question, as mfb noted.
Personally I think it results from the fact that it is an accepted historical perspective (worldwide, I should note) to view 1933 and 1945 as the "breaking points" of German history. Before and After differ like (or at the very least are considered to be as different as) night and day. This view has influenced most of post-war historical education AND THUS political thinking in Germany. Intellectuals know that there is no such thing as a complete and perfect break between two systems, but that's not the view held by the man on the street. (Who is, incidentally, the one answering the questions of the Forsa agency.)
Whatever the reason, however, I rather living around people that consider the Nazi regime irredeemable than around people who generally do not think so. But this has nothing to do with the (entirely reasonable) question of which aspects of the years from '33 until '45 have been carried over into postwar society.
Personally I think it results from the fact that it is an accepted historical perspective (worldwide, I should note) to view 1933 and 1945 as the "breaking points" of German history. Before and After differ like (or at the very least are considered to be as different as) night and day. This view has influenced most of post-war historical education AND THUS political thinking in Germany. Intellectuals know that there is no such thing as a complete and perfect break between two systems, but that's not the view held by the man on the street. (Who is, incidentally, the one answering the questions of the Forsa agency.)
Whatever the reason, however, I rather living around people that consider the Nazi regime irredeemable than around people who generally do not think so. But this has nothing to do with the (entirely reasonable) question of which aspects of the years from '33 until '45 have been carried over into postwar society.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| You don't see a problem? You grant that the 70% are wrong, but it's ok for some reason? Care to explain that? ~J |
I said much of a problem I didn't say there wasn't a problem.
Personally I think many of Germany's speech restriction laws are deplorable, but understandable considering history.
First of all, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Holocaust was a bad thing.
Of course I'm being flip because I'm a jackass, but also there's a relevant point; systems of thought don't enter societal consciousness on the basis of what they should be, they enter it based on what they've been. Maybe in some classroom in some ivory tower somewhere, there's a bunch of eggheads talking about the philosophical underpinnings of communism and fascism, but I don't think that affects most people on the street. Just because a corporation acts like a bunch of fascists (and yeah, I use the term derogatorily) doesn't mean they'll come out and say that they're fascists. Once a system is seen to be a failure--like fascism--the terminology falls out of vogue, if nothing else. It's not like Hitler was the last dude to get his people to put each other in camps and fill up mass graves with bulldozers full of civillians, but the other despots haven't come out and called themselves Nazis, no matter how much they've acted the part. Corporations and governments in the Sixth World aren't going to call themselves fascists. But throwing the term about has a lot of advantages for the Neo-Anarchist crowd. If you need any evidence of the effectiveness of sticking a label on your opponents, just look at the fact that we don't have universal health coverage in the US because it's "socialist."
Also there's the fact that the term "fascist" just seems more authoritarian than "communist." You can argue all you want about how bad Stalin was, but the fact that this country flipped out for such a prolonged period of time over communism and oppressed its own people in order to fight it gives "communist" a sort of rebellious panache that "fascist" just doesn't have. The Man is always a fascist, whatever policies He's imposing. Perception is way more important in this sort of thing than whatever ideals the Doctrine of Fascism lays out. I mean, fascism as Hyzmarca describes it seems like rocking good times. But I'm still going to judge it by a) the things Mussolini and Hitler and Franco did, and b) the actions of all the people I've known that have described themselves as fascists.
Of course I'm being flip because I'm a jackass, but also there's a relevant point; systems of thought don't enter societal consciousness on the basis of what they should be, they enter it based on what they've been. Maybe in some classroom in some ivory tower somewhere, there's a bunch of eggheads talking about the philosophical underpinnings of communism and fascism, but I don't think that affects most people on the street. Just because a corporation acts like a bunch of fascists (and yeah, I use the term derogatorily) doesn't mean they'll come out and say that they're fascists. Once a system is seen to be a failure--like fascism--the terminology falls out of vogue, if nothing else. It's not like Hitler was the last dude to get his people to put each other in camps and fill up mass graves with bulldozers full of civillians, but the other despots haven't come out and called themselves Nazis, no matter how much they've acted the part. Corporations and governments in the Sixth World aren't going to call themselves fascists. But throwing the term about has a lot of advantages for the Neo-Anarchist crowd. If you need any evidence of the effectiveness of sticking a label on your opponents, just look at the fact that we don't have universal health coverage in the US because it's "socialist."
