Didn't you realise that I was making the point that those "period Germans" who quietly supported Hitler were to blame for the war?

But keep adding insults, if that's what you feel is necessary.

 

Taltamir, I suggest you pick up a history book before calling me an evil person for citing the weak dictator theory. Had you read and thus known what this theory is all about (a functionalist analysis of how the 3rd Reich administration and bureaucracy worked) you would know that it does not make excuses for what happened and is not revisionist. If anything it blamed more people for what happened and not just Hitler as the dictator who pulled all the strings. Instead, you latched on the word weak and automatically assumed that it was revisionist or excused what had happened as not Hitler's fault. All you manage to accomplish is to show your lack of  knowledge on this part of history.

That fact that your family suffered, for which I am very sorry, does not mean that you  have the right to call me gullible and evil of all things because I said something that you misunderstood or misinterpreted really and that hurt your personal feelings.

This is historical science, and it has not to do at all with personal feelings. As with any science, data (documents and other sources of information) is analyzed and then an reasoned argument is made based on the data. Just because you don't like a certain theory doesn't mean you have the right to attack the person who said it. Contradiction is of course welcomed, but I expect the same courtesy I do you and others by remaining polite and not polemic and accusing.

The big industry thesis is not primarily a german one - many anglohistorians (both from the US and UK) do and did extensive research on this topic.

If you have to find and use the data to support your analysis to have a valid theory it means in reverse that you would have to find other data to discount it as a valid theory. Which is being done all the time - historians disagree with each other and fight like cats and dogs via essays and monographies. One famous example is the Historikerstreit. It was an intellectual and political controversy in West Germany about the way the Holocaust should be interpreted in history. Several prominent historians argued via open letters and editorials, and in a very agressive tone. Very interesting phenomenon in itself, and not the only controversy that happened either. It serves to show that history of the 3rd Reich and the way it is interpreted is a very sensitive issue in german society and politics and will probably remain so for the next time being. There is no sign of any revisionism or historization of that era, not as far as I can tell anyway.

I do rely on books - noone can keep up otherwise and the facts are not as tangible as they were for you in Lebanon. You were there and you know people who were there, you saw it with your own eyes. WW2 ended 1945, 65 years ago. It is a lot more difficult to rely on personal interpretation of facts when they're all long gone or in archives and even memory is 65+ years old. Not to say that personal experience makes you an expert..

PS I actually think you might like this book "Das Kulturelle Gedächtnis. Schrift, Erinnerung und politische Identität in frühen Hochkulturen" - Welche Rolle spielt die Erinnerung bei der Herausbildung kultureller Identitäten? Welche Formen kultureller Erinnerung gibt es, wie werden sie organisiert, welchen Wandlungen sind sie unterworften? Diesen Fragen geht der Autor Jan Assmann in einem Vergleich von drei Mittelmeerkulturen des Altertums - Ägypten, Israel und Griechenland - nach, und er zeigt dabei, welche Bedeutung gerade die Erinnerung und der Gebrauch der Schrift für die Entstehung früher Staaten haben.

The author is a professor for egyptology in Germany.
PPS His theory about the cultural (collective) memory is quite interesting and I think it's also relevant to explain recent european history in the sense that the collective "A Holocaust is never to be allowed to happen again" shaped european identity after WW2. The mutual reiteration of that is the fundament on which the european union / european identity  (if there is such a thing) is built upon. Every new prospect had to have stated that as a collective goal of mankind in order to be acceptable. The question wether that noble goal is achievable or just an empty phrase is irrelevant in that instance. Incorporating it and celebrating it in ceremonies and rituals is the key element - it became a part of cultural memory so to speak.

A historic theory is based on "facts" or documents and not solely on the oppinion of the author. And if I remember correctly I was just referring to what is out there theorywise because there are many different interpretations from historians all over the world of how the 3rd Reich worked, what german society was like etc. - a very crude attempt at an overview if you will.

I never said that it was my oppinion, though. All I said is that nazi germany's history (and all history) isn't simple and straightforward and I tried to use the different theories by very different historians from different countries to illustrate that.

I thought you would very much enjoy Jan Assmann - very clever guy. He also published books on the origin of monotheism and polytheism and its importance for egyptian and israeli/jewish history. Right up your alley in that regard. His most recent publication is called "Of God and Gods: Egypt, Isreal and the rise of Monotheism"

Bahu, sorry for Hijacking your thread.. it wasn't planned or anything.

