Jump to content

Was Hitler “manipulated into a larger war, far more dreadful than he imagined”?


Len Colby
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

Sorry for the delay in responding - have been more than a little ill (still am), but on the mend.

Len, thanks for your comments re: my quotes will look at them in detail when I get a chance.

Stephen Turner said:

To claim that there is no moral distance between Blair/Bush, and Hitler is breathtaking in its absurdity, and hypocrisy

Only by degrees. I'm not sure at which point they cross the line and they are not finished yet (anyone want to take bets on an Iran invasion before November?). They have probably murdered 300,000 Iraqis and Afghans already, Bush I's sanctions would add another 500,000 children alone. The total premeditated destruction of a nation's infrastructure, including water and food supply, the use of depleted uranium (which will continue to cause cancer, birth defects and kill for billions[with a B] of years), the use of white phosphorous (very nasty stuff) in an aggressive war on a people whose ability to fight back was destroyed during the first Gulf war. We made sure they didn't have WMDs and then we stuck it to 'em using the most powerful and advanced armed forces the world had ever seen following a secret concerted aerial bombardment campaign which lasted months and started way before the official invasion. I personally think, that once you get over killing say 50,000 and using illegal weapons and deliberately targeting civilian populations, I think you've reached the big time. The only difference is these guys are doing it in our name and we can't quite bring ourselves to see them for what they are. It's about oil, and introducing free-market liberalization and creating civil war to get Arab to kill Arab and is no different than any other illegal military campaign which we have a long history of waging - all without being held accountable for our illegal activities.

Stalin and Lenin were up there with Hitler and I don't see them being vilified in quite the same way.

Mass murderers are mass murderers - just because we do it in the name of removing WMDs, regime change, removing a mass murderer, bringing democracy to the middle east and it gets announced on the BBC just after an item about a three-legged dog over-coming adversity doesn't make it any better...We've murdered more Iraqis than Saddam did.

When we add up all the deaths in the coming years from DU we made end up exterminating the entire nation of Iraq(what's left of it) - maybe that was the plan.

He also said:

only by recognising the unique horror of Nazi Germany

Stalin successfully exterminated large ethnic groups within Soviet Russia, the US in Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos managed 3-5 million and historically there have been many occasions in which man has attempted and often succeeded in totally annihilating another ethnic group or religion. The mistake we make is in viewing the atrocities of Nazi Germany as being unique. Man is a brutal and aggressive animal – a few thousand years of civilization have done nothing to change this. People in 2000 years will be having a similar conversation about the unique nature of their latest atrocities.

And:

and this time the possible destruction of the Earth

I have to agree with you on this point – I think this is the most dangerous time anyone has lived in. Bush is a retarded drunken psycho (thank G*d he’s not running the show :) ). They will not stop until the middle east is in ruins and won’t shirk a confrontation with China or Russia to achieve their goals. I see wars in Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, N. Korea, Libya and many more places…

And:

Fascism in Germany grew out of a specific set of Socio/economic/political events, Harsh reparations levied by the allies at the end of the first W/W, The depression, middle class panic about Bolshevik style revolution returning, hence the call for a "strong leader"

Yip, can’t argue with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 44
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Without getting into the substantive question in this thread … I was watching the History Channel last night and the programme was about Cambodia and the Khmer Rouge. The speaker mentioned, almost casually, that half a million Cambodians were killed in the bombing campaign that succeeded the signing of the Peace Treaty with the North Vietnamese in 1973. The USAF devoted the resources which were now no longer bombing in Vietnam to systematically eradicating small towns and villages near provincial towns held by the Lon Nol government. Half a million … "that's a whole lotta stiffs" (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) - that'd be the equivalent of about 20 million Americans pro rata (I think the population of Cambodia at the time was about 6 million and that of the USA about 240 million). But Nixon, as we know, "was an honourable man" (at least in the rehabilitated form of his last years) - to quote Shakespeare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys,

Sorry for the delay in responding - have been more than a little ill (still am), but on the mend.

Len, thanks for your comments re: my quotes will look at them in detail when I get a chance.

