Simon Wiesenthal dies

[Colin]

RIP. A man who continually fought against those who took away the lives of millions and against fascism in all its forms. A truely great man; he will be missed.

[The Dowager Mod]

Despite the right wing denials he was a great man who did much good.

[Ben Meyers]

Mr. Wiesenthal was a great man who emerged out of a horrible situation and fought injustice.  I know that sounds like a cliche, but it's very true for him.  He was truly a great man and he will be missed.

[opebo]

I wonder what he would've thought of the Bush administration.

[AkSaber]

Over 1,000 Nazis he helped catch. RIP.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Here are the relevant Goldie quotes by the way. I meant to post them in this thread earlier, but I accidently posted them in one of the threads I looked up, and unintentionally bumped that one:

No, Germans did not start the move to slaughter civilians in WW2. It was actually the British, who bombed civilian targets in Berlin in response to purely military actions by the Germans over British territory (note that Britain declared war on Germany, so actually the British were by far the most immoral actor). Hitler was naturally infuriated and responded with anti-civilian measures of his own; taking the high ground would have been wiser, if only because it would have made it more likely the Luftwaffe would prevail.

Any British civilians that died in WW2 have Churchill to thank, not Hiter.

All Buchanan did was state blatantly obvious facts.

France and Britain needed an excuse to go to war with Germany. So they said they would "protect" Poland, who, by the way, was actually committing human rights violations against Germans stuck inside their country by Versailles.

Of course, they did sh**t for Poland. In fact, they didn't even attack Germany. And, actually, they violated their own treaty, because the Soviets also invaded Poland, which required them to declare war on the Soviets.

And the only reason Jews died in WW2, aside from the fairly large number that were serving as Soviet commisars and thus legally executed for crimes against humanity, is because Hitler knew he was going to lose.

Maybe if the US hadn't embargoed Japanese oil and the Allies hadn't ed Germany up the ass after a WWI Germany didn't start, 50 million people wouldn't have died. As it is, they did, and they did. And since the US and allies were a bunch of cowards, another 100 million died thanks to communism in Russia and Asia.

For the record John Ford's reply to the last one was "You're a in' Nazi, dude." so it's not as if only the left is holding these views.

[AuH2O]

Well, both of those are taken totally out of context. Since BRTD openly lies about what I've said, that actually is impressive for him (even using my words incorrectly). My actual topic was related to responsibility for escalation of bombing against civilian targets, and then in the second quote the degree to which various parties were responsible for the war.

Note that I mention Hitler's actions against the Jews without qualification, except to note that on the Eastern front some thousands of Jews died because they were Soviet commissars, who were executed regardless of ethnicity.

Humorously, on this matter I am far to the erstwhile "left" of BRTD, because he is a war lover (which by definition means an imperialist), whereas I prefer peace to war. There are various hypocrites that praise some wars and not others, but the intellectually deficient/bankrupt are of little concern.

[J. J.]

Actually, he is quoting you fully. 

[AuH2O]

Err, no. The quotes offered had little to do with the topic of this thread, which, should you have forgetten, is Wiesenthal.

Bombing tactics between Germany and Britain have essentially no application to that topic.

Quoting me "fully" on the wrong subject does not make the said quote relevant.

Most people are so brainwashed that anytime they see "Nazi" all rational function leaves their faculty. I guess I'm just more capable of objective analysis.

[Alcon]

Most people are so brainwashed that anytime they see "Nazi" all rational function leaves their faculty. I guess I'm just more capable of objective analysis.

It is fortunate that you were born with such intrinsic abilities of objectivity and rationality, AuH2O.  Thank you, thank you, for sharing them with us laymans.

[AuH2O]

While your attempt at sarcasm is appreciated, the rather simple truth is that few people even attempt critical thought on any matter, let alone an issue so complex as many of those underlying WW2.

Instead, they casually throw around terms such as "right" and "wrong" and "immoral," etc., without so much as having a notion of what those terms mean. Reciting middle school texts hardly qualifies someone as a legitimate critic, regardless of how convinced they may be as to the veracity of the truths in which they so confidently believe.

Blindly believing, with no philosophical or historical context, is pure foolishness. And there is no question whatever that most people are driven by what amounts to blind belief. I'm not. It doesn't make me the greatest person in the world, but it does make me more objective than the overwhelming majority of posters here.

[Alcon]

Actually, I believe that it was more of an attempt.  My sarcasm was carried off to fruition, even if it sucked.  Thank you, though.

Humans are incapable of truly objective reason.  That is because these are issues of morality; there is no such thing as objectivity of morality, since moral perspective is determined almost exclusively by nurture.