Also there's the fact that the term "fascist" just seems more authoritarian than "communist." You can argue all you want about how bad Stalin was, but the fact that this country flipped out for such a prolonged period of time over communism and oppressed its own people in order to fight it gives "communist" a sort of rebellious panache that "fascist" just doesn't have. The Man is always a fascist, whatever policies He's imposing. Perception is way more important in this sort of thing than whatever ideals the Doctrine of Fascism lays out. I mean, fascism as Hyzmarca describes it seems like rocking good times. But I'm still going to judge it by a) the things Mussolini and Hitler and Franco did, and b) the actions of all the people I've known that have described themselves as fascists.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| I'd go more towards the cultural rage and shame at the Treaty of Versailles (combined with the vast economic damage caused by it), but your kilometerage may vary. ~J |
| QUOTE |
| I'd blame what happened in Germany on the inherent flaws of the parliamentary system, myself. |
Really? I blame it on the Jews.
Just kiddin'.
| QUOTE (martindv) | ||
I'd blame what happened in Germany on the inherent flaws of the parliamentary system, myself. |
And the fact that a large part of the population despised the democratic system.
| QUOTE (CircuitBoyBlue) |
| It's not like Hitler was the last dude to get his people to put each other in camps and fill up mass graves with bulldozers full of civilians, |
...Slobodan Milošević comes to mind...and he was never really considered a fascist or even a dictator.
| QUOTE (Gerzel) |
| Personally I think many of Germany's speech restriction laws are deplorable, but understandable considering history. |
Yeah, the best way to atone for a totalitarian state that told people what to think and say is to... tell people what (and what NOT) to think and say?
Does not compute.
| QUOTE (Zhan Shi) |
| Not directly related to the discussion, but interesting. From the October 18th edition of the New York Post: "German Poll's Nazi Shocker Berlin-A quarter of Germans believe there were some positive aspects to Nazi rule, according to a poll published yesterday-a finding that comes after a popular talk show host was fired for praising Nazi Germany's attitude toward motherhood. Pollsters for the Forsa agency, commissioned by by the weekly magazine Stern, asked whether National Socialism had some "good sides, (such as) the construction of the highway system, the elimination of unemployment, the low criminality rate (and) the encouragement of family." Forsa said 25 percent responded "yes"-but 70 percent said "no." Stern commissioned the survey after Germany's NDR public broadcaster last month fired talk show host Eva Herman over comments she made about the Third Reich. AP" |
I really hope that noone is wondering that most germans don't think that during the Third Reich anything good was done. I mean, hell, the Nazis wiped out 6 millions jewish people, brought war to most of europe and a huge part of the rest of the world and suppressed everyone who was stepping out of line. Like a friend of mine said recently: "Even if the Nazis did one good thing, it doesn't mean anything. They were hellish bastards."
I'm upset that 25% of the people acutally said "yes" to the question.
Fuck the ethnicity. The Third Reich death camps claimed between nine and eleven million people.
Nevertheless, the question asks something very specific, which is whether it had good sides. I am deeply disappointed that people will either fail or refuse to see good sides that existed, especially in historical context, or will mentally transform the question in the way mfb notes.
~J
Nevertheless, the question asks something very specific, which is whether it had good sides. I am deeply disappointed that people will either fail or refuse to see good sides that existed, especially in historical context, or will mentally transform the question in the way mfb notes.
~J
| QUOTE |
| Fuck the ethnicity. |
What do you mean by this?
| QUOTE |
| The Third Reich death camps claimed between nine and eleven million people. |
Didn't know that it had been so many victims. Learned in school that the concentration camps and forced labor camps killed six million people.
| QUOTE |
| Nevertheless, the question asks something very specific, which is whether it had good sides. I am deeply disappointed that people will either fail or refuse to see good sides that existed, especially in historical context, or will mentally transform the question in the way mfb notes. |
The Third Reich didn't have any good side. Period.
| QUOTE (Grinder) |
| Didn't know that it had been so many victims. Learned in school that the concentration camps and forced labor camps killed six million people. |
That's the thing. You only hear about those 6 million Jews. Never the millions of others that suffered the same fate.
| QUOTE |
| The Third Reich didn't have any good side. Period. |
I know it's a touchy subject, but you really can't be that blind, can you?
