|
On February 11 2011 18:33 don_kyuhote wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 18:19 Jayme wrote:On February 11 2011 10:10 UberThing wrote:
Dresden bombing in WW2 and the atomic bombs in Japan.
These were arguably "atrocities" by any definition as it involved the mass killing of primarily civilians.
History has a tendency to lose focus of this. History is written by the winners? Yes.
The systematic firebombing of any German city of note was not so much targeted at civilians but because a fair few of them had a whole lot of war industry in them. Please remember that this was a war. As much as people wanted to be humanitarian within it....when a worlds survival is at stake there are going to be bad points to it. You cannot avoid this. While they could have been more PRECISE in their bombing and they could have avoided strategic targets with heavily civilian presence...I don't think they quite qualify as atrocities. You could say war as a whole is an atrocity if you want, that I would be far more willing to agree with. The atomic bombs are FAR FAR more complicated. For some reason people tend to believe that the atomic bombs on Japan were a complete unnecessary loss of life and that they were an unneeded overkill. I highly doubt that a land invasion would have been any "better." In fact going by evidence, culture, and how difficult it would be to invade Japan I can fairly safely say that a land invasion would have had far more civilian casualties...hell casualties in general than the atomic bombs did. The Japan of WW2 is the same country that invented the Kaiten suicide submarine and had absolutely no qualm about flying their airplanes into ships and sacrificing themselves. They would have fought to every last man, woman, and probably child if it came down to it. The ONLY reason Japan even surrendered after that second atomic bomb was because they falsely believed we had more bombs to use and the military still threatened a coup because they were so pissed off at the surrender. Japan was more than willing to fight to the absolute death instead of surrendering. Do you honestly believe this would have been a better outcome? War sucks. A lot of people die in them. Any alternative leads to death. Some Japanese military actually did stage a coup when Japan decided to surrender, but was foiled rather quickly and easily. Also, atomic bomb wasn't just about US vs Japan. Soviet Union declared war on Japan and was marching through Manchuria with ease. I can't even imagine what post-WW2 would have been like had the Soviets invaded Japanese mainland. Maybe a Communist North Japan and Capitalist South Japan?
Yep the main reason was probably to hasten Japanese capitulation and send a message to the Soviets. Japan would have probably capitulated pretty soon even without the invasion of Japan proper because of Soviets joining the war, but that would be after Soviets overrunning whole of Korea and maybe some other places.
|
On February 11 2011 11:46 T0fuuu wrote:
The bombing of Darwin was more damaging than Pearl harbour. Wheres Darwin? Good question. Funnily enough not many australians know this because the news was censored. Nor did they know that Macarthur was willing to forfeit most of Australia to the Japanese should they ever invade yet we still think of USA as our greatest ally.
Over 8 times more people were killed at Pearl Harbour (2500+ to ~300).
Over 3 times more people were injured at Pearl Harbour (1250+ to 300-400).
About 9 times more aircraft were destroyed at Pearl Harbour (23 to 188 plus another 150+ damaged)
35 ships sunk or damaged at Darwin, 18 for Pearl Harbour (though they would have been far superior to most of, if not all of the ones at Darwin.
Also the allies had intercepted communication from Japan to the Axis specifically saying they had no plans to invade Australia (although they almost certainly could have if they so desired), however this wasn't made known until much later so that the Axis didn't know the Allies were reading their messages. There's other evidence such as them never air raiding the lower half of Australia despite being capable of doing so (Japanese planes flew further south but never bombed) and that they never staged any attempt to invade.
|
On February 11 2011 18:33 don_kyuhote wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 18:19 Jayme wrote:On February 11 2011 10:10 UberThing wrote:
Dresden bombing in WW2 and the atomic bombs in Japan.
These were arguably "atrocities" by any definition as it involved the mass killing of primarily civilians.
History has a tendency to lose focus of this. History is written by the winners? Yes.