Stephen Turner said:

To claim that there is no moral distance between Blair/Bush, and Hitler is breathtaking in its absurdity, and hypocrisy

Only by degrees. I'm not sure at which point they cross the line and they are not finished yet (anyone want to take bets on an Iran invasion before November?). They have probably murdered 300,000 Iraqis and Afghans already, Bush I's sanctions would add another 500,000 children alone. The total premeditated destruction of a nation's infrastructure, including water and food supply, the use of depleted uranium (which will continue to cause cancer, birth defects and kill for billions[with a B] of years), the use of white phosphorous (very nasty stuff) in an aggressive war on a people whose ability to fight back was destroyed during the first Gulf war. We made sure they didn't have WMDs and then we stuck it to 'em using the most powerful and advanced armed forces the world had ever seen following a secret concerted aerial bombardment campaign which lasted months and started way before the official invasion. I personally think, that once you get over killing say 50,000 and using illegal weapons and deliberately targeting civilian populations, I think you've reached the big time. The only difference is these guys are doing it in our name and we can't quite bring ourselves to see them for what they are. It's about oil, and introducing free-market liberalization and creating civil war to get Arab to kill Arab and is no different than any other illegal military campaign which we have a long history of waging - all without being held accountable for our illegal activities.

Stalin and Lenin were up there with Hitler and I don't see them being vilified in quite the same way.

Mass murderers are mass murderers - just because we do it in the name of removing WMDs, regime change, removing a mass murderer, bringing democracy to the middle east and it gets announced on the BBC just after an item about a three-legged dog over-coming adversity doesn't make it any better...We've murdered more Iraqis than Saddam did.

When we add up all the deaths in the coming years from DU we made end up exterminating the entire nation of Iraq(what's left of it) - maybe that was the plan.

He also said:

only by recognising the unique horror of Nazi Germany

Stalin successfully exterminated large ethnic groups within Soviet Russia, the US in Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos managed 3-5 million and historically there have been many occasions in which man has attempted and often succeeded in totally annihilating another ethnic group or religion. The mistake we make is in viewing the atrocities of Nazi Germany as being unique. Man is a brutal and aggressive animal – a few thousand years of civilization have done nothing to change this. People in 2000 years will be having a similar conversation about the unique nature of their latest atrocities.

And:

and this time the possible destruction of the Earth

I have to agree with you on this point – I think this is the most dangerous time anyone has lived in. Bush is a retarded drunken psycho (thank G*d he’s not running the show :) ). They will not stop until the middle east is in ruins and won’t shirk a confrontation with China or Russia to achieve their goals. I see wars in Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria, N. Korea, Libya and many more places…

Good post Steve. Puts it all in perspective, IMO.

And:

Fascism in Germany grew out of a specific set of Socio/economic/political events, Harsh reparations levied by the allies at the end of the first W/W, The depression, middle class panic about Bolshevik style revolution returning, hence the call for a "strong leader"

Yip, can’t argue with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
only by recognising the unique horror of Nazi Germany

Stalin successfully exterminated large ethnic groups within Soviet Russia, the US in Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos managed 3-5 million and historically there have been many occasions in which man has attempted and often succeeded in totally annihilating another ethnic group or religion. The mistake we make is in viewing the atrocities of Nazi Germany as being unique. Man is a brutal and aggressive animal – a few thousand years of civilization have done nothing to change this. People in 2000 years will be having a similar conversation about the unique nature of their latest atrocities.

Hi Steve, thanks for the comprehensive reply.

The consciousness that developed in Nazi occupied Europe, and in the decades after the 2nd W/W that what the Nazi's peretratored was something historically new, and exceptional was not based on any historical computation of the suffering of the victims in relation to other groups of victims, it was a judgement about the nature of the crime. So, I propose it was not some particulrity of Jewish suffering, or of the other targets of of Nazi barbarism, Gypsies, Trade unionist's, Socialists, Communists, Prisoners of war(over 3 million russians are in this catagory alone) Gay people, the Disabled, Poles, Free Masons, and on and on, but a particularity of the Nazi offence, an offence against Humanity itself, that stands out, and thus makes it unique.

Its uniqueness does not lie in its choise of victims, it relies in some qualities inherent in the offences of the perpetrators. This uniqueness, it seems to me has three characteristics, all of which acted together in a vile synergy to create an evil that is singular.

1, The industrialization, and Bureaucratization of murder. using the full resources of the modern state.

2The comprehensiveness of intent. in which the aim was to eradicate an entire people from the face of the Earth, FOR NO PARTICULAR REASON.

3,Spiritual murder. A devotion to destroying the Humanity of the victims before killing them, a blanket impulse to sadistically humiliate, and dehumanise. These are where its uniqueness lies.

