Trump recognises Jerusalem as the capital of Israel

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Agema:

if we want Jordan to take in millions, we can ask it with free and fair option of refusal, and if it agrees, to pay it a metric shit-ton for the inconvenience and infrastructure it'll need to support and integrate them.

The world should be involved (US and the West in general too) in such support.

Jordanians and Palestinians are somewhat culturally distinct. Jordan offered citizenship to the 2 million Palestinian refugees who fled there ~1947-1967. As well as the huge task of integrating them, after 1967 Palestinian militants threatened to overthrow the Jordanian government, ending with Jordan having to militarily suppress them. I really don't think they want the headache of absorbing another couple of million.

I had not read about that... sounds like there must be a lot to it (that they were given refuge and then tried to overthrow their patrons).

That said, what's going to happen in the long run is the Palestinians are going to leave. They're going to be stuck in squalid, economically useless hellholes, and they will emigrate. They don't even need to be deported or expelled, they can just be rendered so miserable that they'll leave on their own accord - and the good news for Israel is that makes its ethnic cleansing operation relatively cost-free.

I wish I could think of a fair and reasonable alternative. I do think there will always be a Muslim presence in Israel though. I think there is a substantial populace on the Israel side of the fences... reviewing.

EDIT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Israel At about 18%, Muslims make up the single largest minority in Israel. I doubt they are going anywhere.

BeetleManiac:
There is a case to be made that in terms of scale, the sheer incompetence and corruption of the administration has caused damage that will take generations to repair. Under this administration the EPA is slowly being poisoned from within, we're the only country to drop out of the Paris climate accord, we've lost most of our senior diplomatic corps, net neutrality just got nixed, we've alienated allies and our standing in the international community may have been irreparably tarnished while the Diet Coke-head in Chief tries to play Risk with real nukes.

While nothing Trump has done directly is an atrocity on par with the Trail of Tears, we're only a year in and he's already created significant damage to our nation and our democracy. We're looking at a president who is very likely to be removed from office for colluding with a foreign power to influence the election. If he's not the worst yet, it sure as shit ain't for lack of trying.

You pretty much just typed out what I was going to say. The man has done such damage to the country in just a single year of being in office, and he isn't even done yet.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Trump defends Nazis. Nazis killed well over 15 million people in horrific ways.

I agree people need perspective...about how fucking horrible Nazis are.

cjspyres:
Yeah, it's interesting you bring up the natives. You know, the natives that he literally just stripped more land from. Protected land that is important to their culture and identity, but sure, let's minimize what he's doing because other people in history have been worse.

Also, again, he is standing up for nazis. You don't get much worse than that. At best, he is indifferent to the pain and deaths of others. At worst, he is actively supporting that pain and death. I mean, for god's sake, the man praised Duterte. You know, that guy in the Philippines actively exterminating people?

"The worst".

Are you genuinely, honestly, seriously trying to tell me that you don't believe a single US President in history has done worse than the things Trump has done - done, not tweeted about, not said, but actually achieved - in his one year in power? I know you can pick a lot of things about him to whine about, but come on. Seriously...

Are you genuinlt, honestly, seriously trying to tell me that if he isnt the worst, that it makes all the horrible things he has done, is doing, and will do, ok? Cause you are. You are scapegoating, you are trying to distract. Trump is worse than Bush Jr, Bush Sr Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Johnson Kennedy. Hell, he is probably worse than Truman cause I honestly believe he would have dropped even more nukes than 2, and done it because he could, not because he thought it would save more lives in the long run.

Hell, the only reason he might not be the worst, is because he wasnt given the chance to be. But I have no doubt he would have owned slaves, and been shitty to them. And he mistreats Native Americans now, so why wouldnt he have done it when ALL US citizens hated them too?

So yes. I honestly believe he is THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER. And its only because of what few safeguards still creaking along in our government that we arent building gold statues of him in Central Park.

Seanchaidh:

Saelune:

Catnip1024:
I dislike hyperbole. Claiming Trump is the "worst ever" is a little bit of a slap in the face for all those murdered native americans, suppressed slaves, those dead in Vietnam. People need perspective.

Trump defends Nazis. Nazis killed well over 15 million people in horrific ways.

I agree people need perspective...about how fucking horrible Nazis are.

We also need perspective about how horrible the United States has been in regards to white supremacy, colonialism, and so on.

Well thats why I dont support people who say "Make America Great...again". We shouldnt strive for the past, cause the past -was- always worse than now. We should move forward. Trump not only did not want to move forward, he has moved us back decades. Nazis killing innocent people, Jews and blacks under attack, Native Americans losing their land. How the fuck is it almost 2018!?

Saelune:

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Trump defends Nazis. Nazis killed well over 15 million people in horrific ways.