The systematic firebombing of any German city of note was not so much targeted at civilians but because a fair few of them had a whole lot of war industry in them. Please remember that this was a war. As much as people wanted to be humanitarian within it....when a worlds survival is at stake there are going to be bad points to it. You cannot avoid this. While they could have been more PRECISE in their bombing and they could have avoided strategic targets with heavily civilian presence...I don't think they quite qualify as atrocities. You could say war as a whole is an atrocity if you want, that I would be far more willing to agree with. The atomic bombs are FAR FAR more complicated. For some reason people tend to believe that the atomic bombs on Japan were a complete unnecessary loss of life and that they were an unneeded overkill. I highly doubt that a land invasion would have been any "better." In fact going by evidence, culture, and how difficult it would be to invade Japan I can fairly safely say that a land invasion would have had far more civilian casualties...hell casualties in general than the atomic bombs did. The Japan of WW2 is the same country that invented the Kaiten suicide submarine and had absolutely no qualm about flying their airplanes into ships and sacrificing themselves. They would have fought to every last man, woman, and probably child if it came down to it. The ONLY reason Japan even surrendered after that second atomic bomb was because they falsely believed we had more bombs to use and the military still threatened a coup because they were so pissed off at the surrender. Japan was more than willing to fight to the absolute death instead of surrendering. Do you honestly believe this would have been a better outcome? War sucks. A lot of people die in them. Any alternative leads to death. Some Japanese military actually did stage a coup when Japan decided to surrender, but was foiled rather quickly and easily. Also, atomic bomb wasn't just about US vs Japan. Soviet Union declared war on Japan and was marching through Manchuria with ease. I can't even imagine what post-WW2 would have been like had the Soviets invaded Japanese mainland. Maybe a Communist North Japan and Capitalist South Japan?
So why exactly did the soviet union declared war on a country that was already in defeat? From the looks of it, they say they are with the allies but in truth, i think it was more about revenge from before, when japan won against them during the reign of romanov, or to take over japanese mainland, in a very backstabbing way.
|
On February 11 2011 20:58 ace246 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 18:33 don_kyuhote wrote:On February 11 2011 18:19 Jayme wrote:On February 11 2011 10:10 UberThing wrote:
Dresden bombing in WW2 and the atomic bombs in Japan.
These were arguably "atrocities" by any definition as it involved the mass killing of primarily civilians.
History has a tendency to lose focus of this. History is written by the winners? Yes.
The systematic firebombing of any German city of note was not so much targeted at civilians but because a fair few of them had a whole lot of war industry in them. Please remember that this was a war. As much as people wanted to be humanitarian within it....when a worlds survival is at stake there are going to be bad points to it. You cannot avoid this. While they could have been more PRECISE in their bombing and they could have avoided strategic targets with heavily civilian presence...I don't think they quite qualify as atrocities. You could say war as a whole is an atrocity if you want, that I would be far more willing to agree with. The atomic bombs are FAR FAR more complicated. For some reason people tend to believe that the atomic bombs on Japan were a complete unnecessary loss of life and that they were an unneeded overkill. I highly doubt that a land invasion would have been any "better." In fact going by evidence, culture, and how difficult it would be to invade Japan I can fairly safely say that a land invasion would have had far more civilian casualties...hell casualties in general than the atomic bombs did. The Japan of WW2 is the same country that invented the Kaiten suicide submarine and had absolutely no qualm about flying their airplanes into ships and sacrificing themselves. They would have fought to every last man, woman, and probably child if it came down to it. The ONLY reason Japan even surrendered after that second atomic bomb was because they falsely believed we had more bombs to use and the military still threatened a coup because they were so pissed off at the surrender. Japan was more than willing to fight to the absolute death instead of surrendering. Do you honestly believe this would have been a better outcome? War sucks. A lot of people die in them. Any alternative leads to death. Some Japanese military actually did stage a coup when Japan decided to surrender, but was foiled rather quickly and easily. Also, atomic bomb wasn't just about US vs Japan. Soviet Union declared war on Japan and was marching through Manchuria with ease. I can't even imagine what post-WW2 would have been like had the Soviets invaded Japanese mainland. Maybe a Communist North Japan and Capitalist South Japan? So why exactly did the soviet union declared war on a country that was already in defeat? From the looks of it, they say they are with the allies but in truth, i think it was more about revenge from before, when japan won against them during the reign of romanov, or to take over japanese mainland, in a very backstabbing way.
to grab as much of manchuria as they could. Alot raw materials there if I remember correctly.
|
On February 11 2011 17:05 SniperSamS2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 15:51 jello_biafra wrote:
Basically everything that is stereotypically Scottish is made up, for example kilts weren't invented until 400 years after William Wallace died and were created by an Englishman, there were no clan/family tartans, they were made up for tourists in the 19th Century, haggis was eaten by the ancient Greeks and Romans.