As to the future, its is highly unlikely that the World will witness another Stalin, or Pol Pot, those are crimes of History, their time come and gone. Fascism however threatens both the present, and futurity, and is why we must learn the lesson's of Nazi Germany.

Steve, I hope you are fully recovered from your illness, and look foward to your reply. Regards, Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

only by recognising the unique horror of Nazi Germany

Stalin successfully exterminated large ethnic groups within Soviet Russia, the US in Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos managed 3-5 million and historically there have been many occasions in which man has attempted and often succeeded in totally annihilating another ethnic group or religion. The mistake we make is in viewing the atrocities of Nazi Germany as being unique. Man is a brutal and aggressive animal – a few thousand years of civilization have done nothing to change this. People in 2000 years will be having a similar conversation about the unique nature of their latest atrocities.

Hi Steve, thanks for the comprehensive reply.

The consciousness that developed in Nazi occupied Europe, and in the decades after the 2nd W/W that what the Nazi's peretratored was something historically new, and exceptional was not based on any historical computation of the suffering of the victims in relation to other groups of victims, it was a judgement about the nature of the crime. So, I propose it was not some particulrity of Jewish suffering, or of the other targets of of Nazi barbarism, Gypsies, Trade unionist's, Socialists, Communists, Prisoners of war(over 3 million russians are in this catagory alone) Gay people, the Disabled, Poles, Free Masons, and on and on, but a particularity of the Nazi offence, an offence against Humanity itself, that stands out, and thus makes it unique.

Its uniqueness does not lie in its choise of victims, it relies in some qualities inherent in the offences of the perpetrators. This uniqueness, it seems to me has three characteristics, all of which acted together in a vile synergy to create an evil that is singular.

1, The industrialization, and Bureaucratization of murder. using the full resources of the modern state.

Sorry Steve, I don't follow. I thought Stalin utilized the resources of the State when he starved millions of his own people in collectivising the farm sector between the wars. Moreover, shipping many others to Siberian gulags is also utilising state resources, IMO.

2The comprehensiveness of intent. in which the aim was to eradicate an entire people from the face of the Earth, FOR NO PARTICULAR REASON.

Well, I think Hitler's reason was that he believed the Jews were responsible for all the ills of the world at that time. Hitler was wrong in believing this but he didn't exactly embark on his genocidal path for no particular reason, as you state. He probably also saw the Jews as also being responsible for Germany's suffering after WW1. As far as comprehensiveness of intent is concerned, you've failed to show why Hitler's genocidal tendencies were more horrifying than that of all others throughout history. And Hitler didn't kill all the Jews, Steve. Wealthy industrialists and others who could be useful in establishing the third reich were spared.

Hitler was greatly influenced by the writings of Henry Ford, btw. A large photo of the great American industrialist hung in Hitler's office. How many average Americans know this, I wonder.

3,Spiritual murder. A devotion to destroying the Humanity of the victims before killing them, a blanket impulse to sadistically humiliate, and dehumanise. These are where its uniqueness lies.

Steve, have you ever read "The Gulag Archipelago"? Plenty of sadistic dehumanising of victims was present in Stalin's regime. I have little doubt that victims of despotic regimes throughout history have endured similar treatment. The ancient Romans knew how to humiliate and dehumanise, I would have thought.

As to the future, its is highly unlikely that the World will witness another Stalin, or Pol Pot, those are crimes of History, their time come and gone. Fascism however threatens both the present, and futurity, and is why we must learn the lesson's of Nazi Germany.

This is don't understand at all. If Stalin and Pol Pot's time has come and gone, why hasn't Hitler's? Fascism is a threat, yes, and wasn't that what Stalin was, in disguise? The greatest threat today comes from religious fundamentalism, both Muslim and Christian, and from letting fear dictate that we must destroy other nations and people in pursuit of amorphous enemies.

You haven't convinced me that Hitler's regime was uniquely horrifying and deserves vilification over and above all other despotic regimes throughout history. The fact is that others, like Stalin's, wiped out a far greater number of innocent people with equally practised cruelty. It may have been fashionable, post 1945, to claim Hitler's barbarism as unique but the fact remains that it isn't, and to make this claim is irrational, IMO.

Steve, I hope you are fully recovered from your illness, and look foward to your reply. Regards, Steve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Hitler didn't kill all the Jews, Steve. Wealthy industrialists and others who could be useful in establishing the third reich were spared. [/quote]Mark I agree with you enough that Stalin gives Hitler a run for the money in the evil department not to argue that point with you except on one point. I don't know of him trying to wipe out an entire ethnic or racial group but I'm not sure about that. I am curious about the above claim though can you cite any examples or evidence?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The consciousness that developed in Nazi occupied Europe, and in the decades after the 2nd W/W that what the Nazi's peretratored was something historically new, and exceptional ....