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
That's the thing. You only hear about those 6 million Jews. Never the millions of others that suffered the same fate. |
In Germany the six million killed Jews are the main number that is in our head when we talk about concentration camps. Of course many more people suffered the same fate who were no Jews. I didn't want to appear ignorant of that fact - seems like conditioning kicked it.
| QUOTE | ||
I know it's a touchy subject, but you really can't be that blind, can you? |
It's a difficult topic for me, yes.
What good sides had the Third Reich have?
| QUOTE (Fortune) | ||
I know it's a touchy subject, but you really can't be that blind, can you? |
The Nazi regime did leave behind some things that turned out to be useful -- but these were mostly 'tools' (for want of a better word, but you get my drift -- the Autobahn is a prominent case) not at all connected to the Reich as such. It may also have had some elements that turned out to be salvageable for use by a democratic society, but I'm going out on a limb on this (and further out that I am comfortable discussing, considering that I by no means qualify as a historian).
It did not, however, have good sides.
| QUOTE (Grinder @ Oct 20 2007, 03:43 PM) | ||
What do you mean by this? |
As Fortune noted later, that was my way of indicating that I'm adding back in the people killed in the death camps who weren't Jewish.
| QUOTE |
| What good sides had the Third Reich have? |
One example that I alluded to earlier was the Third Reich's stance on the role of women in society. While horribly backwards by today's standards, and certainly anti-emancipatory, Third Reich Germany took strides towards sexual emancipation (in limited ways—homosexuals need not apply, for example.) and the idea that physical fitness and athletic ability were acceptable qualities in women.
Though the war effort overrode most of the intended good, the Third Reich legislated environmental protection that was, from what I've been able to tell, unusually aggressive for its time.
The Third Reich created the freeway with the construction of the Autobahn.
That's what comes to mind offhand.
Edit: ah, so if we want that definition of "side", the Third Reich still had a good side: its attention to social welfare and support for workers.
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) | ||
One example that I alluded to earlier was the Third Reich's stance on the role of women in society. While horribly backwards by today's standards, and certainly anti-emancipatory, Third Reich Germany took strides towards sexual emancipation (in limited ways—homosexuals need not apply, for example.) and the idea that physical fitness and athletic ability were acceptable qualities in women. Though the war effort overrode most of the intended good, the Third Reich legislated environmental protection that was, from what I've been able to tell, unusually aggressive for its time. The Third Reich created the freeway with the construction of the Autobahn. That's what comes to mind offhand. Edit: ah, so if we want that definition of "side", the Third Reich still had a good side: its attention to social welfare and support for workers. |
I agree with Eurotroll: the Nazis left some stuff that was useful (like the mentioned Autobahnen), but such things fade to nothing when it comes to my mind what kind of people are responsible for building it.
As much as I appreciate your solid knowledge and judgement of the topic, Kagetenshi, I have to disagree with you: the role of the woman, the social welfare and the Reichsarbeitsdienst (support for workers) are by no means "good". To me (and this topic is about personal view than anything else) they're maybe (and it's a big maybe) good things/programs/sides that happened during the reign of the Nazis, but are cursed due to the mindset and deeds of the creators. The Nazi regime brought death to millions and millions of people, and not "only" in wartime action, but in industrialized annihilation. That's simply disgusting and taints everything else they've done. Rightly, I think.
...personally, I do not really see freeways (the Autobahn) as necessarily an improvement.
For example: here in the US:
By bypassing "street level" commerce districts they have impacted local economics. In the rural areas they bypass towns that were once dependent on passing traffic for commerce.
In cities they became barriers between or even bisecting neighbourhoods while displacing homes and businesses.
In our metropolitan areas, they encouraged an even greater use of and dependence on the private car over other modes of transportation. This in turn brought new ills such as the traffic jam (& it's modern day side effect of road rage) as well as increased air & noise pollution. Furthermore as more cars stream into the CBDs of a city, there is the increasing dilemma of where to put them all. Eventually more high rise car parks will need to be constructed on what is already very expensive property which, were there an office or commercial structure there instead, would be generating tax revenue.
Related to the above, Freeways also contributed to the decentralising of cities.
They swallow up tremendous amounts of state and local tax revenue for maintenance and continued expansion as the traffic load increases.
Expansion only promotes an ever increasing cycle of traffic congestion rather than alleviating the situation (the "if you build them they will drive" syndrome) and thus worsens a number of the side effects mentioned above.
...nah, I agree with Grinder, this one wasn't worth the millions of lives it cost either considering the associated ills.
