|
On February 12 2011 03:06 Meithos wrote:
I personally think the holocaust never happened, i believe that WWII was intsigated by the ex-president and pushed upon to cover up government lies. I'm jewish btw
WWII wasn't instigated by the ex-president, WWII was the fake. Seriously, have you ever dealt with anyone who was IN WWII, who wasn't paid off by the military?
The whole point was a need to prevent prevent an economic disaster of over production, combined with a grab for power by the federal government and the military-entertainment complex. FDR couldn't get the power he needed to nationalize the economy through civilian means so he planned it all out with the Japanese ambassador who planned out "Pearl Harbor" with him and the state department.
|
On February 12 2011 03:16 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 03:06 Meithos wrote:
I personally think the holocaust never happened, i believe that WWII was intsigated by the ex-president and pushed upon to cover up government lies. I'm jewish btw WWII wasn't instigated by the ex-president, WWII was the fake. Seriously, have you ever dealt with anyone who was IN WWII, who wasn't paid off by the military? The whole point was a need to prevent prevent an economic disaster of over production, combined with a grab for power by the federal government and the military-entertainment complex. FDR couldn't get the power he needed to nationalize the economy through civilian means so he planned it all out with the Japanese ambassador who planned out "Pearl Harbor" with him and the state department.
Um, I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not anymore.
What is this thread doing to my BRAIN!?
|
On February 12 2011 03:12 Aurocaido wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 03:01 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 12 2011 02:42 Aurocaido wrote:On February 12 2011 02:37 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 12 2011 02:36 Aurocaido wrote:On February 12 2011 02:32 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 12 2011 02:22 Krikkitone wrote:On February 12 2011 01:31 Treemonkeys 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. 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. If WWI had been more of a stalemate, WWII would Still have happened just later*. *If nuclear weapons had been developed and demonstrated that Might have prevented a second world war like they prevented the third world war. No it wouldn't have, Hitler's rise to power was entirely based on the suffered caused by the treaty of versailles. Not entirely correct. Hitlers rise to power had more to do with the economic suffering caused by the great depression than by the Treaty of Versailles. Although it certainly played a part and was used as fuel for the fire. The economic suffering in germany was caused by the treaty not by the depression. Every North American and European nation was hit incredibly hard by the great depression including Germany which had been recovering up until that point. I refer you to the primary source written by Heinrich Hauser "With Germnay's Unemployed." Durring the great depression Nazi vote totals skyrocketed from 810,000 to 6,400,000 from 1928 to 1930. It is estimated that upwards of 40 percent of Germanys workforce was unemployed due to the depression. It turned public opinion forever against the Weimar Republic. The main thing the Treaty of Versailles hurt was German Pride. No it was much more than pride when they had to pay billions of dollars in reparations - that is a huge economic drain, on top of losing control of some of their industries and being forced to deliver coal to other european countries, that is what destroyed their economy. With or without the depression happening in the rest of the world Germany would have been much better off without the treaty and that is fact, the reason they voted for the nazi party was because the nazi party was willing to disregard the treaty. What destroyed the German economy was not the Treaty of Versailles but the First World War. With the economic hardship that followed WW1 many of the first reparation payments were pardoned by the French because the Germans were simply unable to pay. They did not loose control of their industries, the main industrial centers like the Sar and Ruhr regions were simply demiliterized and subject to French occupation for a period. Germany did have to make shipments of coal to France however, that simply is not the economic catastrophy you speak of. That was caused by the great depression. People voted for the Nazis and Hitler because they offered economic revival. The disrgarding of the Treaty never actually started until 1934, and even then it was just reparation payments. Others didn't come until later.