Its uniqueness does not lie in its choise of victims, it relies in some qualities inherent in the offences of the perpetrators. This uniqueness, it seems to me has three characteristics, all of which acted together in a vile synergy to create an evil that is singular.

Well, I think we may have to disagree about the 'uniqueness of Nazi brutality'. It is, in any case, a suitable topic for another thread.

Len kindly started this one for us, quoting my comment on another thread that whether Hitler was manipulated into a larger war, far more dreadful than he imagined, is a matter worthy of consideration.

Len wanted to show that the notion that Hitler stumbled into a war larger than he wanted or antipated is ipso facto absurd. I don't think he's done that. He also may well feel I haven't backed up my claim except that if he'd read carefully, he'd have observed that my claim was merely that a particular matter merited further discussion. So thanks, Len, you've made my point.

Now I'd like to attack the topic from another direction.

What kind of analysis of the history of that period would suggest that Hitler was NOT manipulated into a larger war, far more dreadful than he imagined?

After all, he (Germany) attacked Poland (following general mobilization of the Polish forces). This triggered a declaration of war from Britain - a declaration that was never rescinded.

If Hitler had realized when invading Poland that it would lead toi the destruction of Germany and his death in a bunker less than six years hence, would he still have invaded?

Only someone who believes Hitler was a crazed and suicidal pyschopath would believe that. I guess that's the Len Colby take on Hitler. So mad, he'd burn down his own house out of spite.

There is, however, not much evidence for that. Why would Hitler subsequently have sought to make peace with Britain if Armageddon was his constant and unvarying goal?

Hitler obviously miscalculated when he attacked Poland.

Why?

In similar fashion, much closer to our times, Saddam Hussein made a fatal miscalulation when he attacked Kuwait in 1990. We know rather more about how this happened than the saga of World War Two's beginning - the role of April Glaspie is clearly documented (the Iraqis released the transcript of a meeting US Ambassador Glaspie held with Saddam prior to the invasion of Kuwait. It indicated that Saddam was deceived as to the probable reaction of the USA. The Americans have never denied the authenticity of the transcript).

How it came about that Hitler made such a serious miscalulation - and why his subsequent attempts to sue for peace were rebuffed by Britain - is another question that merits consideration, IMO :)

There's a subtheme and it concerns the USA. Part of Hitler's miscalculation may well have been that he judged the USA would not takes sides as a direct party to the war. The Secret Persuaders makes it clear that 'British intelligence' was very active in changing the American public's pre-war isolationist sentiment. Even so, it took two years and Pearl Habor to turn the USA into a war frenzied nation. Unfortunately, it has remained in this sorry condition practically ever since.

Were The Secret Persuaders not practising manipulation, now well documented? Justifiable, perhaps - depending on one's perspective - but manipulation all the same. Part of a wider web of deception, perhaps, woven by 'British intelligence' - an organisation at that time significantly inflitrated by foreign agents, the full extent of which we still may not know.

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I owe you a slight apology here, apparantly AJP Taylor felt that Hitler was dismayed when England, and France declaired war over the invasion of Poland. HE also said that Hitler was no worse than many other dictators, although he stated, "He outdid them all in infamy, and murder." However I can find no other British Historian who agrees with Mr Taylor. See in particular Hugh trevor Roper for a rebuttal of Taylor's work.

AJP Taylor’s view on Hitler and the Second World War is not that unusual. It is a common view of historians on the left. Conservatives have worked very hard to portray Winston Churchill as rallying the British people against fascism. This view has also been popular with the British as it provides a positive view of the nation (they love of course to compare the role that Britain played in the war with that of France who quickly surrendered to the might of Germany).

Anyone who has studied this period of history, who has not been affected by nationalism, realizes that this is a myth. Hitler invaded Poland because he was convinced that the British government would never go to war over this issue. One cannot blame him if one considers the behaviour of the British when Hitler intervened in Spain and invaded Czechoslovakia. Hitler was also aware that the government’s appeasement policy was very popular with the British people. Hitler also knew that the British government wanted to use Nazi Germany to destroy communism in the Soviet Union. The same is true of other western governments, including the United States.

