Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE WWII Thread (merged)

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

Who deserves most credit for winning WWII?

Russia, because it singlehandedly destroyed Hitler and the Third Reich, sacrificing 26 million Russians in the process
33
No votes
The local Resistance movements in France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, etc... for their enormous courage in sabotaging the Nazi war machine locally
4
No votes
The former 'colonial subjects', because even though they were still being oppressed by the Western world, they fought in a war that was least of all theirs; colonial subjects from North Africa, Black Africa, India, Burma
4
No votes
 
Total votes : 41

Postby ubercynicmeister » Mon 09 May 2005, 20:21:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Geology_Guy', 'G')ood post Uber.


Thanks, Geology Guy...I was beginning to think no-one had seen it, LOL!
User avatar
ubercynicmeister
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun 25 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Hunter Valley, New South Wales, Australia

Postby bruin » Mon 09 May 2005, 20:22:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ubercynicmeister', 'I')ndeed, Hitler's exermination rate was (sadly) exceeded in the massacre in Rwanda, recently. And what hi-tech weaponry did the perpetrators use? Machetes. You're telling me the Hutu's and Tutsi's are ANGLO-SAXONS. I'm sorry but that is BLATANTLY untrue.

Machetes... Yuck
User avatar
bruin
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu 09 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: CA, USA

Postby lorenzo » Mon 09 May 2005, 20:53:10

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('erl', 'I') wonder Lorenzo, do you also believe that Hitler never killed any Jews?

Even though yours is a retorical question, I must answer.
It's not because Hitler was evil and because the Holocaust was one of history's worst crimes, that we should suddenly all relativize other war crimes or other genocides. This is intellectual blackmail of a narrowminded kind.
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Postby lorenzo » Mon 09 May 2005, 20:56:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', 'Y')ou said 1930's? Well, there you go.. 5-10 million deaths due to famine caused directly by Stalin's Collectivisation policy.

This argumentation is totally flawed and bordering on the ridiculous. This would be the same as stating that George Bush is responsible for the 400 000 Americans who die each year, not of famine, but of obesity. Neither Stalin nor Bush are responsible because they didn't have the intent to kill these people.

Stalin is only responsible as a mass murderer for the death of around one million people in the 1930s, who he ordered executed because they were political enemies. Just like Bush is responsible for the thousands of dead Iraqis, but not for the hundreds of thousands Americans who die of over-eating each year.
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Postby Ebyss » Mon 09 May 2005, 21:01:42

Actually, it is your argument that is flawed. Stalins policy directly caused the famine. He gave his people no choice but to comply with Collectivisation. They did what he said, or they died (Kulak's anyone?). He implemented a policy doomed to failure and did not correct it when it went wrong, instead he pushed forwrd with it and shot anyone who dared to oppose him. He was directly responsible for that famine and those deaths.

George Bush has no such policy on the consumption of fatty foods. It is entirely your choice if you wish to eat sh1t and die in America. Nobody is forced to eat fatty foods due to a dictators policy. The difference is choice.
We've tried nothin' and we're all out of ideas.

I am only one. I can only do what one can do. But what one can do, I will do. -- John Seymour.
User avatar
Ebyss
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 834
Joined: Sun 20 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Ireland

Postby lorenzo » Tue 10 May 2005, 00:03:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', 'A')ctually, it is your argument that is flawed. Stalins policy directly caused the famine. He gave his people no choice but to comply with Collectivisation. They did what he said, or they died (Kulak's anyone?). He implemented a policy doomed to failure and did not correct it when it went wrong, instead he pushed forwrd with it and shot anyone who dared to oppose him. He was directly responsible for that famine and those deaths.

So you are saying that Stalin organized a famine with the explicit intent of killing people?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ebyss', 'I')t is entirely your choice if you wish to eat sh1t and die in America. Nobody is forced to eat fatty foods due to a dictators policy. The difference is choice.

I think I speak for many people when I disagree. An American is literally forced into becoming obese from a very early age on. The industrial-food complex indoctrinates babies from kindergarten on.
Did you know that the first two words an American baby utters are: "coke" and "hamburger", not "mom" and "dad"?
I mean, this isn't even a public secret, this is common knowledge: Americans have no free choice, everything around them is organized so that they become obedient consumer slaves. Only an elite can escape this horrible tyranny. Once you belong to the vast underclass of lower middle classers, you have a 50% chance of becoming obese and diabetic in the US. Really, this has nothing to do with free choice. That's a big myth.

You can't realistically convince anyone by saying that 50% of all Americans consciously choose to become morbidly obese. And if they do, then that's fair enough evidence to legitimately call it crazy, sick nation. Nope, things are more subtle, I think.