The treaty of Versailles certainly helped cause the war in that it set some clear goals for the german foreign policy which couldn't be achieved peacefully, but were agreed upon by most germans. Thus it was easier for Hitler to lead germany into war without having to face major resistance.
|
On February 12 2011 03:20 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 03:12 Aurocaido wrote:On February 12 2011 03:01 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 12 2011 02:42 Aurocaido wrote:On February 12 2011 02:37 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 12 2011 02:36 Aurocaido wrote:On February 12 2011 02:32 Treemonkeys wrote:On February 12 2011 02:22 Krikkitone wrote:On February 12 2011 01:31 Treemonkeys 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. 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. If WWI had been more of a stalemate, WWII would Still have happened just later*. *If nuclear weapons had been developed and demonstrated that Might have prevented a second world war like they prevented the third world war. No it wouldn't have, Hitler's rise to power was entirely based on the suffered caused by the treaty of versailles. Not entirely correct. Hitlers rise to power had more to do with the economic suffering caused by the great depression than by the Treaty of Versailles. Although it certainly played a part and was used as fuel for the fire. The economic suffering in germany was caused by the treaty not by the depression. Every North American and European nation was hit incredibly hard by the great depression including Germany which had been recovering up until that point. I refer you to the primary source written by Heinrich Hauser "With Germnay's Unemployed." Durring the great depression Nazi vote totals skyrocketed from 810,000 to 6,400,000 from 1928 to 1930. It is estimated that upwards of 40 percent of Germanys workforce was unemployed due to the depression. It turned public opinion forever against the Weimar Republic. The main thing the Treaty of Versailles hurt was German Pride. No it was much more than pride when they had to pay billions of dollars in reparations - that is a huge economic drain, on top of losing control of some of their industries and being forced to deliver coal to other european countries, that is what destroyed their economy. With or without the depression happening in the rest of the world Germany would have been much better off without the treaty and that is fact, the reason they voted for the nazi party was because the nazi party was willing to disregard the treaty. What destroyed the German economy was not the Treaty of Versailles but the First World War. With the economic hardship that followed WW1 many of the first reparation payments were pardoned by the French because the Germans were simply unable to pay. They did not loose control of their industries, the main industrial centers like the Sar and Ruhr regions were simply demiliterized and subject to French occupation for a period. Germany did have to make shipments of coal to France however, that simply is not the economic catastrophy you speak of. That was caused by the great depression. People voted for the Nazis and Hitler because they offered economic revival. The disrgarding of the Treaty never actually started until 1934, and even then it was just reparation payments. Others didn't come until later. The treaty of Versailles certainly helped cause the war in that it set some clear goals for the german foreign policy which couldn't be achieved peacefully, but were agreed upon by most germans. Thus it was easier for Hitler to lead germany into war without having to face major resistance.
Which is the first thing I posted on the matter. The Treaty was not the root cause but it was utilized to provide the German people with propoganda and justify foreign policy. The root cause was economic hardship brought on by the depression.
|
It was easy for Hitler to lead due to propaganda, also under the brown party the economy bounced back which is a good way to gain trust with the people. Didn't help that fascism and nationalism goes hand and hand and when you get pride up in there it's easy for people to go along with fighting.
|
On February 11 2011 08:46 Tony Campolo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 08:41 danl9rm wrote:On February 11 2011 02:48 mcc wrote:On February 11 2011 02:39 danl9rm wrote:On February 10 2011 17:20 meegrean wrote:
I think most of the amazing stuff that Jesus did was probably fictional. Nowadays if anybody claims to be the son of God, they would be sent to a mental institution. He was killed because he claimed to be the son of God. Actually even Bible does not say that. If he was really killed by the Romans, they killed him because they saw him as political troublemaker. As far as you were not seen as threatening their political rule Romans did not really care that much about religion. They were definitely more tolerant than abrahamic religions. You said in your above post that you read the Bible (I assume so, otherwise you couldn't have "read up on it") and now you say the Bible "does not say [Jesus was killed because he claimed he was the son of God]." You were probably banking on the odds that I wouldn't reply: Matthew 26:63 ...The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?" "He is worthy of death," they answered. Have you got some better source other than some hearsay accounts written by the Gospel authors?
Better source of what? He claimed the Bible said one thing. I proved that, in fact, it did not. Case closed.