Stalin knew this was the case and tested out the theory when he offered to form an alliance between the Soviet Union, Britain and France against Germany. Chamberlain of course refused. Hitler, fearing a possible war on two fronts, therefore decided to do a temporary deal with Stalin over Poland. He would have got away with it if it had not been for Churchill’s ambition to become prime minister. His supporters therefore joined up with the Labour Party to force Chamberlain to declare war on Germany.

You must not forget that once Churchill gained power we entered what became known as the “phoney war”. Churchill was not keen in fact to go to war with Germany. This is why important documents from this period have still not been released. I suspect the reason for this was that Churchill was carrying out secret talks with Hitler to avoid a full-scale conflict between the two countries. Churchill was trying to persuade Germany to attack the Soviet Union. This helps to explain why Hess was kept in prison for the rest of his life and not allowed to talk to anyone about why he flew to England to meet the Duke of Hamilton.

I am afraid the British people are not yet ready to face up to the truth of the Second World War. Although the British people bravely fought against the evils of fascism, that was not their original intention. Only those who volunteered to fight for democracy in Spain deserve the credit for risking their lives in order to halt the spread of fascism. If Churchill was so opposed to fascism, why did he criticise these volunteers for going to Spain. Could it be because they were fighting to preserve a left-wing government?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must not forget that once Churchill gained power we entered what became known as the “phoney war”. Churchill was not keen in fact to go to war with Germany. This is why important documents from this period have still not been released. I suspect the reason for this was that Churchill was carrying out secret talks with Hitler to avoid a full-scale conflict between the two countries. Churchill was trying to persuade Germany to attack the Soviet Union. This helps to explain why Hess was kept in prison for the rest of his life and not allowed to talk to anyone about why he flew to England to meet the Duke of Hamilton.

John, I think this is not correct.

The 'phoney war' came to an end just before Churchill became PM in May 1940.

Once Churchill was in the driving seat, there was no chance of peace with Germany. He saw to that.

It's very, very interesting the archives have not been fully released from that period. I understand, for instance, that some communications between Churchill and Roosevelt are still under wraps.

Outrageous that our history is kept from us, when secrecy can no longert serve any practical purpose... or does selective secrecy about WW2, in fact, serve a purpose even now?

If so, whose purpose?

I wonder if there's any chance of a campaign by historians to prize open the remaining WW2 'secret' archives?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You must not forget that once Churchill gained power we entered what became known as the “phoney war”. Churchill was not keen in fact to go to war with Germany. This is why important documents from this period have still not been released. I suspect the reason for this was that Churchill was carrying out secret talks with Hitler to avoid a full-scale conflict between the two countries. Churchill was trying to persuade Germany to attack the Soviet Union. This helps to explain why Hess was kept in prison for the rest of his life and not allowed to talk to anyone about why he flew to England to meet the Duke of Hamilton.

John, I think this is not correct.

The 'phoney war' came to an end just before Churchill became PM in May 1940.

Once Churchill was in the driving seat, there was no chance of peace with Germany. He saw to that.

The phoney war began on 3rd September, 1939. There is some debate about when that came to an end. Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier continued to have secret negotiations with Hitler. On 20th March, 1940, Paul Reynaud replaced Daladier as prime minister. Eight days later the British and French governments agreed that they would not seek not to sign a separate peace with Nazi Germany. That in fact indicates that both countries had been trying to do just that.

Hitler invaded France on 10th May, 1940. Chamberlain immediately resigned and was replaced by Winston Churchill. This is often seen as the end of the phoney war. However, Churchill was understandably still reluctant to involve himself in a full out war with Nazi Germany. All the evidence at the time suggested it was a war he would lose. Therefore he continued those negotiations with Hitler. So did the French government and as a result it was not fully occupied during the war.

The phoney war only really came to an end on 13th August, 1940, when the Luftwaffe began attacking RAF Fighter Command's aircraft, airfields and installations. Even so, negotiations with Germany continued. Rudolf Hess arrived in Scotland on 10th May, 1941. It was only when Germany invaded Soviet Union on 22nd June, 1941, that all negotiations came to an end. Churchill now knew that Britain could beat Nazi Germany.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest John Gillespie

[

Sid, by your own words this "merits discussion"All Len has done is give you the oportunity to begin the discussion. I for one would welcome a debate on this subject, and one that touches on the nature of facism, its constant need for scapegoats, territorial conquest and ritual. Care to begin?