There needs to be a distinction between recitation of middle school history books and use of materials sourced by middle school history books.  History books are not valid simply because they are mainstream history books.  Regurgitation is obviously not desirable, but utilisation as a reference is not inappropriate.

I agree that blindly believing is a bad thing, but at the same time, there's always going to be an x-sized subset of the population that is too lazy to do anything other than blindly believe, and they will probably believe the mainstream view.  The mainstream view is not at fault for this, but rather the subset for its willful ignorance.

But if you're lamenting willful ignorance, I'm sorry, but that's not going away any time soon.

[J. J.]

One of the more interesting claims in this thread are this:

3) Efforts directed against Jews were, at the very least, a recognition of the possibility Germany would lose, and they increased in scope with the likelihood of Germany losing (i.e. as the war progressed). This explains limited actions early in the war, escalating into more serious ones later-- even when the ideology vs. labor issue had completely reversed such that Germany needed labor very badly (there are additional sources specific to this that I can cite if anyone would like to examine them).

You would to believe that within six weeks of of the Nazi invasion of the USSR, Hitler thought that he would be defeated, because that is when the genocidic activity started.  Hint, he was winning, big.  At point, noncombatant Jews were being killed, because they were Jews, in groups of hundreds and of thousands at a time.

I would encorage anyone to read the thread and note that Goldie didn't answer a number of points.

[AuH2O]

Actually, I believe that it was more of an attempt.  My sarcasm was carried off to fruition, even if it sucked.  Thank you, though.

Humans are incapable of truly objective reason.  That is because these are issues of morality; there is no such thing as objectivity of morality, since moral perspective is determined almost exclusively by nurture.

There needs to be a distinction between recitation of middle school history books and use of materials sourced by middle school history books.  History books are not valid simply because they are mainstream history books.  Regurgitation is obviously not desirable, but utilisation as a reference is not inappropriate.

I agree that blindly believing is a bad thing, but at the same time, there's always going to be an x-sized subset of the population that is too lazy to do anything other than blindly believe, and they will probably believe the mainstream view.  The mainstream view is not at fault for this, but rather the subset for its willful ignorance.

But if you're lamenting willful ignorance, I'm sorry, but that's not going away any time soon.

It is true that humans will always be biased, even if in very basic ways (i.e. the simple fact I am American, or male, etc.).

My main point is not that I am capable of perfect objectivity or perfect reason... far from it. The issue is that I TRY to approach matters of historical or philosophical (and often both) contention without an answer already in mind. What matters in my opinion is that someone have a general framework for approaching those questions (i.e. a methodology of sorts, though it rarely will be anything strict or formal). Generally, I mean that "right" and "wrong" require philosophic underpinnings to carry any weight.

You (accidentally?) made a very dangerous remark, which is to say that there is no objective or shared morality. If that's true, then we cannot judge Hitler to be morally wrong, or at least not easily and not to a great extent.

So far as history texts and the like... I used that as an example because that type of work is based on simplistic, conventionally-agreed upon analysis of important events. That is their purpose, and I do not fault them for it. However, in a real discussion, much more is needed. Firstly, a more complete and contextual understanding of the relevant history, but second, a moral or philosophical element to quantify what happened.

In most cases, I imagine we agree on historical events themselves, i.e. when country X invaded, when person Y did Z, etc. Where we disagree is in the analysis. Any and all analysis goes back to philosophy at the end... how do you judge the value of life, or liberty, when is war acceptable, etc.

My complaint is that few posters operate on that level, when from what I can tell at least a good number of capable. You certainly are, for instance.

[AuH2O]

One of the more interesting claims in this thread are this:

3) Efforts directed against Jews were, at the very least, a recognition of the possibility Germany would lose, and they increased in scope with the likelihood of Germany losing (i.e. as the war progressed). This explains limited actions early in the war, escalating into more serious ones later-- even when the ideology vs. labor issue had completely reversed such that Germany needed labor very badly (there are additional sources specific to this that I can cite if anyone would like to examine them).

You would to believe that within six weeks of of the Nazi invasion of the USSR, Hitler thought that he would be defeated, because that is when the genocidic activity started.  Hint, he was winning, big.  At point, noncombatant Jews were being killed, because they were Jews, in groups of hundreds and of thousands at a time.

I would encorage anyone to read the thread and note that Goldie didn't answer a number of points.

First, that's not the topic here. Second, civilians of all ethnicities were dying in large numbers during the German invasion of the USSR. Third, the French actually hurt the Germans far worse than is commonly known, and combined with the surprising fortitude of the British government (and the overeager Japanese), Germany's situation was actually not ideal at all by the time Jews were sent in large numbers to camps in Eastern Europe.

My basic point, which was that anti-Jewish actions increased as Germany fared worse in the war (and thus logically should have devoted more resources to the actual fighting), is totally irrefutable. A few ill-educated posters have gone wacko because I believe Hitler correctly saw his strategic predicament, but even if he didn't in 1941 he certainly did a couple years later.

[King]

I wonder what he would've thought of the Bush administration.

You say that like he died 20 years ago.  He was alive for the first 4 1/2 years of it, so he probably thought something of them.

[J. J.]

First, I'm just citing some things on the thread that was cited.  I encourage anyone interested to read it.

Second, we are not discussing dieing but killing.  These were not people killed the crossfire or civilian casualties of bombing.  These were people that were rounded up and killed.  We are not talking about the formation of concentration or extermination camps.

Third, I would hope that you agree that the events of September 1, 1939 through November 30, 1941 were exceptionally favorable to Nazi Germany.  There was nothing to that point that could be viewed as a losing campaign.  The UK was not knocked out of the war, and Spain didn't join the Axis, but the UK couldn't launch any offensive ground action and Spain was friendly, if not allied with Nazi Germany.

[AuH2O]

Like I said, Germany's campaign against France actually was not the smashing success it is widely, almost universally, portrayed. Ironically I think the French are the most improperly-maligned (as a war actor) country in the world. In a few weeks, the French destroyed 20% of the Luftwaffe and a correspondingly large portion of Germany's armored corps, and some 50-60,000 superb troops. If the British hadn't sucked so bad, Germany would have lost a lot more.

Hitler planned on taking out the French more easily (1871 style) and then negotiating peace with them and Britain. Once that failed, Germany was again faced with a 2-front war and inevitable American intervention... in other words, WW1-- but with a much earlier and stronger American entry (thanks to the Japanese) and with an infinitely stronger USSR (versus a disastrously weak Russia). That's a bad recipe in anyone's cook book.

[Jens]

Like I said, Germany's campaign against France actually was not the smashing success it is widely, almost universally, portrayed. Ironically I think the French are the most improperly-maligned (as a war actor) country in the world. In a few weeks, the French destroyed 20% of the Luftwaffe and a correspondingly large portion of Germany's armored corps, and some 50-60,000 superb troops. If the British hadn't sucked so bad, Germany would have lost a lot more.

First, among historians there is no thought that the French army, armorment vice, where the best in the world in 1939-1940 and that the French army strategicly had stagnated since WWI. Second German Panzer in 1939-1940 was nothing more that lightly armed and lightly armored vericles (Google Panzer II and Panzer II if you don't believe me) and the triumf of Der Dritte Reich in the spring and summer of 1940 was purely based on very bold attacks and the pure chok effect of the Blitzkrieg (Guderian and his troops could very easily have been cut of, surrounded and destroyed by a wellcoordinated army)

Hitler planned on taking out the French more easily (1871 style) and then negotiating peace with them and Britain. Once that failed, Germany was again faced with a 2-front war and inevitable American intervention... in other words, WW1-- but with a much earlier and stronger American entry (thanks to the Japanese) and with an infinitely stronger USSR (versus a disastrously weak Russia). That's a bad recipe in anyone's cook book.

You make some rater strange mistakes here. Germany wasn't faced with a twofront war when they failed to break UK in 1940. After the French defeat the only front was in North Africa and the only resistance was UK. Hitler choose to attack USSR 22th June 1941 and thus his actions caused a twofront war. The American entrance in WWII wasn't inevitable. The Isolanists were quite powerfull in the US and it is doubtfull that Rosevelt could have mounted such a massive mobilisation if Pearl Harbour never happened.

And last but not least. Treblinka, Maidanek, Sorbibor - all these extremination camps were "in action" from 1941, a point in the war where everything looked like Germany was winning.

[Akno21]

A great man. The world needs people like him.

Never forget. RIP.

[Alcon]

It is true that humans will always be biased, even if in very basic ways (i.e. the simple fact I am American, or male, etc.).

My main point is not that I am capable of perfect objectivity or perfect reason... far from it. The issue is that I TRY to approach matters of historical or philosophical (and often both) contention without an answer already in mind. What matters in my opinion is that someone have a general framework for approaching those questions (i.e. a methodology of sorts, though it rarely will be anything strict or formal). Generally, I mean that "right" and "wrong" require philosophic underpinnings to carry any weight.

You (accidentally?) made a very dangerous remark, which is to say that there is no objective or shared morality. If that's true, then we cannot judge Hitler to be morally wrong, or at least not easily and not to a great extent.

The world is, for better or for worse, reliant on vox populi morality.  Morality is frequently determined by cultural hindsight, and will always be so determined.  Of course morality is subjective.  And, of course, my morality is as correct and apt as my politics and sense of fashion are.  Of course, this is not true - the majority generally determines the fashion of morality, politics, and the like, but that doesn't stop me from believing that anyone who is willing to plaster the word "Fubu" all over their clothing should be institutionalised.

Of course I can judge Hitler.  I don't need to have moral certainty to judge someone.  Faith is not a trait exclusive to religion; it spans morality and politics.  To an extent, we must close our eyes and go with what we believe.  Kant be damned.

So far as history texts and the like... I used that as an example because that type of work is based on simplistic, conventionally-agreed upon analysis of important events. That is their purpose, and I do not fault them for it. However, in a real discussion, much more is needed. Firstly, a more complete and contextual understanding of the relevant history, but second, a moral or philosophical element to quantify what happened.

In most cases, I imagine we agree on historical events themselves, i.e. when country X invaded, when person Y did Z, etc. Where we disagree is in the analysis. Any and all analysis goes back to philosophy at the end... how do you judge the value of life, or liberty, when is war acceptable, etc.

My complaint is that few posters operate on that level, when from what I can tell at least a good number of capable. You certainly are, for instance.

Thank you.  I do appreciate that, although I admit I know little of history beyond what the textbooks say, which is exactly why I find myself unqualified of entering any historical debate.

In any case, I agree with what you're saying, but just don't think that will ever changed.  There is simply a percentage of the population, and a percentage of this board, that can't be bothered but wants to enter an argument anyway.  There's slightly more in history than other fields because history is more left-brain than other things; it relies less on understanding concepts than it does understanding themes in context of concrete events.

And here is another post in which I realise that I don't think we disagree on something we're arguing about.  I hate when that happens.

[AuH2O]

haha, good point. Well, like I say, you can judge historical actors (either on the individual or group level) without a philosophic context. I just do not find such arguments convincing. In a formal debate, declarative statements without a foundation hold little water, i.e.

person X does Y;

Y is good, thus person X is good.

That formula is missing a big piece, which is to explain what makes Y good.

You point out that morality is often based on a self-centered form of hindsight (the winner passing judgement). That is of course totally correct. You seem to agree that ideally the discussion would not start at the point conventional wisdom has decreed.

Ultimately, people are free to have whatever opinion they like on any topic they like. Indeed, I could offer my opinion on the construction plans for a tunnel. However, no one would care about that opinion, because it is not based on rigorous analysis and not accompanied by sufficient knowledge.

Basic intuition is not worthless in the case of a rational person. The problem is that many issues-- more like most-- are shades of gray. We know Hitler was not a moral actor. What I do not think we know is whether a conscripted German soldier in WW2 was an immoral actor, or whether the Allies were immoral actors.

You don't need a Ph.D. to have that discussion. I do, however, think intelligent discussion should take place. My expectations in that regard could well be unreasonable, but I am certainly not wrong in advocating it.

[Alcon]

I would just like to say that while I may not share your opinion, I fundamentally agree with the post above.

I'd respond to it in full, but I need to sleep, and now that I've read this topic I will probably forget it exists because you can't set topics to unread.  Oh well.

[Gustaf]

I find it to be somewhat amusing that people always start using longer and more complicated words whenever their intelligence comes under attack. Human behaviour, I guess.

It is correct that the "Endlösung" was ordered because Hitler was running out of time and means of getting rid of the Jews. Several other plans were discussed, such as moving them to Madagascar and so forth. I believe one third of all Jews killed were killed from 1944 and onwards.

While one can argue that the eventual defeat of the Nazis was evident by 1941 (I'm not convinced, firstly because the Soviet Union was pretty instable and Staling might well have fallen, based on what one knew at the time, secondly because the actions of other states was not hyet determined) I really don't think Hitler saw it coming. Rather, I think the start of the Holocaust had more to do with Germany occupying large areas inhabited by many Jews in Eastern Europe (Poland, Ukraine, Russia).

On the philosophical points raised, I feel too lazy to read it right now. I'll just say that while I consider rationality to be important, emotinos should not be right-out dismissed as guides to issue stands. And I definitely disagree with moral relaitvity. I want the intellectual freedom to judge things that I consider immoral.

[AuH2O]

Oh and one thing I left out of my comments to date: the Germans believed the Soviets were readying for a major offensive against them in the months leading up to the German invasion. A number of historians now believe they were actually correct, and that is why the Soviets were so horribly out of position. Stalin was devastated because he was beaten to the punch, not because he felt betrayed by a sworn enemy.

There is also some scholarship indicating the Germans knew that their invasion went so well initially because they were not facing front-line units. Propaganda, of course, told the world Germany was smashing the whole Soviet army... but the reality is that Stalin had little interest in slowing the invasion, because he preferred to fight the major battles deep in Soviet territory.