I think the new strategy in Afghanistan is pretty solid because it aims not only to root out the taleban but also to stay afterwards to make sure the transition into a talebanfree time remains permanent. Also, according to what I have read and saw in the news, everything is done to avoid civilian casualties. But of course time will tell and it is way too early to make predictions on the outcome. A new phenomenon of the multimedia internet age is that events are titled "history or historic" while they are happening or only minutes after they occurred. It is pretty difficult if neigh impossible  to really know the context in realtime though, which (for me) is a basic necessitty to be able to come to a reasoned evaluation of events. Don't trust the journalists to tell the "truth" but don't trust yourself to know the whole truth either based on information you recieved from journalists. Did that make sense?

Yeah. I don't have a good answer to that and I do argue that point with many that claim "they didn't know". How could they claim to have no knowledge when there was so overwhelming proof of what went on? It sounds unbelievable at best. Buchenwald wasn't a secluded highsecurity compound after all. I wish I could have a good explanation, it would be better than the knowledge that many of my ancestors were heartless, careless racist murderes through the bench because inaction equaled to complicity in that case.

On a sidenote, the generation "war" that was in their teens when the war ended pretty much accused their parents and grandparents of that and were very critical of their own past. It is possible to tell exactly when those youngsters had grown up and started to be politically active or publish books as historians etc in the 60ies because Germany changed as a result. It only truly became a democracy in the sense that people inherently believed in democratic values after that time. I daresay that the process was successful, but it hadn't been until the 70ies and 80ies that it became a truth.

But - and this isn't meant to relativize german atrocities - there weren't that many polish, italian or ukranian or french or rumanian people that did the same thing either. What shocks me time and again is the huge collaboration the germans recieved to go through with all they did. Had everybody protested history could have been alot different.
(I am sure that a lot of information is available on the net, but that is very much unedited and it is impossible to follow up on the documents that are cited. That is another positive characteristic about respectable historians - you can always look at the sources they cite yourself because they quote exactly where the material is at.)
You can research the history of the progrom of Jedwabne to learn more. I recommend the following:

Aleksiun, Natalia: Polish Historiography of the Holocaust-Between Silence and Public Debate, in: German History 22 (2004), P. 406-432.

Gross, Jan T.: Neighbours. The destruction of the Jewish community in Jedwabne, Poland, Pinceton UP 2001. (His book kicked off a whole controversy and public debate in Poland)

Henning, Ruth (Hrgb.) Die Jedwabne Debatte in polnischen Zeitungen und Zeitschriften, Dokumentation (Transodora 23), Potsdam 2002.

Polonsky, Antiony and Michlic, Johanna B. (Hrgb.): The Neighbours Respond: The controversy over the Jedwabne massacre in Poland, Princeton UP 2004.

This is just a small section of literature on Poland specifically. If you're interested I can cite you more. Many works are in english too and by nongerman historians, so this isn't an attempt to relativize or negate german crimes.

Polish historians have only recently (the last 15 years maybe)  begun to ask critical questions. Alot of that has to do with the fact that the polish people sufferend immensly under the russians and sowjet rule, and the more recent trauma superimposed itself over the history before 1945. People were even quite annoyed that anybody would be interested in that and not in how much they had suffered under the sowjets. (at least that is one theory out there)

You "cite" the "weak dictator theory". KKK members "cite" the "n-word people are missing a gene theory". And nazi's cite the "jews are rats and evil" theory.

And to call those theory is an insult to actual theories, it is nothing but propaganda.

And all of those people are doing an evil act. It is no different then holocaust denial. And those people CHOSE to value the obvious and insidious lies instead of the obvious and reasonable truth.

You didn't hurt my feeling, you offended my sensibilities. My grandparents suffered greatly, my parents had to see it first hand. Me? I heard about it, but I was NEVER an actual victim, not even second hand. Had my grandpa raised me that might have been different, but my parents did, and I did not get to see this growing up. To me this is purely academic.

I typically say that if I met a hypothetical son of hitler and find that he is NOT a nazi, I will shake his hand and tell him I am sorry for all flak he must have received for something he has never done.

And btw, the so called "innocent germans":

1. Voted hitler into power

2. Gave up their guns.

 

3. Did nothing as he gained power

4. Did nothing as the situation worsened.

5. "obeyed" when the orders came to turn people in

etc.

There were a few good people who did what is right (aka, hid innocents from the government). Most were just accomplices.

 

Let me use your logic, "period Jews" sealed the fate of Christ, I guess while they don't deserve their fate, it is their fault for whatever happens to them as a result.

My argument: The actions against Dresden had no value in ending the war, and probably cost the US (and others) a ton of money to rebuild, three months later, so was a waste of resources. Frankly I'm not fond of beating someone up they paying for their hospital bills. Whether the people there were loved or despised it changed nothing. I definitely understand why you feel the way you do. 90% of your articles are about jewish victimization or similar, only a blind person couldn't tell that. If you want to wrap up your perception of what I'm writing in your ideology fine. To me everything is not that black and white. 

BTW no insults, just calling it the way I see it. I have no nor want control over your sensibilities.

like whom? and to which century do you refer to? The romans did crucify thousands of people but around 33ad  not mainly because they were religious leaders. The persecution and relentless hunting of christians came much later as christianity was nothing but a small jewish sect at the time of Jesus's death. Christians as such didn't exist yet. Otherwise, they didn't really mind other polytheistic pagan cults, they were sort of adopted into their pantheon, and as long as the conquered people paid tribute to their  gods they didn't care much. Lateron, christians refused to bow to the roman gods which, in roman belief, pissed those gods off. A po'd god was a very bad thing because then the gods didn't protect the people anymore and you'd have foul crops, children will die, storms etc. as a result. Paying tribute in the form of sacrifices was essential to survival in the roman mind - keep the gods happy and content. The refusal to pay tribute put the whole society in jeopardy and the state at risk and that's why they were hunted down relentlessly until the 4th century.

The period jews fought the romans and lost - 40 years later. Around 70 ad they razed jerusalem to the ground and expelled the jews from their lands as a punitive measure for the uprising.

Research colaboration with the Nazis. Not taking away the blame from Germany here, but it seems that many were very eager to join the germans in killing and hunting Jews and Gypsies. They weren't forced to do so, either.  I listed a few essays and books above - I  am sure your college library has them, so check them out before telling me that I am a revisionist again. You seem interested in history at the very least. Bottom line is that without the huge colaboration the nazis could have never done what they did.

Well-known point. The Romans came and killed a Jew (many Jews, to be precise), and while most civilised people these day would say that Jews shouldn't be punished for that crime (any more), many people still attribute the death to Jews and Jews alone.

 

I am thinking a Christian Jew is a Jew when he does something bad and a Christian when he does something good.

 

The Jews-killed-Jesus story is too embedded in western civilisation. It's regarded as a fact obviously comparable to the fact that Germany started World War II. There is no doubt about it and hence if blame falls on Germans for World War II then blame must fall on the Jews for the death of Jesus.

Of course, the man "Jesus" becomes the "Christ" or even a god because what's the point of being angry with the Jews for executing a man? Ancient Israel had a death penalty but executed far fewer people than other states at the time.

 

I don't have any proof either, but I still know why the bombing happened.

 

 

A Pole who refused to cooperate had a lot more to fear than a pure-blooded German who just didn't care. For Poles collaboration with the Nazis was a way to regain some of what they lost and a career move towards where they were before the German invasion, for Germans it was a career move upwards.

That doesn't absolve Polish collaborators, but I woudn't say that cooperating with a violent enemy is the same as being that violent enemy.

You are not taking away the blame from Germany, but you are adding blame to others as if what they did was the same. It wasn't. A slave who betrays his fellow slaves to gain favour with the master is not as bad as a master.

 

Sure was the Romans (did I say "kill"). Who turned him over to the Romans? Who chose Barabbas (a criminal) over Christ when clemency was offered? This is all irrelevant to me, I'm not very religious...and especially don't wear it on my sleeve, I was just making a point about "holding grudges". If one wishes to interject their personal feelings into what occurred in history, that's their choice. Half the worlds problems is because of past hatreds. I choose to get over it. I believe the Dresden bombing was of little to no significant military effect on the war, that is my opinion compiled from what I've read, others believe kill them all, they are evil Nazis. That's a personal choice, and really outside the scope of my argument. But since it reared it head here, I commented on it. We could easily apply the "kill the bastards logic" today in many areas. Why not bomb the Sunni's to oblivion in Iraq? They tormented the Kurds and Shiite's for decades. How about the Tamil's in Sri Lanka, a thirty year insurrection?  

No, but then again I'm looking at the bombing in strictly military terms without the emotional baggage some here may have. A master strategist... hardly, but I'd gladly put my military background and understanding of tactics up against anyone I've run into on JU to date. Are you asserting that you have "proof of value" of the bombing or you are a master strategist? Please share if the former, and congratulations if the later.

Jesus was a criminal too, according to both Roman and Jewish law. Who turned him over to the Romans? A Christian did, Judas. Who chose one criminal and not the other? The Jews of Jerusalem.

What's the big deal?

 

Why? Nobody here said anything about grudges.