____________________

Stephen,

Here, below, is a link to a page with quotes from Carroll Quigley, one of Bill Clinton's former Professors at Georgetown (Mr. C. even dropped the name in his first Inaugural address). Quigley also authored "Tragedy And Hope" wherein he talks of his direct associations and knowledge of the activities of the International bankers/insiders. Forgive me if this is redundant for you and others.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c...lqui230649.html

The so-called Milner Group (Alfred Milner and others) apparently had great influence if not control of Hitler. In fact, there is evidence that Averill Harriman et al were engaged in the suppying of weapons parts to the mustachioed one. I interviewed Mr. Harriman in 1972 on WFMN-FM in Newburgh, NY (he was a former NY Governor) but he pled ingnorance, of course. They wanted to reconfigure things, to put it one way. The momentum continues.

Yes, it IS my belief that Sid's contentions are correct. The more one reads of this and considers, at the least, the wars in OUR lifetime(s), it is difficult to continue with the accidental view of history. But there are many links on the page so have fun.

BTW: 'Tragedy And Hope" is easily obtainable.

Yours Truly,

JohnG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner
only by recognising the unique horror of Nazi Germany

Stalin successfully exterminated large ethnic groups within Soviet Russia, the US in Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos managed 3-5 million and historically there have been many occasions in which man has attempted and often succeeded in totally annihilating another ethnic group or religion. The mistake we make is in viewing the atrocities of Nazi Germany as being unique. Man is a brutal and aggressive animal – a few thousand years of civilization have done nothing to change this. People in 2000 years will be having a similar conversation about the unique nature of their latest atrocities.

Hi Steve, thanks for the comprehensive reply.

The consciousness that developed in Nazi occupied Europe, and in the decades after the 2nd W/W that what the Nazi's peretratored was something historically new, and exceptional was not based on any historical computation of the suffering of the victims in relation to other groups of victims, it was a judgement about the nature of the crime. So, I propose it was not some particulrity of Jewish suffering, or of the other targets of of Nazi barbarism, Gypsies, Trade unionist's, Socialists, Communists, Prisoners of war(over 3 million russians are in this catagory alone) Gay people, the Disabled, Poles, Free Masons, and on and on, but a particularity of the Nazi offence, an offence against Humanity itself, that stands out, and thus makes it unique.

Its uniqueness does not lie in its choise of victims, it relies in some qualities inherent in the offences of the perpetrators. This uniqueness, it seems to me has three characteristics, all of which acted together in a vile synergy to create an evil that is singular.

1, The industrialization, and Bureaucratization of murder. using the full resources of the modern state.

Sorry Steve, I don't follow. I thought Stalin utilized the resources of the State when he starved millions of his own people in collectivising the farm sector between the wars. Moreover, shipping many others to Siberian gulags is also utilising state resources, IMO.

Yes mark, but the intent wasn't to starve them to death. In other words he didn't decide to murder these people because they were peasants. Its the intent here thats important

2The comprehensiveness of intent. in which the aim was to eradicate an entire people from the face of the Earth, FOR NO PARTICULAR REASON.

Well, I think Hitler's reason was that he believed the Jews were responsible for all the ills of the world at that time. Hitler was wrong in believing this but he didn't exactly embark on his genocidal path for no particular reason, as you state. He probably also saw the Jews as also being responsible for Germany's suffering after WW1. As far as comprehensiveness of intent is concerned, you've failed to show why Hitler's genocidal tendencies were more horrifying than that of all others throughout history. And Hitler didn't kill all the Jews, Steve. Wealthy industrialists and others who could be useful in establishing the third reich were spared.

Hitler no more believed that the Jews were responsible for all the evils in the world, than I believe I am Brad Pitt, fascism, by its nature needs a constant stream of scapegoats, the Jews served this purpose, and nothing more. If a suficient number of black people had been present in Germany at the time no doubt they would have been responsible for all the etc, etc.This is what I meant by "no particular reason"ie they [posed no threat to the German state.

Hitler was greatly influenced by the writings of Henry Ford, btw. A large photo of the great American industrialist hung in Hitler's office. How many average Americans know this, I wonder.

He also, strangely enough, admired Lenin, but thats another story.

3,Spiritual murder. A devotion to destroying the Humanity of the victims before killing them, a blanket impulse to sadistically humiliate, and dehumanise. These are where its uniqueness lies.