But, as to your problem that the Bible contains hearsay: I think you fail to understand what hearsay actually means. The entirety of written history, once we read it, is hearsay!
|
On February 12 2011 05:02 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 08:46 Tony Campolo wrote:On February 11 2011 08:41 danl9rm wrote:On February 11 2011 02:48 mcc wrote:On February 11 2011 02:39 danl9rm wrote:On February 10 2011 17:20 meegrean wrote:
I think most of the amazing stuff that Jesus did was probably fictional. Nowadays if anybody claims to be the son of God, they would be sent to a mental institution. He was killed because he claimed to be the son of God. Actually even Bible does not say that. If he was really killed by the Romans, they killed him because they saw him as political troublemaker. As far as you were not seen as threatening their political rule Romans did not really care that much about religion. They were definitely more tolerant than abrahamic religions. You said in your above post that you read the Bible (I assume so, otherwise you couldn't have "read up on it") and now you say the Bible "does not say [Jesus was killed because he claimed he was the son of God]." You were probably banking on the odds that I wouldn't reply: Matthew 26:63 ...The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?" "He is worthy of death," they answered. Have you got some better source other than some hearsay accounts written by the Gospel authors? Better source of what? He claimed the Bible said one thing. I proved that, in fact, it did not. Case closed. But, as to your problem that the Bible contains hearsay: I think you fail to understand what hearsay actually means. The entirety of written history, once we read it, is hearsay!
well put s('.^)d
History was written, hearsay is more of gossip. Bible was written.
![[image loading]](http://www.cougardistributions.com/images/Red_sea_1.jpg)
whats interesting, is some of the remains from historical events that were noted in the Bible, example the Chariot wheels found at the bottom of the red sea.
|
I'm writing a term paper for my world of history class on the US involvement in Operation Cyclone. Operation Cyclone was basically the CIA funneling money into Pakistan's intelligence agency, who then provided large amounts of funding for the Mujahideen (rebel groups) within Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion in the 1980's. Since this topic takes an entire paper to address, here is the premise and very rough thesis of my paper; the US funding of the Mujahideen within Afghanistan gave rise to the Taliban and Al'Queda.
I recommend that anyone who is interested to look into it. It is probably some of the most interesting history I've researched. People who were once deemed "freedom fighters" are now "enemy's of the US state."
Edit: I suppose this isn't debunking some myth, but rather, just something that is rarely covered in western curriculum.
|
I'd like to bring up a new topic to this thread.
A common misconception in history is that the Aztec Empire fell to the Spaniards due to an alliance with the Tlaxcala, superior military technology, and pathogens such as smallpox brought over from Europe. Although these factors are certainly a part of the conquering, it's not unreasonable to assume that the cultural differences that we see between the Aztecs and the Spanish are a critical factor in this. The Aztecs would assume to fight honorably and to the death of course, however, Cortes besieged Tenochtitlan and this was simply a type of warfare that the Aztecs could not respond to. Many of the Aztecs simply starved to death because they could not leave the city and were not aware of why the Spanish were fighting in this manner.
Another example of this is taking prisoners; the Aztecs would often rout the Spanish and pursued them in an adrenaline rush of some kind. The ensuing results were often the Spanish stopping in their tracks and turning around to open fire on their pursuers. Captives were extremely valuable for the Aztecs as human sacrifice was still rampant in this community. Maybe it's not much different than people assume, but I think a lot of people believe that it was because of gunpowder and cannon that the Spanish were victorious. In addition, many Spanish weapons were adopted by the Aztecs by creating make-shift lances or simply using weapons off of dead Spaniards. There's no question that the Aztecs didn't have the opportunity to use the weapons of the Spanish. After all, the war lasted over two years, strategic and technological resilience had to have been developed by the Aztecs.
I don't have any comments on all the 9/11 talk but the discussion of WWII has also interested me, specifically comments about the Atomic bomb(I don't think it's necessary to add further debate to the whole Hitler thing.)
If you read cables or messages by George Marshall, Stimson, or even Curtis LeMay, they all contend that the Japanese were close to surrender regardless without the Atomic Bomb being dropped. Many projections actually state that the casualties for invading Japan would not have been that severe. LeMay's fleets had already decimated much of the Pacific Islands with incendiary carpet bombings. It's completely plausible that the Atomic Bomb was dropped only for political purposes(this is common knowledge for some, I know, but not for everyone.)