The whole Samurai honour code didn't exist, the Bushido code we know of today was created by the Japanese government during WW2 to boost the citizen's fighting spirit.
Islamic fundamentalism as we know it today (lack of women's rights, hatred of the west etc.) didn't exist until the 1950's.
The American thanksgiving holiday didn't exist until 1863 and was created to try and avert the Civil War (which obviously did not happen lol). in 1941 it became a standardized holiday with Turkey and such.
Pretty much all medieval torture devices like the rack, iron maiden etc. did not exist. Again made up in the 19th Century to try and portray the people of that time as far more brutal and inhumane than they actually were.
The wild west really wasn't very wild, in fact you were a lot more likely to be murdered in Baltimore in 2008 than in Tombstone, AZ in 1881. The image of bandits having shootouts in the streets every day was created by a few famous gunfighters like Billy the Kid (who killed 4 people in his life) and others who wanted to further the image of a living in a really badass, dangerous place. This passed into popular culture then movies etc. leading to the misconception today. the Bushido code wasnt invented by the Japanese gov't in ww2 it existed way before. read "Japan before Perry" by Totman its not all about the Bushido but definitely says that the Bushido code was written in a book about bushido called Hagakure n it states that "If you are ready to discard life at a moment's notice, you and the bushido will become one. In this way throughout your life, you can perform your duties for your master without fail." also the american thanksgiving holiday did exist sort of but ur are right in that it became a National holiday in 1863. many different english colonies in the new world, during the 17th and 18th century, had their own thanksgiving but it probably wasnt on the last thursday of november and dont think turkey and all that was served; maybe turkey could have been served but probably not like a big deal as it is today. not sure of the Medieval times, the islamic fundamentalism seems right around the time where the shah of iran was the "puppet of the west" and i really dont have much interest in the wild west so not sure about it.
The Bushido code did kind of exist in some form, but it was basically cherry picked from history by some guy in the early 20th Century. And true it wasn't invented by the Japanese government during WW2, just popularized by them.
The supposed samurai code, or Bushido, was brought into the world in 1900 by Nitobe Inazo in his book of the same name. In Bushido, Nitobe attempted to create a unique Japanese ethical system that would be considered equal to Christianity. He, and other prewar scholars who followed him, formulated their ideology by taking certain exceptional historical incidents involving the samurai, which they then universalized by applying them to all samurai in all ages. The resultant ethical system had remarkably little connection with the actual warrior class which was eliminated in the wake of the Meiji Restoration, and placed far more emphasis on the virtues of loyalty, honor, and self-sacrifice than any of the historical samurai. Bushido, therefore, was one of many "invented traditions" that appeared in all parts of the world throughout the 19^<th> Century. Although Nitobe's original ideology focused more on the supposed ethical aspects of the samurai than the military, Bushido later became a useful tool for Japan's nationalistic and militaristic leadership, who used it to instill loyalty and obedience in both the imperial army and citizenship in general. Unlike many other invented traditions, however, Bushido is still thriving both in Japan and abroad, and has been adopted by Japanese industrialists, foreign economists, as well as writers and other artists. While the Japanese samurai class is not as unique as its mythical image seems to indicate, Bushido is not as singular as Nitobe desired it. It is, in fact, extremely similar to European chivalry in that both of these ideologies have a mythical attraction to great sections of society, despite the fact that neither has a firm basis in historical fact.
|
On February 10 2011 16:21 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
I'm no civil war expert but from memory the north only abolished slavery in 1863?
from my understanding the cause of the civil war was states rights but history is written by the winners.
Yes the cause was states rights, but it was also slavery in part.
Although the only reason the North wanted to abolish slavery was so that Europe could not justify supporting slavery in a war over slavery.
|
On February 11 2011 20:40 Phenny wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 11:46 T0fuuu wrote:
The bombing of Darwin was more damaging than Pearl harbour. Wheres Darwin? Good question. Funnily enough not many australians know this because the news was censored. Nor did they know that Macarthur was willing to forfeit most of Australia to the Japanese should they ever invade yet we still think of USA as our greatest ally. Over 8 times more people were killed at Pearl Harbour (2500+ to ~300). Over 3 times more people were injured at Pearl Harbour (1250+ to 300-400). About 9 times more aircraft were destroyed at Pearl Harbour (23 to 188 plus another 150+ damaged) 35 ships sunk or damaged at Darwin, 18 for Pearl Harbour (though they would have been far superior to most of, if not all of the ones at Darwin.
So out of the 2000 people that lived in Darwin up to 300 died (more than 1/10?) and then half the remaining population of that abandoned the city. I think thats pretty damaging. but I guess the numbers are on Pearl harbours side if we are just talking about losses.
|
On February 11 2011 23:25 T0fuuu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 20:40 Phenny wrote:On February 11 2011 11:46 T0fuuu wrote:
The bombing of Darwin was more damaging than Pearl harbour. Wheres Darwin? Good question. Funnily enough not many australians know this because the news was censored. Nor did they know that Macarthur was willing to forfeit most of Australia to the Japanese should they ever invade yet we still think of USA as our greatest ally. Over 8 times more people were killed at Pearl Harbour (2500+ to ~300). Over 3 times more people were injured at Pearl Harbour (1250+ to 300-400). About 9 times more aircraft were destroyed at Pearl Harbour (23 to 188 plus another 150+ damaged) 35 ships sunk or damaged at Darwin, 18 for Pearl Harbour (though they would have been far superior to most of, if not all of the ones at Darwin. So out of the 2000 people that lived in Darwin up to 300 died (more than 1/10?) and then half the remaining population of that abandoned the city. I think thats pretty damaging. but I guess the numbers are on Pearl harbours side if we are just talking about losses.
But the numbers on pearl harbour are all soldiers and the people in Darwin are civilians. Some people treat soldiers' lives equally with civilians but as far as the majority is concerned, civilian losses is considered unjust.
|
On February 11 2011 20:58 ace246 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 18:33 don_kyuhote wrote:On February 11 2011 18:19 Jayme wrote:On February 11 2011 10:10 UberThing wrote:
Dresden bombing in WW2 and the atomic bombs in Japan.
These were arguably "atrocities" by any definition as it involved the mass killing of primarily civilians.
History has a tendency to lose focus of this. History is written by the winners? Yes.
The systematic firebombing of any German city of note was not so much targeted at civilians but because a fair few of them had a whole lot of war industry in them. Please remember that this was a war. As much as people wanted to be humanitarian within it....when a worlds survival is at stake there are going to be bad points to it. You cannot avoid this. While they could have been more PRECISE in their bombing and they could have avoided strategic targets with heavily civilian presence...I don't think they quite qualify as atrocities. You could say war as a whole is an atrocity if you want, that I would be far more willing to agree with. The atomic bombs are FAR FAR more complicated. For some reason people tend to believe that the atomic bombs on Japan were a complete unnecessary loss of life and that they were an unneeded overkill. I highly doubt that a land invasion would have been any "better." In fact going by evidence, culture, and how difficult it would be to invade Japan I can fairly safely say that a land invasion would have had far more civilian casualties...hell casualties in general than the atomic bombs did. The Japan of WW2 is the same country that invented the Kaiten suicide submarine and had absolutely no qualm about flying their airplanes into ships and sacrificing themselves. They would have fought to every last man, woman, and probably child if it came down to it. The ONLY reason Japan even surrendered after that second atomic bomb was because they falsely believed we had more bombs to use and the military still threatened a coup because they were so pissed off at the surrender. Japan was more than willing to fight to the absolute death instead of surrendering. Do you honestly believe this would have been a better outcome? War sucks. A lot of people die in them. Any alternative leads to death. Some Japanese military actually did stage a coup when Japan decided to surrender, but was foiled rather quickly and easily. Also, atomic bomb wasn't just about US vs Japan. Soviet Union declared war on Japan and was marching through Manchuria with ease. I can't even imagine what post-WW2 would have been like had the Soviets invaded Japanese mainland. Maybe a Communist North Japan and Capitalist South Japan? So why exactly did the soviet union declared war on a country that was already in defeat? From the looks of it, they say they are with the allies but in truth, i think it was more about revenge from before, when japan won against them during the reign of romanov, or to take over japanese mainland, in a very backstabbing way.
Well Soviets promised the Allies that they would attack Japan. It was also of course to gain some territories lost in the Russo-japanese war and if possible to set up some satellite states. I don't think Japanese mainland was ever the goal.
|
On February 11 2011 11:46 T0fuuu wrote:
The bombing of Darwin was more damaging than Pearl harbour. Wheres Darwin? Good question. Funnily enough not many australians know this because the news was censored. Nor did they know that Macarthur was willing to forfeit most of Australia to the Japanese should they ever invade yet we still think of USA as our greatest ally.
Oh wow, I never knew about this. Pretty interesting.
Just because Macarthur was willing to let the Japanese invade if they made the move doesn't say whether the Americans were a good ally or not. That sounds like it's probably more of a tactical move, since Japan would have to commit quite a lot of resources for such an operation and stretch itself thin, like how Hitler basically squandered the war in Europe by trying to take on too much at once
|
On February 11 2011 23:37 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 20:58 ace246 wrote:On February 11 2011 18:33 don_kyuhote wrote:On February 11 2011 18:19 Jayme wrote:On February 11 2011 10:10 UberThing wrote:
Dresden bombing in WW2 and the atomic bombs in Japan.
These were arguably "atrocities" by any definition as it involved the mass killing of primarily civilians.
History has a tendency to lose focus of this. History is written by the winners? Yes.
The systematic firebombing of any German city of note was not so much targeted at civilians but because a fair few of them had a whole lot of war industry in them. Please remember that this was a war. As much as people wanted to be humanitarian within it....when a worlds survival is at stake there are going to be bad points to it. You cannot avoid this. While they could have been more PRECISE in their bombing and they could have avoided strategic targets with heavily civilian presence...I don't think they quite qualify as atrocities. You could say war as a whole is an atrocity if you want, that I would be far more willing to agree with. The atomic bombs are FAR FAR more complicated. For some reason people tend to believe that the atomic bombs on Japan were a complete unnecessary loss of life and that they were an unneeded overkill. I highly doubt that a land invasion would have been any "better." In fact going by evidence, culture, and how difficult it would be to invade Japan I can fairly safely say that a land invasion would have had far more civilian casualties...hell casualties in general than the atomic bombs did. The Japan of WW2 is the same country that invented the Kaiten suicide submarine and had absolutely no qualm about flying their airplanes into ships and sacrificing themselves. They would have fought to every last man, woman, and probably child if it came down to it. The ONLY reason Japan even surrendered after that second atomic bomb was because they falsely believed we had more bombs to use and the military still threatened a coup because they were so pissed off at the surrender. Japan was more than willing to fight to the absolute death instead of surrendering. Do you honestly believe this would have been a better outcome? War sucks. A lot of people die in them. Any alternative leads to death. Some Japanese military actually did stage a coup when Japan decided to surrender, but was foiled rather quickly and easily. Also, atomic bomb wasn't just about US vs Japan. Soviet Union declared war on Japan and was marching through Manchuria with ease. I can't even imagine what post-WW2 would have been like had the Soviets invaded Japanese mainland. Maybe a Communist North Japan and Capitalist South Japan? So why exactly did the soviet union declared war on a country that was already in defeat? From the looks of it, they say they are with the allies but in truth, i think it was more about revenge from before, when japan won against them during the reign of romanov, or to take over japanese mainland, in a very backstabbing way. Well Soviets promised the Allies that they would attack Japan. It was also of course to gain some territories lost in the Russo-japanese war and if possible to set up some satellite states. I don't think Japanese mainland was ever the goal.
I'm sure nobody wanted a ground war on Japan's mainland.
|
On February 11 2011 18:19 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 10:10 UberThing wrote:
Dresden bombing in WW2 and the atomic bombs in Japan.
These were arguably "atrocities" by any definition as it involved the mass killing of primarily civilians.
History has a tendency to lose focus of this. History is written by the winners? Yes.