Steve, have you ever read "The Gulag Archipelago"? Plenty of sadistic dehumanising of victims was present in Stalin's regime. I have little doubt that victims of despotic regimes throughout history have endured similar treatment. The ancient Romans knew how to humiliate and dehumanise, I would have thought.

Mark, it is my contention that it is the synergy of of the above that makes it unique, of course there have been other monsters, and will be in the future.

As to the future, its is highly unlikely that the World will witness another Stalin, or Pol Pot, those are crimes of History, their time come and gone. Fascism however threatens both the present, and futurity, and is why we must learn the lesson's of Nazi Germany.

This is don't understand at all. If Stalin and Pol Pot's time has come and gone, why hasn't Hitler's? Fascism is a threat, yes, and wasn't that what Stalin was, in disguise? The greatest threat today comes from religious fundamentalism, both Muslim and Christian, and from letting fear dictate that we must destroy other nations and people in pursuit of amorphous enemies.

The threat of death by colectivisation is as dead as Monty pythons parrot, Fascism is a continuing threat to mankinds peace, and security. Neo Fasicst parties are growing all over Europe as Capitalism once more makes ordinary people pay for its failures.

. The fact is that others, like Stalin's, wiped out a far greater number of innocent people with equally practised cruelty.

Mark, you no doubt have the figures to back up this remakable claim? who are you relying on here, Figes.

All the best, Steve.

One more quick point, how many more millions do you believe would have perished if the Nazi's had won the 2nd W/W. a gas chamber in every major city in Europe, and Russia perhaps?

Edited by Stephen Turner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Stephen Turner

[

Sid, by your own words this "merits discussion"All Len has done is give you the oportunity to begin the discussion. I for one would welcome a debate on this subject, and one that touches on the nature of facism, its constant need for scapegoats, territorial conquest and ritual. Care to begin?

____________________

Stephen,

Here, below, is a link to a page with quotes from Carroll Quigley, one of Bill Clinton's former Professors at Georgetown (Mr. C. even dropped the name in his first Inaugural address). Quigley also authored "Tragedy And Hope" wherein he talks of his direct associations and knowledge of the activities of the International bankers/insiders. Forgive me if this is redundant for you and others.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/c...lqui230649.html

The so-called Milner Group (Alfred Milner and others) apparently had great influence if not control of Hitler. In fact, there is evidence that Averill Harriman et al were engaged in the suppying of weapons parts to the mustachioed one. I interviewed Mr. Harriman in 1972 on WFMN-FM in Newburgh, NY (he was a former NY Governor) but he pled ingnorance, of course. They wanted to reconfigure things, to put it one way. The momentum continues.

Yes, it IS my belief that Sid's contentions are correct. The more one reads of this and considers, at the least, the wars in OUR lifetime(s), it is difficult to continue with the accidental view of history. But there are many links on the page so have fun.

BTW: 'Tragedy And Hope" is easily obtainable.

Yours Truly,

JohnG

John thanks for that, I shall study it with interest. Regards, Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

only by recognising the unique horror of Nazi Germany

Stalin successfully exterminated large ethnic groups within Soviet Russia, the US in Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos managed 3-5 million and historically there have been many occasions in which man has attempted and often succeeded in totally annihilating another ethnic group or religion. The mistake we make is in viewing the atrocities of Nazi Germany as being unique. Man is a brutal and aggressive animal – a few thousand years of civilization have done nothing to change this. People in 2000 years will be having a similar conversation about the unique nature of their latest atrocities.

Hi Steve, thanks for the comprehensive reply.

The consciousness that developed in Nazi occupied Europe, and in the decades after the 2nd W/W that what the Nazi's peretratored was something historically new, and exceptional was not based on any historical computation of the suffering of the victims in relation to other groups of victims, it was a judgement about the nature of the crime. So, I propose it was not some particulrity of Jewish suffering, or of the other targets of of Nazi barbarism, Gypsies, Trade unionist's, Socialists, Communists, Prisoners of war(over 3 million russians are in this catagory alone) Gay people, the Disabled, Poles, Free Masons, and on and on, but a particularity of the Nazi offence, an offence against Humanity itself, that stands out, and thus makes it unique.

Its uniqueness does not lie in its choise of victims, it relies in some qualities inherent in the offences of the perpetrators. This uniqueness, it seems to me has three characteristics, all of which acted together in a vile synergy to create an evil that is singular.

1, The industrialization, and Bureaucratization of murder. using the full resources of the modern state.