Although this subject itself is incredibly debatable(three branches even exist, revisionist, orthodox, and post-revisionist.) The Soviet Union had not yet entered the war against Japan(the deceleration did not come until the days between Hiroshima and Nagasaki), and the threat of loss of life was not the greatest towards U.S. soldiers; it was towards the areas still under Japanese occupation. Throughout the years of 1931-1945, Japan was responsible for approximately 17 million human deaths, of which only 100,000 were from the United States. Had the war continued, Curtis LeMay's B-29 fleets would have continued to carpet bomb the Far East, Japan would continue to mistreat its conquered peoples and prisoners, and the United States would have to continue to wage war on land and sea against Japan. The WHOLE of these circumstances would most likely exceed the death toll of the Atomic Bombs being dropped, which makes this scenario evermore difficult to consider.
Just remember that all history is open to interpretation, and that is what us historians do, is interpret. However, interpretations with a lack of evidence are just pipe dreams(there are a few in this thread.) 
|
On February 12 2011 02:26 Krohm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 02:13 Aurocaido 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. There is in my mind no question that events such as the fire bombing of Desden, Tokyo, and Cologne and the droping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not just attrocities but war crimes. The holocaust is considered particularily "evil" (if something can be classified as such) not just because of the number of people that died, but the deliberate and systematic way in which it was done by an industrialized modern state. Many people condone the carpet bombing of Germany and Japan by claiming it was to target military targets. However, it is well known that it was allied policy to directly target civilian targets in order to crush the fighting spirit of the Axis states. What is the difference between the Nazi targeting of Jews and Slavs and the allied targeting of civilians? Sure, many will argure that the Nazis needed to be stopped and I agree whole heartedly with that. Yet the manner in which the allied war effort was conducted leads me to question the superior morality of the allied nations. There is a fundamental difference between the deaths of soldiers and of innocent women and children. There is the argument as well stateing that if these bombings of civilian targets had not occured the war would have been dragged out for years. This is an assumption from the years I have spent studying history to be exagerated. Even before the all out allied bombing campain against civilian targets, the Soviet Red Army had the German Wehrmacht in full retreat. It is estimated that upwards of eighty percent of Germanys fighting capacity was focused on the eastern front. It seems unlikely that the allied bombing of civilian targets contributed to the speady collapse of Germany in any way except morale. Which at that time point German public support was already going against the Nazis. I have never been a firm believer in the end justifies the means. Especially if the means is in no way morally superior to the present circumstance. That is just my take on it. Yeah that's something about WWII that has always bothered me. The Axis powers are permanently flagged as "evil" and they are known for killing innocent people. But no one seems to remember the firebombings of all major German and Japanese cities. Cities full of civilians. Tokyo was practically leveled, especially the residential areas. The atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is debatable as well. Now I'm not condoning what the Axis powers did, it's just there is really two sides of evil. The Allies won though and are regarded as heroes.
The main difference is that Axis started the war though.
|
On February 12 2011 05:02 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2011 08:46 Tony Campolo wrote:On February 11 2011 08:41 danl9rm wrote:On February 11 2011 02:48 mcc wrote:On February 11 2011 02:39 danl9rm wrote:On February 10 2011 17:20 meegrean wrote:
I think most of the amazing stuff that Jesus did was probably fictional. Nowadays if anybody claims to be the son of God, they would be sent to a mental institution. He was killed because he claimed to be the son of God. Actually even Bible does not say that. If he was really killed by the Romans, they killed him because they saw him as political troublemaker. As far as you were not seen as threatening their political rule Romans did not really care that much about religion. They were definitely more tolerant than abrahamic religions. You said in your above post that you read the Bible (I assume so, otherwise you couldn't have "read up on it") and now you say the Bible "does not say [Jesus was killed because he claimed he was the son of God]." You were probably banking on the odds that I wouldn't reply: Matthew 26:63 ...The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?" "He is worthy of death," they answered. Have you got some better source other than some hearsay accounts written by the Gospel authors? Better source of what? He claimed the Bible said one thing. I proved that, in fact, it did not. Case closed. But, as to your problem that the Bible contains hearsay: I think you fail to understand what hearsay actually means. The entirety of written history, once we read it, is hearsay!