The systematic firebombing of any German city of note was not so much targeted at civilians but because a fair few of them had a whole lot of war industry in them. Please remember that this was a war. As much as people wanted to be humanitarian within it....when a worlds survival is at stake there are going to be bad points to it. You cannot avoid this. While they could have been more PRECISE in their bombing and they could have avoided strategic targets with heavily civilian presence...I don't think they quite qualify as atrocities. You could say war as a whole is an atrocity if you want, that I would be far more willing to agree with. The atomic bombs are FAR FAR more complicated. For some reason people tend to believe that the atomic bombs on Japan were a complete unnecessary loss of life and that they were an unneeded overkill. I highly doubt that a land invasion would have been any "better." In fact going by evidence, culture, and how difficult it would be to invade Japan I can fairly safely say that a land invasion would have had far more civilian casualties...hell casualties in general than the atomic bombs did. The Japan of WW2 is the same country that invented the Kaiten suicide submarine and had absolutely no qualm about flying their airplanes into ships and sacrificing themselves. They would have fought to every last man, woman, and probably child if it came down to it. The ONLY reason Japan even surrendered after that second atomic bomb was because they falsely believed we had more bombs to use and the military still threatened a coup because they were so pissed off at the surrender. Japan was more than willing to fight to the absolute death instead of surrendering. Do you honestly believe this would have been a better outcome? War sucks. A lot of people die in them. Any alternative leads to death.
The Dresden bombing was not only an atrocity, it was also a war crime.
I consider it like A.C. Grayling:
"it is unquestionably true that if Allied bombing in the Second World War was in whole or in part morally wrong, it is nowhere near equivalent in scale of moral atrocity to the Holocaust of European Jewry, or the death and destruction all over the world for which Nazi and Japanese aggression were collectively responsible: a total of some twenty-five million dead, according to responsible estimates"
|
On February 11 2011 23:56 quarky wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 18:19 Jayme wrote:On February 11 2011 10:10 UberThing wrote:
Dresden bombing in WW2 and the atomic bombs in Japan.
These were arguably "atrocities" by any definition as it involved the mass killing of primarily civilians.
History has a tendency to lose focus of this. History is written by the winners? Yes.
The systematic firebombing of any German city of note was not so much targeted at civilians but because a fair few of them had a whole lot of war industry in them. Please remember that this was a war. As much as people wanted to be humanitarian within it....when a worlds survival is at stake there are going to be bad points to it. You cannot avoid this. While they could have been more PRECISE in their bombing and they could have avoided strategic targets with heavily civilian presence...I don't think they quite qualify as atrocities. You could say war as a whole is an atrocity if you want, that I would be far more willing to agree with. The atomic bombs are FAR FAR more complicated. For some reason people tend to believe that the atomic bombs on Japan were a complete unnecessary loss of life and that they were an unneeded overkill. I highly doubt that a land invasion would have been any "better." In fact going by evidence, culture, and how difficult it would be to invade Japan I can fairly safely say that a land invasion would have had far more civilian casualties...hell casualties in general than the atomic bombs did. The Japan of WW2 is the same country that invented the Kaiten suicide submarine and had absolutely no qualm about flying their airplanes into ships and sacrificing themselves. They would have fought to every last man, woman, and probably child if it came down to it. The ONLY reason Japan even surrendered after that second atomic bomb was because they falsely believed we had more bombs to use and the military still threatened a coup because they were so pissed off at the surrender. Japan was more than willing to fight to the absolute death instead of surrendering. Do you honestly believe this would have been a better outcome? War sucks. A lot of people die in them. Any alternative leads to death. The Dresden bombing was not only an atrocity, it was also a war crime. I consider it like A.C. Grayling: "it is unquestionably true that if Allied bombing in the Second World War was in whole or in part morally wrong, it is nowhere near equivalent in scale of moral atrocity to the Holocaust of European Jewry, or the death and destruction all over the world for which Nazi and Japanese aggression were collectively responsible: a total of some twenty-five million dead, according to responsible estimates"
The aftermath of the fire- and nuclear bombing during WW2 helped the world decide that such things were a bad idea. The military philosophy of the time went something like "kill as many people as you can until you've destroyed their will to fight." The "decision" to use the atomic bomb was just something that grew naturally out of that philosophy, one that everyone was already using liberally as evidenced by things like Dresden, Tokyo, and London.