[edit]
...oh and please, keep the plascrete brick tossing to a minimum. Thanks.
For example: here in the US:
By bypassing "street level" commerce districts they have impacted local economics. In the rural areas they bypass towns that were once dependent on passing traffic for commerce.
In cities they became barriers between or even bisecting neighbourhoods while displacing homes and businesses.
In our metropolitan areas, they encouraged an even greater use of and dependence on the private car over other modes of transportation. This in turn brought new ills such as the traffic jam (& it's modern day side effect of road rage) as well as increased air & noise pollution. Furthermore as more cars stream into the CBDs of a city, there is the increasing dilemma of where to put them all. Eventually more high rise car parks will need to be constructed on what is already very expensive property which, were there an office or commercial structure there instead, would be generating tax revenue.
Related to the above, Freeways also contributed to the decentralising of cities.
They swallow up tremendous amounts of state and local tax revenue for maintenance and continued expansion as the traffic load increases.
Expansion only promotes an ever increasing cycle of traffic congestion rather than alleviating the situation (the "if you build them they will drive" syndrome) and thus worsens a number of the side effects mentioned above.
...nah, I agree with Grinder, this one wasn't worth the millions of lives it cost either considering the associated ills.
[edit]
...oh and please, keep the plascrete brick tossing to a minimum. Thanks.
| QUOTE (Grinder @ Oct 20 2007, 04:04 PM) |
| In Germany the six million killed Jews are the main number that is in our head when we talk about concentration camps. |
That because of Zionists. Zionists use "Six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust" (a number which might be an overestimation, by the way) to excuse theft, terrorism, and genocide. The entire existence of the "State Of Israel" is founded on the mythology of the Holocaust and the lie that only Jews were killed.
If we were to actually accept the truth, then we the world wouldn't be able to accept the systematic theft of homes and ceaseless murder of Arabs and Christians in the name of maintaining a 'Jewish homeland' without also accepting a the violent militant creation of a 'Gypsy Homeland', a 'homosexual homeland', a 'Freemason's homeland', a 'Jehovah's Witness's Homeland', and a 'handicapped homeland'.
As it stands, it is equivalent to the excuse used by every rapist, child abuser, and serial murder. "I was abused, so it is okay for me to do it." Some liberals take that excuse seriously and tell child molesters to go a rape as many kids as they possibly can because it isn't their fault; reasonable people don't. Yet, somehow, billions of rational individuals accept that excuse from Zionists and tell them to go oppress Muslims and Christians and even other Jews as much as they feel like in ways that wouldn't be acceptable if Communist China were doing it.
So fuck the Holocaust. Fuck the mythology of the Holocaust. It doesn't matter. It shouldn't matter. It was more than sixty year ago now. But somehow this mythology is still being perpetuated. Our guiltridden European brothers have codified it into law, to the point where anyone who suggests that maybe it is five million Jews instead of six million Jews will either be imprisoned or killed. Screw that. It isn't a mythology that should be perpetuated. The perpetuation of this mythology is why the ICC exists. It is why hundreds of little girls are being held as sex slaves right now instead of being returned to their families where they belong. Fuck that. I don't believe that sexual slavery is a good thing. But the perpetuation of sexual slavery in Africa is the direct consequence of the world's belief in the mythology of the Holocaust. So screw it all.
A bunch of people died sixty years ago. Big deal. Get over it. Most of those people would be dead by now, anyway; and most of the people involved are dead already. It does not matter.
Nothing Nazi Germany did really matters, except for the Autobahn. It is the only thing that is still around. It is the only thing that isn't dead history. There is no reason to invest any emotions in it. There is no reason to let the bad stuff that they did that doesn't matter the slightest little bit overshadow the good stuff that they did that doesn't matter the slightest little bit, because none of it matters the slightest little bit. They're dead and gone. Their actions exist in immutable dead history. They might as well be fictional characters.