You did prove nothing of the sort. Problem with the Bible is that it was written long after the events it describes happened and it is not corroborated by other sources. And of course contains so many false/vague information that it cannot be really taken too seriously.
|
On February 12 2011 05:12 DanceSC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 05:02 danl9rm wrote:On February 11 2011 08:46 Tony Campolo wrote:On February 11 2011 08:41 danl9rm wrote:On February 11 2011 02:48 mcc wrote:On February 11 2011 02:39 danl9rm wrote:On February 10 2011 17:20 meegrean wrote:
I think most of the amazing stuff that Jesus did was probably fictional. Nowadays if anybody claims to be the son of God, they would be sent to a mental institution. He was killed because he claimed to be the son of God. Actually even Bible does not say that. If he was really killed by the Romans, they killed him because they saw him as political troublemaker. As far as you were not seen as threatening their political rule Romans did not really care that much about religion. They were definitely more tolerant than abrahamic religions. You said in your above post that you read the Bible (I assume so, otherwise you couldn't have "read up on it") and now you say the Bible "does not say [Jesus was killed because he claimed he was the son of God]." You were probably banking on the odds that I wouldn't reply: Matthew 26:63 ...The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God." 64 "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven." 65 Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What do you think?" "He is worthy of death," they answered. Have you got some better source other than some hearsay accounts written by the Gospel authors? Better source of what? He claimed the Bible said one thing. I proved that, in fact, it did not. Case closed. But, as to your problem that the Bible contains hearsay: I think you fail to understand what hearsay actually means. The entirety of written history, once we read it, is hearsay! well put s('.^)d History was written, hearsay is more of gossip. Bible was written. whats interesting, is some of the remains from historical events that were noted in the Bible, example the Chariot wheels found at the bottom of the red sea.
I cannot be sure if this is sarcasm, but I guess not. Do you really not see any other way for that wheel to get there, than for some deity to part the sea
|
Another people tend to forget is that France and Britain declared war on Germany first.
|
On February 12 2011 05:44 DrTJEckleburg wrote:
I'd like to bring up a new topic to this thread.
A common misconception in history is that the Aztec Empire fell to the Spaniards due to an alliance with the Tlaxcala, superior military technology, and pathogens such as smallpox brought over from Europe. Although these factors are certainly a part of the conquering, it's not unreasonable to assume that the cultural differences that we see between the Aztecs and the Spanish are a critical factor in this. The Aztecs would assume to fight honorably and to the death of course, however, Cortes besieged Tenochtitlan and this was simply a type of warfare that the Aztecs could not respond to. Many of the Aztecs simply starved to death because they could not leave the city and were not aware of why the Spanish were fighting in this manner.
Another example of this is taking prisoners; the Aztecs would often rout the Spanish and pursued them in an adrenaline rush of some kind. The ensuing results were often the Spanish stopping in their tracks and turning around to open fire on their pursuers. Captives were extremely valuable for the Aztecs as human sacrifice was still rampant in this community. Maybe it's not much different than people assume, but I think a lot of people believe that it was because of gunpowder and cannon that the Spanish were victorious. In addition, many Spanish weapons were adopted by the Aztecs by creating make-shift lances or simply using weapons off of dead Spaniards. There's no question that the Aztecs didn't have the opportunity to use the weapons of the Spanish. After all, the war lasted over two years, strategic and technological resilience had to have been developed by the Aztecs.
I think the biggest advance attributed to Spanish are not actually guns and cannons, but good iron/steel weapons, armors and horses. And of course much more advanced tactics. Pathogens probably not much since it was too short a time.
|
On February 12 2011 05:59 Krohm wrote:
Another people tend to forget is that France and Britain declared war on Germany first.
Well, as allies of Poland it is kind of not unexpected, that is how alliances work.
|
On February 12 2011 05:59 Krohm wrote:
Another people tend to forget is that France and Britain declared war on Germany first.
Germany was well aware that France and Britain were going to declare war on them upon invading Poland. A clumsy response and mobilization by France and Britain then resulted in Germany conquering Poland relatively unscathed.