It's easy to look back from our perspective now and see how wrong that is (and I still think that objectively speaking it was wrong), but it's hard to blame the people of the time for it since they didn't have the benefit of hindsight.
|
Banning people for discrediting history. Stay classy, mods.
User was warned for this post
|
Vatican City State2594 Posts
|
One debatable account of history is that WWII was all Germany's fault. Everyone ignores what the world did to them economically after the First World War. If Germany hadn't had 30% unemployment and hyperinflation, it's debatable whether or not Hitler would have been able to gain enough support to become leader.
|
On February 12 2011 00:28 Muffinman53 wrote:
One debatable account of history is that WWII was all Germany's fault. Everyone ignores what the world did to them economically after the First World War. If Germany hadn't had 30% unemployment and hyperinflation, it's debatable whether or not Hitler would have been able to gain enough support to become leader.
It certainly doesn't excuse what the Nazi Party did, but I completely agree that the economic rape we dished out after WW1 lit the primer.
|
On February 12 2011 00:28 Muffinman53 wrote:
One debatable account of history is that WWII was all Germany's fault. Everyone ignores what the world did to them economically after the First World War. If Germany hadn't had 30% unemployment and hyperinflation, it's debatable whether or not Hitler would have been able to gain enough support to become leader.
Yes this is completely true, if the US had stayed out of WWI, it would have been more of a stalemate and the treaty would have been more fair for Germany, then WWII might not have even happened but the US government wanted both wars, and smartly so because they emerged as a world power because of the wars.
|
On February 12 2011 00:22 yema1 wrote:
Banning people for discrediting history. Stay classy, mods.
Yeah shitting on peoples lives by saying the Holocaust never happened now that is classy. =p
On February 10 2011 18:45 Frigo wrote:
The Holocaust is a hoax. In reality Hitler gathered the jews in camps to give them food and shelter and pink teddy bears, but the selfish jews killed themselves to make him look bad.
User was banned for this post.
On February 12 2011 00:33 Igakusei wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 00:28 Muffinman53 wrote:
One debatable account of history is that WWII was all Germany's fault. Everyone ignores what the world did to them economically after the First World War. If Germany hadn't had 30% unemployment and hyperinflation, it's debatable whether or not Hitler would have been able to gain enough support to become leader. It certainly doesn't excuse what the Nazi Party did, but I completely agree that the economic rape we dished out after WW1 lit the primer.
WWII is the greatest thing to happen to the US though, Europe and Asia is pretty much burned to the ground while the US for the most part was left un touched. So who becomes the world economic power the US due to having tons of production capability due to the war and tons of demand due to the fact not alot of places can make anything anymore due to the war.
|
On February 12 2011 01:31 semantics wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 00:22 yema1 wrote:
Banning people for discrediting history. Stay classy, mods. Yeah shitting on peoples lives by saying the Holocaust never happened now that is classy. =p Show nested quote +On February 10 2011 18:45 Frigo wrote:
The Holocaust is a hoax. In reality Hitler gathered the jews in camps to give them food and shelter and pink teddy bears, but the selfish jews killed themselves to make him look bad.
User was banned for this post. Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 00:33 Igakusei wrote:On February 12 2011 00:28 Muffinman53 wrote:
One debatable account of history is that WWII was all Germany's fault. Everyone ignores what the world did to them economically after the First World War. If Germany hadn't had 30% unemployment and hyperinflation, it's debatable whether or not Hitler would have been able to gain enough support to become leader. It certainly doesn't excuse what the Nazi Party did, but I completely agree that the economic rape we dished out after WW1 lit the primer. WWII is the greatest thing to happen to the US though, Europe and Asia is pretty much burned to the ground while the US for the most part was left un touched. So who becomes the world economic power the US due to having tons of production capability due to the war and tons of demand due to the fact not alot of places can make anything anymore due to the war.
To the US government, but it was not so great for the US population.
Personally I am skeptical of most things in modern history, even the holocaust and the moon landing. So the majority of people would consider me crazy/ignorant or whatever, but that is okay with me. I don't see anything crazy about being skeptical when there are good reasons to be skeptical. The government has more incentive to lie and deceive than just about anything else, it is not a trustworthy organization which is strange because this causes some disconnect in society, where everyone accepts that the government lies on a regular basis but somehow think they only lie about smaller things?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