And, hell, if you are a Zionist then the Holocaust was a good thing, because there would be no Israel without it. Even the Holocaust has its good side from certain perspectives, such as the Israeli perspective. As long as the Israelis can keep milking it, they can get away with anything.
| QUOTE (Kyoto Kid @ Oct 20 2007, 07:29 PM) |
| By bypassing "street level" commerce districts they have impacted local economics. In the rural areas they bypass towns that were once dependent on passing traffic for commerce. |
The logical extension of this is to find a way to maximize the number of towns any route passes through on-grade. I, at least, consider this ridiculous—even without the reduction toward absurdity, the benefits of faster ground transportation seem to me to clearly outweigh the economic impact on bypassed towns.
| QUOTE |
| In our metropolitan areas, they encouraged an even greater use of and dependence on the private car over other modes of transportation. This in turn brought new ills such as the traffic jam (& it's modern day side effect of road rage) as well as increased air & noise pollution. |
Traffic jams are caused by insufficient capacity, not by capacity. I do not dispute the pollution aspect, but dependence on vehicles is caused by absence of alternatives—it's a positive feedback loop, but the vast expenditure a car represents would be much less desirable if at any point in the past there were a serious alternative.
| QUOTE |
| Furthermore as more cars stream into the CBDs of a city, there is the increasing dilemma of where to put them all. Eventually more high rise car parks will need to be constructed on what is already very expensive property which, were there an office or commercial structure there instead, would be generating tax revenue. |
1) All these car parks are free? Many of them will be generating tax revenue themselves.
2) You assume that the office or commercial structure could be made useful without the morning population influx delivered via freeways.
| QUOTE |
| Related to the above, Freeways also contributed to the decentralising of cities. |
So long as people making decisions on where to live value housing space and housing cost, any efficient means of travel will encourage decentralization of cities. See Tokyo, a single city which occupies an area two-thirds of that of the entire state of Rhode Island.
| QUOTE |
| They swallow up tremendous amounts of state and local tax revenue for maintenance and continued expansion as the traffic load increases. |
And deliver tremendous amounts of state and local tax revenue from transportation of goods, mobility of services, and the ability of businesses to hire from a wide radius rather than from the immediate area.
| QUOTE |
| Expansion only promotes an ever increasing cycle of traffic congestion rather than alleviating the situation (the "if you build them they will drive" syndrome) and thus worsens a number of the side effects mentioned above. |
Absolutely. It also increases the benefits.
| QUOTE |
| ...nah, I agree with Grinder, this one wasn't worth the millions of lives it cost either considering the associated ills. |
You pose a difficult question. Fortunately it's one that would never have to be answered, due to the nonunique nature of most innovation, but it might actually make sense to trade the ~72,000,000 million people killed in the Great Patriotic War for the development of the freeway.
Edit: Hyzmarca: can I recommend you not use the term "holocaust"? There was no religious sacrifice, just a multiple genocide attempt (with some other targets on the side) using run-of-the-mill death camps and some fancy technology. Which brings me to my other disagreement: many remnants of the Third Reich remain. Freeways are one, but much of modern rocketry is another, and the vast quantities of scientific data gathered by experimentation on death camp prisoners is a third. There's more out there if you look.
~J
| QUOTE |
| without also accepting a the violent militant creation of a 'Gypsy Homeland', a 'homosexual homeland', a 'Freemason's homeland', a 'Jehovah's Witness's Homeland', and a 'handicapped homeland'. |
How about a Native American homeland? How many Native Americans were killed by the United States, and would the campaigns of the Indian Wars be considered genocide?
How many other countries and/or 'peoples' can say the same thing, from one side of the question or the other?
I fully support the creation of a Jute homeland.
Edit: but Hyzmarca forgot us! You'd also need an Anarchist homeland. You could probably get away with using the plain old former USSR countries for a Russian homeland, though—I don't know if you need to specifically make it a "Russian POW homeland".
~J
Edit: but Hyzmarca forgot us! You'd also need an Anarchist homeland. You could probably get away with using the plain old former USSR countries for a Russian homeland, though—I don't know if you need to specifically make it a "Russian POW homeland".
~J
| QUOTE |
| How many other countries and/or 'peoples' can say the same thing, from one side of the question or the other? |
Exactly. That's why I don't choose to feel any true sympathy for the Jewish people nor do I villify Nazis. Shit/history happens - this one event is not particularly significant to me in comparisons to the plights and atrocities of other peoples.
Holy diatribe, hyzmarca!
I hope with a dose of calming down and reflection you might rethink the various logical errors in your post... the ones mixed in with your valid points.
One thing I would like to point out is that the Nazi ideology and mindset are not gone, and therefore should not be consigned to some scrap-heap of history. They are alive, still, in Germany, elsewhere in Europe, in the U.S., in Canada, and who knows where else.
Keeping their existence in our minds is important, if for no other reason than to keep them from taking hold of another powerful nation in this century. They won't go away till humanity grows up enough to not think that way. That's a long way off.
As an interesting side note, I read in today's paper an article about the U.S. considering whether to call the mass murder of Armenians by Turkey early in the last century a genocide. Apparently, there is political resistance in the U.S. to using that word because Turkey has threatened to withdraw support for the 'war on terrorism' if such a determination is made.
Also interesting is the fact that the official U.N. definition of genocide lists groups of people to whom the word genocide can be applied but does not include 'class' as one of those groups, because Joseph Stalin vetoed that category for fear his starvation of millions of Ukrainian peasants could have been classified as genocide.
Yes, hyzmarca, political and economic concerns do often override what is right.
I hope with a dose of calming down and reflection you might rethink the various logical errors in your post... the ones mixed in with your valid points.
One thing I would like to point out is that the Nazi ideology and mindset are not gone, and therefore should not be consigned to some scrap-heap of history. They are alive, still, in Germany, elsewhere in Europe, in the U.S., in Canada, and who knows where else.
Keeping their existence in our minds is important, if for no other reason than to keep them from taking hold of another powerful nation in this century. They won't go away till humanity grows up enough to not think that way. That's a long way off.
As an interesting side note, I read in today's paper an article about the U.S. considering whether to call the mass murder of Armenians by Turkey early in the last century a genocide. Apparently, there is political resistance in the U.S. to using that word because Turkey has threatened to withdraw support for the 'war on terrorism' if such a determination is made.
Also interesting is the fact that the official U.N. definition of genocide lists groups of people to whom the word genocide can be applied but does not include 'class' as one of those groups, because Joseph Stalin vetoed that category for fear his starvation of millions of Ukrainian peasants could have been classified as genocide.
Yes, hyzmarca, political and economic concerns do often override what is right.
...(In reference to hyzmarca's post) ...hokay...looks like it's time to get out of the pool here until the waters cool down a bit. Been an interesting read but becoming a bit too personalised for this swimmer.
Now in reply to Kage...[rubbing the lump from that last brick]
1. The US had a decent transportation system, literally one of the best in the world that was sold out "lock stock & barrel" in the late 50s (major thesis of mine in college). It was called the Interurban and surface street rail system (streetcars) that disappeared almost overnight. The onslaught continues with further cuts to intercity rail, local transit systems, and regional transportation.
2. Freeway expansion does encourage more traffic, maybe not right away but I have seen within a year, a widened freeway just as choked with cars as it was before it was improved. Also, while you can add more lanes, you still have to get the cars on and off somewhere which only aggravates the congestion further.
3. Cities (such as my hometown) give tax incentives for building car parks in hopes of alleviating the dreaded "parking issue" that would scare people away from the CBD. However in the long run they are actually aggravating the issue they are trying to resolve. The more that driving into the CBD is "encouraged" (by the offering of more parking spots), the worse the situation becomes until gridlock ensues. Also before there were freeways people rode the Interurbans and streetcars to the CBD for work, shopping and events. Back then many cities' downtowns were vibrant places compared to today. Decent transit, as we once had, would still bring people in.
4. To a point, I'll concede the decentralisation issue somewhat with regards to Tokyo but that is an extreme as it is the most populous metropolitan in the word. Here in the US the push to the suburbs coincided with the proliferation of expressways and the automobile that benefited from them, not development of mass transit which was at the time actually on the decline.
5. Look at the aging bridge issue that recently has come to light. It will take billions (mostly at the state level) to bring many of these spans back up to standard not to mention the disruption while repairs are effected. Drive the freeways in King County, WA., many areas of which are almost a "washboard" and have been in bad need of repair for nearly two decades. To upgrade the Interstate and local freeway systems to a "quality" state of repair would require a massive capital outlay on all levels, federal, state, and local. Where will that money come from, especially in the case of cash strapped cities which are closing schools, scaling back social programmes, and even cutting transit, to reduce budget shortfalls?
6. As of late, the negative aspects of building more and enlarging freeways are becoming less and less balanced out by the positive benefits for many of the reaons I have already mentioned.
7. The modern freeway was not worth it, especially when most of the benefits could have easily been achieved though a commitment to upgrading the existing transportation system we already had in place.
...okay, now where's that towel?
Now in reply to Kage...[rubbing the lump from that last brick]
1. The US had a decent transportation system, literally one of the best in the world that was sold out "lock stock & barrel" in the late 50s (major thesis of mine in college). It was called the Interurban and surface street rail system (streetcars) that disappeared almost overnight. The onslaught continues with further cuts to intercity rail, local transit systems, and regional transportation.