But we're diverging from the topic at hand. Stalin did not organize a famine with the explicit intent of killing people. Stalin was a madman, but he destroyed an even bigger madman, which is why his legacy is so difficult to cope with. (Same could be said of the madman Bush, who destroyed the madman Saddam.) We are discussing Stalin's legacy just like people will be discussing Bush's legacy five decades from now.
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby erl » Tue 10 May 2005, 00:11:52

Lorenzo: There are many posters on this site who maintain, well shall we say, less than full support for American policies. That is perfectly acceptable. Your particularly virulent anti-American positions are well known to readers of your own posts.

But in addition to that, now you seek to rewrite history and diminish America's role in World War II, or that of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. But there's more, now you have become an apologist for Stalin. Your credibility is suffering.
erl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 580
Joined: Mon 21 Mar 2005, 04:00:00

Postby PenultimateManStanding » Tue 10 May 2005, 00:15:29

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', '
')It's not because Hitler was evil and because the Holocaust was one of history's worst crimes, that we should suddenly all relativize other war crimes or other genocides. This is intellectual blackmail of a narrowminded kind.
Is English 'no mother tongue' lorenzo? I can only make sense of this if I presume that instead of 'all relativise' you perhaps meant 'marginalize'. I can't stand it when someone posts something and its almost impossible to say what they mean. And what is narrowminded intellectual blackmail? Do you know what 'blackmail' even means? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with any apparent meanings prior to that sentence. Could you perhaps rephrase this so that it makes sense in English for this anglosaxon?
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Postby erl » Tue 10 May 2005, 00:15:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', 'D')id you know that the first two words an American baby utters are: "coke" and "hamburger", not "mom" and "dad"?

Where did you get this from? The first words out of my kids' mouths was not "coke" and "hamburger." It was "pepsi" and "hot dog."
erl
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 580
Joined: Mon 21 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby lorenzo » Tue 10 May 2005, 00:20:29

good one, erl.

Seriously though, I have read this somewhere, it comes from a real study. I'm going to check the BBC, they must have this story.
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Postby lorenzo » Tue 10 May 2005, 00:36:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lorenzo', '
')It's not because Hitler was evil and because the Holocaust was one of history's worst crimes, that we should suddenly all relativize other war crimes or other genocides. This is intellectual blackmail of a narrowminded kind.
Is English 'no mother tongue' lorenzo? I can only make sense of this if I presume that instead of 'all relativise' you perhaps meant 'marginalize'. I can't stand it when someone posts something and its almost impossible to say what they mean. And what is narrowminded intellectual blackmail? Do you know what 'blackmail' even means? It doesn't seem to have anything to do with any apparent meanings prior to that sentence. Could you perhaps rephrase this so that it makes sense in English for this anglosaxon?


Ok, I bite.

There's nothing wrong with this sentence: "It's not because Hitler was evil and because the Holocaust was one of history's worst crimes, that we should suddenly all relativize other war crimes or other genocides." It's a grammatically correct English sentence. "To relativize": v : consider or treat as relative. A normal English verb, used in the correct tense.

"Intellectual blackmail", a metaphor often used in literary English.

Now, what I was trying to express, is the idea that when it comes to the history of WWII, we are stuck with myths and clichés. The strongest of these myths and clichés is that the holocaust was a unique event, and that, because of this, we should downplay the importance or uniqueness of other genocides.
I used this example of a WWII myth, to relativize some other common myths, such as the myth that the USA "liberated" Europe, or that the Europeans didn't fight the nazis.

This is the context of the sentence you don't seem to understand. I hope I am making myself clear.

I know that my English is basic or mediocre, but I'm doing my best. Thanks for doing the effort of trying to make sense of what non-native speakers are trying to say. It must be exhausting.
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby PenultimateManStanding » Tue 10 May 2005, 01:27:21

OK, I chew. Here is another 'perfectly grammatically correct' sentence: "To relativise WWII is to notice that the sun is not yellow, its chicken". I'm telling you as one who knows English very well that to 'relativise' other crimes is all but meaningless as you use the expression. How would one meaningfully use the verb 'to relativise' in the context of crime? It simply means to compare the gravity of the crime to other crimes. Example: Little Johnny has lied about stealing a penny candy at the store. Meanwhile Big John waved a gun in the face of the store owner and demanded money. Little Johnny's crime is relatively innocuous. Or one could say that Big John's crime was relatively gigantic compared to Little Johnny's. But now here comes Wicked Willie who shoots and kills the store owner. Now Big John's crime seems relatively benign. Get the picture? To 'relativise' doesn't make the crime worse or better, it just places it in a context to be compared to other crimes. So are you saying that we shouldn't be too hung up about Hitler's crimes because other people did nastier things or equally nasty things or what? OK, so on to 'intellectual blackmail'. Often used in literary English? You don't say! Care to give an example?
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There

Postby gnm » Wed 11 May 2005, 11:13:32

For your information Lorenzo, we don't have a TV and my 4 year old has never had a coke or soda of any kind for that matter. He was thirsty at the store the other day and went to the cooler and pulled out a bottled water from amongst the various sodas for me to buy him since it is what he knows. He has had a hamburger (which I made). I can't stand fast food.