Sorry Steve, I don't follow. I thought Stalin utilized the resources of the State when he starved millions of his own people in collectivising the farm sector between the wars. Moreover, shipping many others to Siberian gulags is also utilising state resources, IMO.

Yes mark, but the intent wasn't to starve them to death. In other words he didn't decide to murder these people because they were peasants. Its the intent here thats important

Stalin knew they would starve and didn't care anyway.

2The comprehensiveness of intent. in which the aim was to eradicate an entire people from the face of the Earth, FOR NO PARTICULAR REASON.

Well, I think Hitler's reason was that he believed the Jews were responsible for all the ills of the world at that time. Hitler was wrong in believing this but he didn't exactly embark on his genocidal path for no particular reason, as you state. He probably also saw the Jews as also being responsible for Germany's suffering after WW1. As far as comprehensiveness of intent is concerned, you've failed to show why Hitler's genocidal tendencies were more horrifying than that of all others throughout history. And Hitler didn't kill all the Jews, Steve. Wealthy industrialists and others who could be useful in establishing the third reich were spared.

Hitler no more believed that the Jews were responsible for all the evils in the world, than I believe I am Brad Pitt, fascism, by its nature needs a constant stream of scapegoats, the Jews served this purpose, and nothing more. If a suficient number of black people had been present in Germany at the time no doubt they would have been responsible for all the etc, etc.This is what I meant by "no particular reason"ie they [posed no threat to the German state.

Hitler believed all the worlds problems should be sheeted home to Jews. He also believed they were responsible for socialism, which he hated.

Hitler was greatly influenced by the writings of Henry Ford, btw. A large photo of the great American industrialist hung in Hitler's office. How many average Americans know this, I wonder.

He also, strangely enough, admired Lenin, but thats another story.

3,Spiritual murder. A devotion to destroying the Humanity of the victims before killing them, a blanket impulse to sadistically humiliate, and dehumanise. These are where its uniqueness lies.

Steve, have you ever read "The Gulag Archipelago"? Plenty of sadistic dehumanising of victims was present in Stalin's regime. I have little doubt that victims of despotic regimes throughout history have endured similar treatment. The ancient Romans knew how to humiliate and dehumanise, I would have thought.

Mark, it is my contention that it is the synergy of of the above that makes it unique, of course there have been other monsters, and will be in the future.

I disagree with your contention, Steve.

As to the future, its is highly unlikely that the World will witness another Stalin, or Pol Pot, those are crimes of History, their time come and gone. Fascism however threatens both the present, and futurity, and is why we must learn the lesson's of Nazi Germany.

This is don't understand at all. If Stalin and Pol Pot's time has come and gone, why hasn't Hitler's? Fascism is a threat, yes, and wasn't that what Stalin was, in disguise? The greatest threat today comes from religious fundamentalism, both Muslim and Christian, and from letting fear dictate that we must destroy other nations and people in pursuit of amorphous enemies.

The threat of death by colectivisation is as dead as Monty pythons parrot, Fascism is a continuing threat to mankinds peace, and security. Neo Fasicst parties are growing all over Europe as Capitalism once more makes ordinary people pay for its failures.

. The fact is that others, like Stalin's, wiped out a far greater number of innocent people with equally practised cruelty.

Mark, you no doubt have the figures to back up this remakable claim? who are you relying on here, Figes.

7 million deaths during the mass starvation campaign to remove the Kulak class trumps Hitler already:

http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm

Not to mention the purge of 33,000 of his own military officers and the endless stream of soldiers he sacrificed in trying to capture Berlin.

All the best, Steve.

One more quick point, how many more millions do you believe would have perished if the Nazi's had won the 2nd W/W. a gas chamber in every major city in Europe, and Russia perhaps?

Edited by Mark Stapleton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is pointless to try and discover who was the most dangerous leader – Hitler, Stalin or Bush? We can do body counts but that does not take us very far. What is important is to discover how they managed to take power. More importantly, we need to work out how to stop people like that gaining power again. Or if they do gain power, how we can remove them? That is why it is more important to study Bush than Hitler and Stalin. He is still in power and his policies are resulting in a growing number of victims. Who knows, if he resorts to the nuclear option, he will achieve a higher body count than Hitler and Stalin.

I have started a thread on Alain Joxe’s book Empire of Disorder. It is a subject that is well worth discussing. It helps to explain the new dangers the world faces. Joxe’s does not provide any solutions to this problem. However, I believe it is possible to come up with some ideas on how we can achieve a more harmonious world.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7751

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...