2. Freeway expansion does encourage more traffic, maybe not right away but I have seen within a year, a widened freeway just as choked with cars as it was before it was improved. Also, while you can add more lanes, you still have to get the cars on and off somewhere which only aggravates the congestion further.
3. Cities (such as my hometown) give tax incentives for building car parks in hopes of alleviating the dreaded "parking issue" that would scare people away from the CBD. However in the long run they are actually aggravating the issue they are trying to resolve. The more that driving into the CBD is "encouraged" (by the offering of more parking spots), the worse the situation becomes until gridlock ensues. Also before there were freeways people rode the Interurbans and streetcars to the CBD for work, shopping and events. Back then many cities' downtowns were vibrant places compared to today. Decent transit, as we once had, would still bring people in.
4. To a point, I'll concede the decentralisation issue somewhat with regards to Tokyo but that is an extreme as it is the most populous metropolitan in the word. Here in the US the push to the suburbs coincided with the proliferation of expressways and the automobile that benefited from them, not development of mass transit which was at the time actually on the decline.
5. Look at the aging bridge issue that recently has come to light. It will take billions (mostly at the state level) to bring many of these spans back up to standard not to mention the disruption while repairs are effected. Drive the freeways in King County, WA., many areas of which are almost a "washboard" and have been in bad need of repair for nearly two decades. To upgrade the Interstate and local freeway systems to a "quality" state of repair would require a massive capital outlay on all levels, federal, state, and local. Where will that money come from, especially in the case of cash strapped cities which are closing schools, scaling back social programmes, and even cutting transit, to reduce budget shortfalls?
6. As of late, the negative aspects of building more and enlarging freeways are becoming less and less balanced out by the positive benefits for many of the reaons I have already mentioned.
7. The modern freeway was not worth it, especially when most of the benefits could have easily been achieved though a commitment to upgrading the existing transportation system we already had in place.
...okay, now where's that towel?
To join in the freeway debate:
KK, the street cars only made sense on an intraurban level, within cities. Intercity, you had the rail lines, which had capacity limits.
The Interstate highway system was incredibly necessary - those who say it wasn't don't realize how bad the long-haul transport system in the US was before it was built.
It's instructive, perhaps, that the Interstate was built under Eisenhower. Besides his WW2 experience, he'd been one of the army officers that took part in the 1919 transcontinental motor convoy - a simple idea, right? Just send trucks along the roads? (It didn't go offroad once.) Nope. It took 2 months, thanks to delays that included getting stuck in mud.
You can move a lot over rail - but railways have a capacity limit that is even firmer than that of freeways.
(McDonald's is a similar story - yes, they've now wiped out a lot of decent places in...everywhere, but they initially were a hell of an improvement over the roadside eateries that were common before McDonald's brought at least a level of quality. You think McD's sucks? Be happy you never risked what came before.)
KK, the street cars only made sense on an intraurban level, within cities. Intercity, you had the rail lines, which had capacity limits.
The Interstate highway system was incredibly necessary - those who say it wasn't don't realize how bad the long-haul transport system in the US was before it was built.
It's instructive, perhaps, that the Interstate was built under Eisenhower. Besides his WW2 experience, he'd been one of the army officers that took part in the 1919 transcontinental motor convoy - a simple idea, right? Just send trucks along the roads? (It didn't go offroad once.) Nope. It took 2 months, thanks to delays that included getting stuck in mud.
You can move a lot over rail - but railways have a capacity limit that is even firmer than that of freeways.
(McDonald's is a similar story - yes, they've now wiped out a lot of decent places in...everywhere, but they initially were a hell of an improvement over the roadside eateries that were common before McDonald's brought at least a level of quality. You think McD's sucks? Be happy you never risked what came before.)
| QUOTE |
| They are alive, still, in Germany, elsewhere in Europe, in the U.S., in Canada, and who knows where else. |
national alliance
resistance records
national socialist movement
overthrow
american nazi party
british national party
national democratic party of germany
new fascists
canadian neo nazis
canadian white nationalists
'nuff said
Also, see "Hate Rock", a documentary about Skinhead music. Interviews and profiles of many of the above organizations.
| QUOTE (Zhan Shi) | ||
national alliance resistance records national socialist movement overthrow american nazi party british national party national democratic party of germany new fascists canadian neo nazis canadian white nationalists 'nuff said Also, see "Hate Rock", a documentary about Skinhead music. Interviews and profiles of many of the above organizations. |
How many members of those organizations actually held political or military office in Germany at any time between September 1 1939 and September 2 1945?
If the number is greater than 0 and this can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, then I will concede defeat.
The fact that there exists idiots, even racist idiots who have adopted Nazi symbology, does not prove that any German official who planned or ran death camps during WWII is still alive.
| QUOTE |
| the nazi ideology and mindset are not gone |
In any event, I'm not trying to win an argument, or even to argue. Just providing refference material.
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) |
| Edit: Hyzmarca: can I recommend you not use the term "holocaust"? There was no religious sacrifice, just a multiple genocide attempt (with some other targets on the side) using run-of-the-mill death camps and some fancy technology. Which brings me to my other disagreement: many remnants of the Third Reich remain. Freeways are one, but much of modern rocketry is another, and the vast quantities of scientific data gathered by experimentation on death camp prisoners is a third. There's more out there if you look. |
Was anything of it (the advancement in rocket science or the data gahtered by torturing people in death camps by sadists like Dr. Mengele) actually worth the lives of millions of people? Or would humanity maybe been able to get this knowledge over time without eleminating people?
| QUOTE (hyzmarca) |
| How many members of those organizations actually held political or military office in Germany at any time between September 1 1939 and September 2 1945? If the number is greater than 0 and this can be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, then I will concede defeat. The fact that there exists idiots, even racist idiots who have adopted Nazi symbology, does not prove that any German official who planned or ran death camps during WWII is still alive. |
Hopefully all of those bastards are dead and suffer in Hell.
By now, most are. But some did hold office. Kurt Georg Kiesinger, for instance, or Hans Filbinger. De-Nazification was never as complete as people would have liked to believe.
| QUOTE (Grinder) |
| Was anything of it (the advancement in rocket science or the data gahtered by torturing people in death camps by sadists like Dr. Mengele) actually worth the lives of millions of people? Or would humanity maybe been able to get this knowledge over time without eleminating people? |
of course not. but the fact remains that those are positive aspects of the Nazi regime. it's dangerous thinking to pretend such aspects don't exist.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| it's dangerous thinking to pretend such aspects don't exist. |
Exactly.
n/p
I think you need to step back and try to see things in a more objective manner. I don't believe anyone here is condoning the bulk of Nazi behavior (I certainly am not), not do I believe that anyone here is endorsing a return of those specific values or the regime in general. Merely that there were some (however few) positive aspects that grew from that regime.
I can understand that point of view, but I don't share it. You're right, objectivly speaking, but it seems that I can't take this objective point of view, not in this case.
"The trains ran on time."
"Because Mussolini had the motormen shot if the train was late."
| QUOTE (Penta) |
| "Because Mussolini had the motormen shot if the train was late." |
Oh come on, don't you know how frustrating it is to have to wait for a late train?
No.
| QUOTE (Grinder) |
| I can understand that point of view, but I don't share it. You're right, objectivly speaking, but it seems that I can't take this objective point of view, not in this case. |
not to pick on you, but that's exactly why that type of thinking is so scary. if you view a group of people as monsters without any redeeming qualities, you divorce yourself from the need to think when dealing with them. and if you're not thinking when you deal with that group of people, then it's going to be very difficult for you to differentiate between people who actually belong in that group and people who only superficially appear to belong in that group. in this case, for instance, it becomes very easy to lump anyone who expresses anything that remotely resembles antisemitism in with the Nazis, thus killing all possibility of rational discussion when considering any topic related to Jews or Judaism. another danger is that you can be led into (further) irrational action very easily; for instance, an opponent of the highway system in Germany could theoretically gain a lot of support by simply pointing out the autobahn's Nazi roots.
and perhaps more to the point, by joining in with the general groupthink that vilifies the Nazis beyond their due while ignoring their redeeming qualities, you're actually doing exactly what the Nazis are most hated and reviled for.
Last I checked, the National Socialists are most hated and reviled for either their death camps or their unchecked military aggression, not for their vilification of Jews, which earned great respect from (for example) Henry Ford and, arguably, Charles Lindbergh. If the Third Reich had implemented, say, the Madagascar Plan, I hardly think such widespread support for their total condemnation would be found (though of course invading countries tends to create its own ill will).
~J
~J
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.