As long as were around that time period, a lot of people already know about Neville Chamberlain being famous for his policy of appeasement towards Germany. However, he wasn't trying to simply keep Europe out of a state of war like many may think, he was trying to delay Germany in order to prepare for the inevitable Battle of Britain. Although this is completely irrelevant too since because he allowed Czechoslovakia to be taken by Germany. At that time the Czechs held the second strongest army in the world behind France(yes); Germany was allowed to take the country with zero casualties and absorb an incredible amount of equipment and supplies. Had Chamberlain refused to comply with Hitler's demands, Germany could not win a three-pronged war from Czechoslovakia, France, and Poland(not to mention the Soviet Union was allied with Czechoslovakia.)
|
On February 12 2011 02:34 Aurocaido wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 02:26 Krohm wrote:On February 12 2011 02:13 Aurocaido 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. There is in my mind no question that events such as the fire bombing of Desden, Tokyo, and Cologne and the droping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not just attrocities but war crimes. The holocaust is considered particularily "evil" (if something can be classified as such) not just because of the number of people that died, but the deliberate and systematic way in which it was done by an industrialized modern state. Many people condone the carpet bombing of Germany and Japan by claiming it was to target military targets. However, it is well known that it was allied policy to directly target civilian targets in order to crush the fighting spirit of the Axis states. What is the difference between the Nazi targeting of Jews and Slavs and the allied targeting of civilians? Sure, many will argure that the Nazis needed to be stopped and I agree whole heartedly with that. Yet the manner in which the allied war effort was conducted leads me to question the superior morality of the allied nations. There is a fundamental difference between the deaths of soldiers and of innocent women and children. There is the argument as well stateing that if these bombings of civilian targets had not occured the war would have been dragged out for years. This is an assumption from the years I have spent studying history to be exagerated. Even before the all out allied bombing campain against civilian targets, the Soviet Red Army had the German Wehrmacht in full retreat. It is estimated that upwards of eighty percent of Germanys fighting capacity was focused on the eastern front. It seems unlikely that the allied bombing of civilian targets contributed to the speady collapse of Germany in any way except morale. Which at that time point German public support was already going against the Nazis. I have never been a firm believer in the end justifies the means. Especially if the means is in no way morally superior to the present circumstance. That is just my take on it. Yeah that's something about WWII that has always bothered me. The Axis powers are permanently flagged as "evil" and they are known for killing innocent people. But no one seems to remember the firebombings of all major German and Japanese cities. Cities full of civilians. Tokyo was practically leveled, especially the residential areas. The atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima is debatable as well. Now I'm not condoning what the Axis powers did, it's just there is really two sides of evil. The Allies won though and are regarded as heroes. +1 It is something that has bothered many Second World War historians and myself included. Such things are what make generalizations such as the allies were right and the axis wrong gross oversimplifications of the issue. Very few things are that black and white. Where the actions of the Nazis and Japanese wrong? Most certainly. But that fact does not make the allies means morally just.
The primary difference is that the Axis powers started this war. You can dance around that point all you want but none of these war crimes would have happened if Hitler and Japan didn't start the war in the first place.
I don't think anyone of any note actually claims that the Allies were shitting daisies during this war. The allied carpet bombing of Germany will always be suspect but I believe it was more a product of the times than the inherent evil of either side in that war. It's always easy to look back and claim what either side did was morally bankrupt but frankly, it's people fighting for survival here. The Holocaust is much more easy to classify as it was just Hitler killing people of a certain race/belief just because he wanted it to. That's clearly an evil act. Carpet bombing cities to destroy the enemies will to fight in a war that's already cost millions of lives as it is...little bit more shady. We look back on it and vilify it and I certainly don't condone bombing civilian targets but the people back then thought plain differently.
The Red Army in particular did some things that are atrocities. Pretty much any German city they conquered was not only leveled to the ground, but they took care to rape and murder as many people as they could. Some of this is because well, Germany did the same thing to them and the other part is because the Russian army wasn't exactly what one would consider restrained.
The atomic bombings will never be cut and dry and as a WW2 historian you should realize this...
@Krohm It was a direct response to Germany invading Poland. Germany did this as a provocation. Not only are France and British allies of Poland but Germany was given numerous warnings that such an act would be an act of war. I'm not sure what you're trying to imply but I hope it's not that defending an ally all of a sudden means that Germany didn't start the war.
|
On February 10 2011 14:37 travito wrote:
I've been trying to look this up but I haven't found what I am looking for...here are the only(few) details I know:
-a mass killing, considered to be a "holocaust"
-took place somewhere in either eastern europe, russia, or the balkans
-to this day the country responsible denies it
-they buried them in mass graves...
I remember learning about this in high school social.
I think this was bosnia
|
On February 12 2011 06:04 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 05:44 DrTJEckleburg wrote:
I'd like to bring up a new topic to this thread.
A common misconception in history is that the Aztec Empire fell to the Spaniards due to an alliance with the Tlaxcala, superior military technology, and pathogens such as smallpox brought over from Europe. Although these factors are certainly a part of the conquering, it's not unreasonable to assume that the cultural differences that we see between the Aztecs and the Spanish are a critical factor in this. The Aztecs would assume to fight honorably and to the death of course, however, Cortes besieged Tenochtitlan and this was simply a type of warfare that the Aztecs could not respond to. Many of the Aztecs simply starved to death because they could not leave the city and were not aware of why the Spanish were fighting in this manner.
Another example of this is taking prisoners; the Aztecs would often rout the Spanish and pursued them in an adrenaline rush of some kind. The ensuing results were often the Spanish stopping in their tracks and turning around to open fire on their pursuers. Captives were extremely valuable for the Aztecs as human sacrifice was still rampant in this community. Maybe it's not much different than people assume, but I think a lot of people believe that it was because of gunpowder and cannon that the Spanish were victorious. In addition, many Spanish weapons were adopted by the Aztecs by creating make-shift lances or simply using weapons off of dead Spaniards. There's no question that the Aztecs didn't have the opportunity to use the weapons of the Spanish. After all, the war lasted over two years, strategic and technological resilience had to have been developed by the Aztecs. I think the biggest advance attributed to Spanish are not actually guns and cannons, but good iron/steel weapons, armors and horses. And of course much more advanced tactics. Pathogens probably not much since it was too short a time.
It is true that the weapons(swords, lances, etc) used by the Spanish were far superior to the Aztec weapons, however the Aztecs were able to re-used captured weaponry and create their own lances(strapping them to wooden poles, etc.) Not only that, but the city of Tenochtitlan was absurdly difficult to navigate by horse and the Aztecs created numerous traps and roadblocks that prohibited efficient uses of mounted troops.
|
On February 12 2011 06:12 DrTJEckleburg wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2011 05:59 Krohm wrote:
Another people tend to forget is that France and Britain declared war on Germany first. Germany was well aware that France and Britain were going to declare war on them upon invading Poland. A clumsy response and mobilization by France and Britain then resulted in Germany conquering Poland relatively unscathed. As long as were around that time period, a lot of people already know about Neville Chamberlain being famous for his policy of appeasement towards Germany. However, he wasn't trying to simply keep Europe out of a state of war like many may think, he was trying to delay Germany in order to prepare for the inevitable Battle of Britain. Although this is completely irrelevant too since because he allowed Czechoslovakia to be taken by Germany. At that time the Czechs held the second strongest army in the world behind France(yes); Germany was allowed to take the country with zero casualties and absorb an incredible amount of equipment and supplies. Had Chamberlain refused to comply with Hitler's demands, Germany could not win a three-pronged war from Czechoslovakia, France, and Poland(not to mention the Soviet Union was allied with Czechoslovakia.)
It wasn't so much a clumsy response from France and Britain as simply having outdated technology, Germany learned a lot of lessons from the first world war, how to use tanks and planes properly, made loads of them and implemented blitzkrieg to devastating effect. The British and French were cocky from victory in WW1 and didn't focus on the development of their military as heavily as the Germans.
France's attempt at invading Germany in September 1939 did not go well...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