I agree people need perspective...about how fucking horrible Nazis are.

cjspyres:
Yeah, it's interesting you bring up the natives. You know, the natives that he literally just stripped more land from. Protected land that is important to their culture and identity, but sure, let's minimize what he's doing because other people in history have been worse.

Also, again, he is standing up for nazis. You don't get much worse than that. At best, he is indifferent to the pain and deaths of others. At worst, he is actively supporting that pain and death. I mean, for god's sake, the man praised Duterte. You know, that guy in the Philippines actively exterminating people?

"The worst".

Are you genuinely, honestly, seriously trying to tell me that you don't believe a single US President in history has done worse than the things Trump has done - done, not tweeted about, not said, but actually achieved - in his one year in power? I know you can pick a lot of things about him to whine about, but come on. Seriously...

Are you genuinlt, honestly, seriously trying to tell me that if he isnt the worst, that it makes all the horrible things he has done, is doing, and will do, ok? Cause you are. You are scapegoating, you are trying to distract. Trump is worse than Bush Jr, Bush Sr Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Johnson Kennedy. Hell, he is probably worse than Truman cause I honestly believe he would have dropped even more nukes than 2, and done it because he could, not because he thought it would save more lives in the long run.

Hell, the only reason he might not be the worst, is because he wasnt given the chance to be. But I have no doubt he would have owned slaves, and been shitty to them. And he mistreats Native Americans now, so why wouldnt he have done it when ALL US citizens hated them too?

So yes. I honestly believe he is THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER. And its only because of what few safeguards still creaking along in our government that we arent building gold statues of him in Central Park.

Look, I'm still putting Andrew Jackson as the worst president. Trump can have second but there is plenty of time to push into first. I think a lot of repercussions won't be realised for a couple of decades. He'll probably get there.

Third is probably Wilson or Jefferson.

Saelune:
Are you genuinlt, honestly, seriously trying to tell me that if he isnt the worst, that it makes all the horrible things he has done, is doing, and will do, ok? Cause you are. You are scapegoating, you are trying to distract. Trump is worse than Bush Jr, Bush Sr Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Johnson Kennedy. Hell, he is probably worse than Truman cause I honestly believe he would have dropped even more nukes than 2, and done it because he could, not because he thought it would save more lives in the long run.

Hell, the only reason he might not be the worst, is because he wasnt given the chance to be. But I have no doubt he would have owned slaves, and been shitty to them. And he mistreats Native Americans now, so why wouldnt he have done it when ALL US citizens hated them too?

So yes. I honestly believe he is THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER. And its only because of what few safeguards still creaking along in our government that we arent building gold statues of him in Central Park.

So, you think scrapping healthcare and making a few inappropriate comments is somehow worse than, ooh, I dunno:
- Native American suppression and arguable genocide;
- WW2 Internment camps;
- Prohibition;
- Vietnam;
- Slavery.

Because if that is the case, I have to question your priorities. Unless of course your are arguing some sort of reverse compound interest system where genocide 200 years ago is less bad than an angry tweet today.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Are you genuinlt, honestly, seriously trying to tell me that if he isnt the worst, that it makes all the horrible things he has done, is doing, and will do, ok? Cause you are. You are scapegoating, you are trying to distract. Trump is worse than Bush Jr, Bush Sr Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Johnson Kennedy. Hell, he is probably worse than Truman cause I honestly believe he would have dropped even more nukes than 2, and done it because he could, not because he thought it would save more lives in the long run.

Hell, the only reason he might not be the worst, is because he wasnt given the chance to be. But I have no doubt he would have owned slaves, and been shitty to them. And he mistreats Native Americans now, so why wouldnt he have done it when ALL US citizens hated them too?

So yes. I honestly believe he is THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER. And its only because of what few safeguards still creaking along in our government that we arent building gold statues of him in Central Park.

So, you think scrapping healthcare and making a few inappropriate comments is somehow worse than, ooh, I dunno:
- Native American suppression and arguable genocide;
- WW2 Internment camps;
- Prohibition;
- Vietnam;
- Slavery.

Because if that is the case, I have to question your priorities. Unless of course your are arguing some sort of reverse compound interest system where genocide 200 years ago is less bad than an angry tweet today.

Convenient how you completely ignored the fact that she said he would do those things if he could. Do you honestly believe Trump isn't the type of person that would own slaves if he could? Do you really believe that Trump wouldn't set up internment camps for muslims if he could? Again, the man has thrown his support around Nazis. He literally supports people advocating for genocide.

And please, we all know that he has done far more than just, "scrapping healthcare and making a few inappropriate comments".

cjspyres:
Convenient how you completely ignored the fact that she said he would do those things if he could. Do you honestly believe Trump isn't the type of person that would own slaves if he could? Do you really believe that Trump wouldn't set up internment camps for muslims if he could? Again, the man has thrown his support around Nazis. He literally supports people advocating for genocide.

And please, we all know that he has done far more than just, "scrapping healthcare and making a few inappropriate comments".

"We know that he would".

You know nothing. You are slandering someone based on your poor opinion of them. And more to the point, you don't know what any of the other historical presidents wouldn't have done back in the old days. They have a better bullshit veneer to them. Considering the wealth of your average US President, do you not think at least a decent number would have been plantation owners?

That's why we can't judge people on what they "would have done". We judge them on actual actions. Otherwise it is just spurious, unsupported hypothesis used to slag people off.

Catnip1024:

cjspyres:
Convenient how you completely ignored the fact that she said he would do those things if he could. Do you honestly believe Trump isn't the type of person that would own slaves if he could? Do you really believe that Trump wouldn't set up internment camps for muslims if he could? Again, the man has thrown his support around Nazis. He literally supports people advocating for genocide.

And please, we all know that he has done far more than just, "scrapping healthcare and making a few inappropriate comments".

"We know that he would".

You know nothing. You are slandering someone based on your poor opinion of them. And more to the point, you don't know what any of the other historical presidents wouldn't have done back in the old days. They have a better bullshit veneer to them. Considering the wealth of your average US President, do you not think at least a decent number would have been plantation owners?

That's why we can't judge people on what they "would have done". We judge them on actual actions. Otherwise it is just spurious, unsupported hypothesis used to slag people off.

No, I just choose not to be ignorant to somebody who is constantly spewing hate and bullshit on a daily basis. A man who praises murderers and dictators. So yeah, I am judging him on his current actions. And I'm saying that based on those actions, he would do these things.

Saelune:
Hell, the only reason he might not be the worst, is because he wasnt given the chance to be. But I have no doubt he would have owned slaves, and been shitty to them.

Given the conditions he hires immigrants under, he's not that far off.

Catnip1024:
So, you think scrapping healthcare and making a few inappropriate comments

Yes. Inappropriate comments. That is absolutely the extent of his wrong-doing and totally a fair description for the damage he has done to American diplomacy, infrastructure and democracy.

Because if that is the case, I have to question your priorities. Unless of course your are arguing some sort of reverse compound interest system where genocide 200 years ago is less bad than an angry tweet today.

I have to question your priorities if you think stocking the executive branch with parasitic lobbyists and the donor class isn't something to be concerned about, allegations of being a lifelong sexual predator aren't that big a deal and colluding with a hostile foreign power to influence a national election is easily dismissed.

Catnip1024:
You are slandering someone based on your poor opinion of them.

The damn video won't embed properly, sooo....

And more to the point, you don't know what any of the other historical presidents wouldn't have done back in the old days. They have a better bullshit veneer to them. Considering the wealth of your average US President, do you not think at least a decent number would have been plantation owners?

That's why we can't judge people on what they "would have done". We judge them on actual actions. Otherwise it is just spurious, unsupported hypothesis used to slag people off.

We do know the content of his character though. He's a stupid, petty, delusional narcissist with a well-documented penchant for cruelty and disproportionate retribution. He's easily manipulated, a slave to his vanity, has the judgment of a ferret, and desperately cozies up to thugs, dictators and other tough guys in the desperate hope that other people won't recognize that all his bluster and bullying is covering up a phenomenal physical, emotional and intellectual weakness. Andrew "Trail of Tears" Jackson is his favorite president, he nakedly craves Vladimir Putin's approval and he brags about how many people he's fucked over. At events where he's supposed to be honoring other people, he makes it all about himself while taking shots at his enemies. He's an admitted sexual predator with a history of racism. He's so divorced from reality that the truth is irrelevant to him. The truth is whatever is most convenient for him at that moment in time. He wants to bone his daughter.

Ironically, the only thing protecting us from the full force of this man's malice is his incompetence.

Gorfias:

Agema:

Jordanians and Palestinians are somewhat culturally distinct. Jordan offered citizenship to the 2 million Palestinian refugees who fled there ~1947-1967. As well as the huge task of integrating them, after 1967 Palestinian militants threatened to overthrow the Jordanian government, ending with Jordan having to militarily suppress them. I really don't think they want the headache of absorbing another couple of million.

I had not read about that... sounds like there must be a lot to it (that they were given refuge and then tried to overthrow their patrons).

In brief, Jordan was housing refugees. It offered citizenship to them, but many understandably didn't want Jordanian citizenship, they wanted to go back to their homes and the land that they were driven off.

Consequently, many Palestinians who wanted return remained in the refugee camps near the border, and given their huge numbers were extremely hard for Jordan to effectively control. Inevitably they proved a fertile recruiting ground for militants, and, well, zealots are usually far too single-minded to consider niceties like not attacking their hosts.

Gorfias:

Agema:

if we want Jordan to take in millions, we can ask it with free and fair option of refusal, and if it agrees, to pay it a metric shit-ton for the inconvenience and infrastructure it'll need to support and integrate them.

The world should be involved (US and the West in general too) in such support.

Well...how about the US offers to take in the people of Palestine and set them up with houses and jobs?

If that idea is unpalatable to the US, who is going to want to do that?

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Are you genuinlt, honestly, seriously trying to tell me that if he isnt the worst, that it makes all the horrible things he has done, is doing, and will do, ok? Cause you are. You are scapegoating, you are trying to distract. Trump is worse than Bush Jr, Bush Sr Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Johnson Kennedy. Hell, he is probably worse than Truman cause I honestly believe he would have dropped even more nukes than 2, and done it because he could, not because he thought it would save more lives in the long run.

Hell, the only reason he might not be the worst, is because he wasnt given the chance to be. But I have no doubt he would have owned slaves, and been shitty to them. And he mistreats Native Americans now, so why wouldnt he have done it when ALL US citizens hated them too?

So yes. I honestly believe he is THE WORST PRESIDENT EVER. And its only because of what few safeguards still creaking along in our government that we arent building gold statues of him in Central Park.

So, you think scrapping healthcare and making a few inappropriate comments is somehow worse than, ooh, I dunno:
- Native American suppression and arguable genocide;
- WW2 Internment camps;
- Prohibition;
- Vietnam;
- Slavery.

Because if that is the case, I have to question your priorities. Unless of course your are arguing some sort of reverse compound interest system where genocide 200 years ago is less bad than an angry tweet today.

You think supporting Nazis isnt terrible, so I dont trust your judgement.

Thaluikhain:

Gorfias:

Agema:

if we want Jordan to take in millions, we can ask it with free and fair option of refusal, and if it agrees, to pay it a metric shit-ton for the inconvenience and infrastructure it'll need to support and integrate them.

The world should be involved (US and the West in general too) in such support.

Well...how about the US offers to take in the people of Palestine and set them up with houses and jobs?

If that idea is unpalatable to the US, who is going to want to do that?

A people that are much more similar in race, ethnicity and culture. Still, as Agema notes above, Palestinians tried a coup of their Jordanian patrons previously. I would not blame Jordan for refusing to try this again. They might. 30% of Jordan is Palestinian, about 2 million of them there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Jordan . Even so. Not sure who can/would take them in and a permanent, ghettoized existence is one that will result in both sides of this conflict, Israeli and Palestinian under a never ending environment of threat. (Something else bad happened in early 1990s... something about Palestinians I think sided with Saddam vs. Quaits. When Quait got back in power, many (all?) Palestinians were evicted. Reviewing. (Sorry for the lateness of this reply: my inbox is busted. No "Quoated" section. I will check again periodically).

Saelune:
You think supporting Nazis isnt terrible, so I dont trust your judgement.

You think not wanting to actively inflict violence on those you disagree with is equivalent to supporting them, so I think this conversation has run its course.

BeetleManiac:
snip

cjspyres:
snip

"The worst". The worst is an absolute, not a scaled descriptor.

BastardofMelbourne put some actual figures forward which make some form of argument as to why he could be classed as the worse. I debate them for the same reasons I feel Obama can't be blamed for the rise in drone strikes in his time.

Your argument as to why he is "the worst" varies between casual ad hominem and saying that he idolises a bad historical president. Who you somehow feel is less bad than Trump, despite actually participating in a genocide.

I have never said Trump is a great president. He isn't. He's fairly shit. But to say he is the worst is demeaning to the proper genocidal maniacs.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
You think supporting Nazis isnt terrible, so I dont trust your judgement.

You think not wanting to actively inflict violence on those you disagree with is equivalent to supporting them, so I think this conversation has run its course.

BeetleManiac:
snip

cjspyres:
snip

"The worst". The worst is an absolute, not a scaled descriptor.

BastardofMelbourne put some actual figures forward which make some form of argument as to why he could be classed as the worse. I debate them for the same reasons I feel Obama can't be blamed for the rise in drone strikes in his time.

Your argument as to why he is "the worst" varies between casual ad hominem and saying that he idolises a bad historical president. Who you somehow feel is less bad than Trump, despite actually participating in a genocide.

I have never said Trump is a great president. He isn't. He's fairly shit. But to say he is the worst is demeaning to the proper genocidal maniacs.

Nazis killing people they disagree with:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally#Vehicular_attack_and_homicide

Hold Nazis to the standards you hold those who oppose them. Stop supporting Nazis.

Saelune:
Nazis killing people they disagree with:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally#Vehicular_attack_and_homicide

Hold Nazis to the standards you hold those who oppose them. Stop supporting Nazis.

History is history. My standards remain the same.

If people wish to hold protests against Naziism, I hold them to the same standard. By which, they are free to turn up, so long as they do not cause violence. People have the right to peaceful demonstration, regardless of what cause they support.

I don't see how it is so hard to grasp that treating all equally means not changing the laws as they apply to dicks just because they are dicks.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Nazis killing people they disagree with:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally#Vehicular_attack_and_homicide

Hold Nazis to the standards you hold those who oppose them. Stop supporting Nazis.

History is history. My standards remain the same.

If people wish to hold protests against Naziism, I hold them to the same standard. By which, they are free to turn up, so long as they do not cause violence. People have the right to peaceful demonstration, regardless of what cause they support.

I don't see how it is so hard to grasp that treating all equally means not changing the laws as they apply to dicks just because they are dicks.

So you support people gathering to chant about wanting to rape your children?

Like, none of them ever did rape a child, nor are they doing it there, but they want to. You would be fine with that if they dont attack anyone? You would feel fine about that?

Catnip1024:
I have never said Trump is a great president. He isn't. He's fairly shit. But to say he is the worst is demeaning to the proper genocidal maniacs.

Right, how dare we not consider the feelings of other madmen?

Catnip1024:
Snip

You have some pretty bad standards, Catnip. They find old Nazi war criminals in their fricking nineties and convict them. The standard is 'Nazis are criminals and should be treated as such'. The ideaology is bad and it should feel bad. They are not free to go about their business, because their business is a racial purity that doesn't exist and killing other people, which is wrong. There's absolutely no more thought into it.

FalloutJack:
You have some pretty bad standards, Catnip. They find old Nazi war criminals in their fricking nineties and convict them. The standard is 'Nazis are criminals and should be treated as such'. The ideaology is bad and it should feel bad. They are not free to go about their business, because their business is a racial purity that doesn't exist and killing other people, which is wrong. There's absolutely no more thought into it.

Note you have to use the phrase "Nazi war criminals". Not all Nazi Party members during the war were convicted. There is a reason for that.

Catnip1024:

FalloutJack:
You have some pretty bad standards, Catnip. They find old Nazi war criminals in their fricking nineties and convict them. The standard is 'Nazis are criminals and should be treated as such'. The ideaology is bad and it should feel bad. They are not free to go about their business, because their business is a racial purity that doesn't exist and killing other people, which is wrong. There's absolutely no more thought into it.

Note you have to use the phrase "Nazi war criminals". Not all Nazi Party members during the war were convicted. There is a reason for that.

Lame duck excuses, mostly. "Ve vere only following orders." I'm with Saelune on this. Quit apologizing for evil people. They all signed onto the same bandwagon, and that particular following was wrong. Period. Full stop. End of discussion.

FalloutJack:
Lame duck excuses, mostly. "Ve vere only following orders." I'm with Saelune on this. Quit apologizing for evil people. They all signed onto the same bandwagon, and that particular following was wrong. Period. Full stop. End of discussion.

Actually, one of the main things that came out of Nuremberg was that "only following orders" is not an acceptable excuse. Therefore the ones which weren't prosecuted clearly hadn't been demonstrably involved in war crimes.

This black and white outlook on the world is great and all, but judging people who lived in a completely different time, place and circumstances is ludicrous. The vast majority of Germans, and large numbers of the actual Nazi party, knew nothing about the Holocaust until well into the war at the very least, and even then it was mainly limited to rumours due to state sanctioned misinformation. Holding them responsible is an unjust attitude.

Catnip1024:
Actually, one of the main things that came out of Nuremberg was that "only following orders" is not an acceptable excuse. Therefore the ones which weren't prosecuted clearly hadn't been demonstrably involved in war crimes.

Sure, but this doesn't mean they were good people, or had committed no crimes.

Firstly, it's worth bearing in mind that the Nuremberg trials were a compromise. The initial plan (proposed by the British government) was just to round up all high ranking Nazis and shoot them. The reason that didn't happen is that was seen as more a effective deterrent to put them on trial, where their crimes would become a matter of public record. It's questionable whether this actually worked, and to be honest it probably would have been better to just shoot them. They were all guilty, and they all went to prison or were otherwise punished. Some were just more guilty than others.

After the war, the allies came up with a program called "denazification". It was designed to destroy any trace of Nazi ideology across the whole population of Germany and Austria. The initial plan was to simply remove everyone who had been a member of the Nazi party or involved with any of its subsidiary organisations from any positions of influence or power. Those whose involvement was deemed to be too close would also be punished further. The problem is, this would have meant investigating and punishing 10% of the population of Germany at the time, including the vast majority of members of certain key professions. It would have meant that Germany as a state could no longer function, thus, the plan had to be compromised.

So denazification shifted towards a broader policy of softer, collective punishment. German civilians were forced to tour concentration camps, or even dig up mass graves. They were made to watch films of concentration camp victims. Allied propaganda efforts focused on "humiliating" the German population as a whole, by emphasising their shared complicity. The message was clear, even passive support for the Nazis was guilt. This was seen as a just attitude, in fact, it was seen as the only appropriate attitude given how deeply complicit ordinary Germans had been found to have been, so complicit that punishing them as individuals was impossible.

It's debatable wether this actually worked, however, because people still come out with nonsense like this..

Catnip1024:
The vast majority of Germans, and large numbers of the actual Nazi party, knew nothing about the Holocaust until well into the war at the very least, and even then it was mainly limited to rumours due to state sanctioned misinformation. Holding them responsible is an unjust attitude.

Which is a lie. They knew. They claimed they didn't know, but they all knew. The ghettos were not hidden, they were not a secret places. The disappearance of the entire Jewish population of Germany was not hidden from them. The vast majority of Germans were perfectly happy with all the Jews disappearing. They thought it was a good thing. They could not visualize what was happening to those people, they could not perhaps imagine the piles of corpses or the rooms full of children's shoes, but in a sanitized sense they knew what was happening and they supported it. They continued to support it pretty much until Hitler's death, when it became apparent that they were going to lose the war. Even after the war ended, something like a third of Germans surveyed believed that Germany was better with the Jews gone.

Ridding Germany of Nazism required cultural engineering on a scale unlike anything the world has seen before or since. In a way, it's still going on in the battle with neo-Nazism today. There is no such thing as benevolent or innocent Nazism, there never was.

Catnip1024:

FalloutJack:
Lame duck excuses, mostly. "Ve vere only following orders." I'm with Saelune on this. Quit apologizing for evil people. They all signed onto the same bandwagon, and that particular following was wrong. Period. Full stop. End of discussion.

Actually, one of the main things that came out of Nuremberg was that "only following orders" is not an acceptable excuse. Therefore the ones which weren't prosecuted clearly hadn't been demonstrably involved in war crimes.

This black and white outlook on the world is great and all, but judging people who lived in a completely different time, place and circumstances is ludicrous. The vast majority of Germans, and large numbers of the actual Nazi party, knew nothing about the Holocaust until well into the war at the very least, and even then it was mainly limited to rumours due to state sanctioned misinformation. Holding them responsible is an unjust attitude.

They knew nothing like Holloywood knew nothing of all the sexual assault. They knew nothing like everyone knew nothing of Roy Moore's child chasing.

They knew nothing in the same way you defend Nazis.

Their 'ignorance' is their guilt. Their 'ignorance' is their fault. Their 'ignorance' is their evil sin.

They should have known if they didnt. That is on them.

Stop supporting Nazis the way those 'ignorant' Germans supported Nazis, by turning a blind eye to their evil.

Catnip1024:
The vast majority of Germans, and large numbers of the actual Nazi party, knew nothing about the Holocaust until well into the war at the very least, and even then it was mainly limited to rumours due to state sanctioned misinformation. Holding them responsible is an unjust attitude.

It is unlikely that the German population knew a great deal about industrialised mass extermination with gas chambers.

Generally they were however most certainly aware that Jews, political dissidents and various diabled were being bundled away into concentration camps, and that very large quantities of them were being killed (whether deliberately or offhandedly). The Nazi press openly reported much of it straight to them. And even if some of the worst killing did go unmentioned, all those many thousands involved can hardly have failed to gossip to anyone, and it only took a handful of dots to connect. The phrase "turn a blind eye" is very apt.

The idea that they didn't know is perhaps a convenient myth; convenient for the shamed Germans themselves, but also convenient for a post-war West that needed to rebrand West Germany as an ally against Communism.

Saelune:

Catnip1024:

FalloutJack:
Lame duck excuses, mostly. "Ve vere only following orders." I'm with Saelune on this. Quit apologizing for evil people. They all signed onto the same bandwagon, and that particular following was wrong. Period. Full stop. End of discussion.

Actually, one of the main things that came out of Nuremberg was that "only following orders" is not an acceptable excuse. Therefore the ones which weren't prosecuted clearly hadn't been demonstrably involved in war crimes.

This black and white outlook on the world is great and all, but judging people who lived in a completely different time, place and circumstances is ludicrous. The vast majority of Germans, and large numbers of the actual Nazi party, knew nothing about the Holocaust until well into the war at the very least, and even then it was mainly limited to rumours due to state sanctioned misinformation. Holding them responsible is an unjust attitude.

They knew nothing like Holloywood knew nothing of all the sexual assault. They knew nothing like everyone knew nothing of Roy Moore's child chasing.

They knew nothing in the same way you defend Nazis.

Their 'ignorance' is their guilt. Their 'ignorance' is their fault. Their 'ignorance' is their evil sin.

They should have known if they didnt. That is on them.

Stop supporting Nazis the way those 'ignorant' Germans supported Nazis, by turning a blind eye to their evil.

Who could've possibly known that the guys screaming about how the Jews/Ethnicities were ruining their country, would try to exterminate those same Jews/Ethnicities? I mean, you can't just jump to conclusions just because people say things like:

"If I am ever really in power, the destruction of the Jews will be my first and most important job. As soon as I have power, I shall have gallows after gallows erected, for example, in Munich on the Marienplatz-as many of them as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged one after another, and they will stay hanging until they stink. They will stay hanging as long as hygienically possible. As soon as they are untied, then the next group will follow and that will continue until the last Jew in Munich is exterminated. Exactly the same procedure will be followed in other cities until Germany is cleansed of the last Jew!"

"Anti-Semitism is the unifying element of the reconstruction of Germany."

"Germany will regard the Jewish question as solved only after the very last Jew has left the greater German living space... Europe will have its Jewish question solved only after the very last Jew has left the continent."

"We swear we are not going to abandon the struggle until the Last Jew in Europe has been exterminated and is actually dead. It is not enough to isolate the Jewish enemy of mankind-the Jew has got to be exterminated."

"We won't waste much time on the Jews. It's great to get to grips with the Jewish race at last. The more they die the better... We want to put half to three-quarters of all Jews east of the Vistula. We will crush these Jews wherever we can. ... Get the Jews out of the Reich... We have no use for Jews in the Reich. Probably the line of the Vistula, behind this line no more. We are the most important people here..."

I mean, that can be taken any number of ways. Shame on you.

Catnip1024:
Actually, one of the main things that came out of Nuremberg was that "only following orders" is not an acceptable excuse. Therefore the ones which weren't prosecuted clearly hadn't been demonstrably involved in war crimes.

In no way does that follow. You can't put everyone on trial, especially if you want them to work for you, to rebuuld West Germany as a buffer against the USSR, or to work in the US on your missiles.

"Only following orders" was not a defence for people that get put on trial. Anyone else doesn't need a defence.

evilthecat:
Which is a lie. They knew. They claimed they didn't know, but they all knew. The ghettos were not hidden, they were not a secret places. The disappearance of the entire Jewish population of Germany was not hidden from them.

There is a difference between knowing about mass deportation (and the preceding dismissal of rights), and knowing about a mass-murdering. It is still by definition genocide, but there is a huge difference. The difference between the albeit horrendous displacement of the Rohingya, and the Myanmese (Myanmarans?) simply killing them all.

Also bear in mind that by the point the rounding up reached a large scale, the Gestapo were well-established, informers were plentiful and organising any sort of obstruction would be suicidal. If you were a family man, what is more important to you? The continued wellbeing of your family and your ability to feed them, or the incredibly slim chance that you could change things (and incredibly high chance of just winding up dead / imprisoned)?

People who rush to condemn the German population have never been in a State like that. It is easy to say what people should have done, with todays internet access and encryption to hand. But until you are put in that position, you will never know how you react.

Today, people could organise some form of resistance. Videos could be taken and disseminated anonymously, action could be coordinated, and things done. The risks would be far lower, hence the likelihood of people taking part would be far higher. You wouldn't need individuals to stick their head above the parapet on their own.

cjspyres:
snip

First, the Nazi's were never voted in with a majority. They seized power after gaining some positions with a significant but non-majority share of the vote.

Second, people do not vote based on a single issue. Accuse the electorate of being selfish, by all means. Accuse them of being indifferent to the suffering of the Jewish population, by all means. But don't assume that every vote for the Nazi party reflected a desire to undertake a genocide.

The Nazi's were evil. What they did was unforgivable. But condemnation of an entire nation based on that is naiive and unfair.

Because for all you internet warriors like to type about Trump, what have you actually done to stop this man you feel is so monstrous? Who has taken away healthcare, rights and now internet freedoms?

Agema:
very large quantities of them were being killed (whether deliberately or offhandedly). The Nazi press openly reported much of it straight to them.

Genuinely curious, do you have a source for that? My understanding was that the actual killing was unreported (barring the disabled / unable to work who were killed under the trendy eugenics movement), and that the guise was "labour camps". And I would be curious to know when it started being openly reported, too.

I mean, no, it doesn't change the fact that some people knew - nobody is denying that. But it changes the proportion. And potentially the timeframes.

Catnip1024:
There is a difference between knowing about mass deportation (and the preceding dismissal of rights), and knowing about a mass-murdering.

Mass deportation requires mass murdering, whether directly or by proxy. The Nazis did actually make some attempts at deportation (by herding Polish Jews over the Soviet border at gunpoint). It was abandoned because they all died anyway, and the few who survived were simply sent back. Back then there were no organised international systems for handling humanitarian efforts for refugees.

Concentration camps were openly reported on in German media from as early as 1933. At this point, they were not death camps, but people died in them and this was reported. By 1941 there were mass auctions of the property of murdered German Jews. Again, this was reported on in German media, and hundreds of thousands of people attended. Jews could be shot in the streets by police if they were found outside after curfew. No effort was made to hide this, and it would occur in full view of the public.

And this is without touching on the military. For example, nearly 4 million Axis troops, the vast majority of them Germans, took part in operation Barbarossa. The entire conduct of Barbarossa was based on genocidal principles. Soldiers would confiscate food from villages they passed, for example, leaving none for the inhabitants and ensuring they would starve. Local leaders and anyone who might be capable of organized resistance was killed. All soldiers knew full well that their mission involved the deliberate depopulation of European Russia, and they wrote openly about their experiences to their families and friends at home. The entire Wehrmacht, and the civilian population at home, had already long since accepted the necessity and desirability of war crimes and, indeed, of genocide in the pursuit of the war with the Soviet Union. It was only later, when the situation on the Eastern front deteriorated, that soldiers began to openly express more cynical and anti-nazi sentiments.

Catnip1024:
People who rush to condemn the German population have never been in a State like that.

People who rush to condemn the German population are generally quite determined not to end up in a state like that.

The German people elected Hitler to power. They voted for him to become dictator in a popular plebicite. They had their chances to prevent what happened, and they chose not to. Conveniently, most of those who had proactively opposed the Nazi rise to power or who had spoken out about the dangers of Nazism were quickly killed off after that. I have no problem condemning the rest.

For perspective, if Nazis were to seize control in my country, I would be killed fairly quickly unless I managed to escape. No amount of keeping my head down would save me. The same is true for many people. I don't need to put myself in the position of someone making a choice to save themselves or their families, because the reality is that I (and many people) would not be given that choice.

I darsay that lots of Germans didn't know what was happening to the Jews, in the Albert Speer sense of making sure not to know, or the sense in which people don't know what sort of person Trump would turn out to be if put into power.

And, sure, in the 40s, it's a bit late to speak out and get murdered like the White Rose society. Which is why you don't wait til it's too late to care. Which is why people are arguing that Charlottesville was right to not allow Nazis to protest. Nip it in the bud, or hope apologists with Nazi sympathies will be kind to you in future.

Catnip1024:
There is a difference between knowing about mass deportation (and the preceding dismissal of rights), and knowing about a mass-murdering. It is still by definition genocide, but there is a huge difference. The difference between the albeit horrendous displacement of the Rohingya, and the Myanmese (Myanmarans?) simply killing them all.

This is the point about the phrase "turn a blind eye".

It's about knowing, or having very good reason to suspect something is occurring, and deliberately not acknowledging, enquiring, or otherwise looking further. Surveys on the German population postwar suggest over 50% of Germans knew or very strongly believed mass murder was occurring. And I'll bet plenty of the other 50% had at least an inkling.

Given the above, with the Nazis getting about 35-40% of the vote, seems entirely plausible to consider voting Nazi as a vote for genocide.

Agema:
Given the above, with the Nazis getting about 35-40% of the vote, seems entirely plausible to consider voting Nazi as a vote for genocide.

Not really.

At the time those elections happened, most voters would have believed it to be empty rethoric, less credible than Mexico paying for the wall and just a vulgar expression of general antisemitism. After the Nazis came to power and transormed the nation in a way thay got the ability to follow through, there were no longer any elections.

One of the main events of observable Jew persecution was the infamous Kristallnacht, attacking synagoges, jewish schools, jewish shops and sometimes even jewish homes. But that was after already five whole years of Nazi rule and basically the first time the Nazi party felt secure enough to attack such open and visible signs of jewish communities everywhere. Even then they stuck mostly to peoperty damage and plunder. And observed carefully if the population agreed or not. They came to the conclusion that even then after those five years the Kristallnacht event did cost the Nazi party popularity and that ordinary Germans did not really approve. Which is why the nazis stuck to less violent and obvious means like extra taxes for jews, pressure to make them emigrate and so on for a while (while at the same time intensifying propaganda efforts).

So no, not everyone voting a far right wing nationalistic party promising to do something for the economy and offer ptotection from communists led by a vulgar but charismatic and antisemitic loudmouth making unrealistic claims and promises in the early 30s did consciously vote for genocide.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here