So I see you've changed your opinion. Now Stalin has "only" killed a million in the 30's according to you - I believe you said "thousands" before? I'd say that was a tad off. He was a goddamn butcher. Oh and now Russia saved the US from Japan? Oh please! - Japan would have fallen anyways but with 1.5 million more dead had we invaded but I think the deciding victories against Japan were Midway and Oppenheimers creations...

pfffttt - I will read replies but I am done posting on this thread....
gnm
 

Postby lorenzo » Wed 11 May 2005, 16:19:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', '
')So I see you've changed your opinion


Not at all, there's just an inflation of false conclusions here.

Someone wrote that Stalin killed millions of people in the 1930s. I said that this is not true, and it isn't. Suddenly I'm a Stalin worshipper, because I want to correct someone elses exaggeration. This is ridiculous.

When I said that the holocaust shouldn't be misused for political reasons, suddenly someone draws the conclusion that I'm a negationist. Again, ridiculous.

When I said that American aid to Russia during the war amounted to around 13%, and I called it rather "marginal", suddenly someone draws the conclusion that I'm anti-American. Again, ridiculous.

Nobody is served by a lack of historic accuracy.
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Postby Tyler_JC » Wed 11 May 2005, 18:37:20

Do you realize that even (your hero) the USSR admitted to the purges of Stalin and the various other atrocities that he committed? The Kulaks were virtually wiped out in the 30’s. Millions and yes, I mean MILLIONS of people were murdered by his regime. He killed more people than Hitler did and worse, his regime enslaved more than 100 million people from 1922-1991. His morally bankrupt philosophy continues to enslave people in North Korea, China, and dozens of other countries around the world. Communism isn’t just anti-Capitalism, it’s anti-Democracy. It’s anti-religious (something that a Catholic such as yourself should care about) and it’s anti-Individual. There are no individual freedoms in Communism. It’s the “masses” that matter. It’s the “masses” that are rounded up by the millions and sent to concentration camps in Siberia. It’s the “masses” that are robbed of their land and forced into brutal serfdom. But, believe whatever you feel like believing. I'm not in the business of stopping free thought (unlike the Communists).
"www.peakoil.com is the Myspace of the Apocalypse."
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Boston, MA

Postby PenultimateManStanding » Wed 11 May 2005, 18:54:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'C')ommunism isn’t just anti-Capitalism, it’s anti-Democracy. It’s anti-religious (something that a Catholic such as yourself should care about) and it’s anti-Individual. There are no individual freedoms in Communism. It’s the “masses” that matter. It’s the “masses” that are rounded up by the millions and sent to concentration camps in Siberia. It’s the “masses” that are robbed of their land and forced into brutal serfdom. But, believe whatever you feel like believing. I'm not in the business of stopping free thought (unlike the Communists).
You've nailed it Tyler - it is anti-individual. If one reads lorenzo closely then it becomes clear that anti-individualism is at the core of what he's talking about. And if you read Acts in the New Testament you can see where it comes from.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Postby lorenzo » Thu 12 May 2005, 09:09:50

I'm far from being an anti-individualist.

I just watched Bowling for Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 yesterday (a duo-DVD). These movies show that the USA is probably the most collectivist nation of modern history. (When all Americans together shout that they own a gun because it gives them freedom and individuality - they all become paranoid and they all end up being driven by the same impulses, the same fears, the same cultural memes - and there goes their cherished freedom, out the door; you may not like Mr Moore, but he established once and for all that Canada is far more free than the USA).

So I'm not against "freedom" and "invidivualism", I'm against the shallow American versions of it, which come down to collectivism.
No nation in history makes more fuzz about "freedom" than America, and no nation in history is more unfree than America. That's why the USA is a tragi-comedy. That's why Mr Moore finds all his hilarious stuff out there; reality in the USA IS one big joke.
Last edited by lorenzo on Thu 12 May 2005, 13:59:27, edited 1 time in total.
The Beginning is Near!
User avatar
lorenzo
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sat 01 Jan 2005, 04:00:00

Postby RIPSmithianEconomics » Thu 12 May 2005, 12:03:52

:lol: This thread is a non-stop example of our obsession with the abstract.
There'll be war, there'll be peace
But one day all things shall cease
All the iron turned to rust
All the proud men turned to dust
So all things time will mend
So this song will end
RIPSmithianEconomics
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun 11 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Scotland

PreviousNext

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron