Even if he wasn't sorry for what he did...I refuse to turn in this man. Hollywood, Israel, and the Jewish people have villianized these people just for the sole sake that their ancestors were killed and it makes me sick.
Has the man apologized to God? Has he confessed his sins to Him alone? Has he said "God, Jesus...forgive me?". Even then, what right are you to judge in the midst of warfare?
Guess what world? The instance he does that...all the tears have been WIPED away...
We allow black people leniency on a sociological level towards crimes in the United States because of "historical discrimination and inequality", we allow the Mexicans to walk onto land which they take resources from because they are "starving" and "can't maintain anything in their own land", we make up excuses left and right for everyone to lay claim that Israel has a right to Palestinian land for a racial ideology that is insultingly masqueraded as a religion...but nooooo...the German people have absolutely no right whatsoever to ever lay the claim that they had their land usurped by foreign powers and that their country is in actuality BLAMELESS for what happened.
The man is innocent until death in my eyes.
It's only because we've been force-fed that image so many times in our lives, via movies, via war films, via Hollywood...that we actually believe this shit that we're often told. Was it bad? Yes. But it's been overstated as to how "horrible" it really was. I see their deaths as no different than the deaths of soldiers.
Signed.
A man with German ancestry and other "untermenscht" mixings.
I can't believe I have to say this: I am not advocating or supporting genocide. Just talking about the true inequalities when it comes to criminal judgement.
Many are allowed to be excused for actions, but others are not who are in similar circumstances.
Turned out he was stealing part of what he raised, and he had just raised so much no one bothered to ask him about it. I shipped his ass to jail, and didnt lose a wink of sleep.
But he was doing such good for the organziation. Surely I must forgive him for his stealings, like I'm to forgive this ex officer for his involvement in the deaths of hundreds or thousands.
Why were the police looking for him? He must have committed a recent crime for them to be looking for him, so turn his ass in. I'm not getting charged as an accessory for some damn Nazi no matter how sorry he is.
Some posts worth responding to (and some not, but needing it):
000Ronald said:
This is a bad question. Not just the "Does old man Nazi deserve to die" thing, but the idea that AMERICAN JUSTICE! is in the right.
Another reason this whole scenario is wrong? It's too easy. "Send poor Nazi man to jail or don't, either way, you might have to go without sleep for a couple nights."
Here's the real question you have to ask yourself; would you have harbored The Jewish during WWII? The easy answer is yes, but it's not that simple. If you were found out, you were treated just the same as them; you and your whole family were stripped of your possessions, your home, marched off to a slave camp, fed the same rotten soup day in and day out, watching people die all around you...
And consider what was thought about these people then.
My great-great-grandmother did harbor The Jewish in her home. Her and all but one of her daughters were killed for it. My great-grandmother told her grandchildren in explicit detail what had happened. And my father told me, in explicit detail, what happened....
I don't know. I don't know if I would be willing to put everyone I cared about in that kind of risk. I would like to think I would, but I just...don't know.
Canadian justice, actually, but that's beside the point. The question arose from a conversation. There is a built-in desire within humans to make "bad people" pay for their crimes, sorry or not. "Would you obey that if you knew better?" is sort of the point behind it. I apologize for exploiting a situation such as this to demonstrate that. In hindsight, I could easily have put in "would you hide a serial rapist" for the point I was trying to get at. Changing the scenario to one where you must already have figured out "they're not evil, they've done nothing wrong" to hide them, while accepting a personal risk is a different question altogether. One that it would be a good idea to start your own thread about. It is good one.
Again, apologies for abusing a hypothetical situation. I picked one that would be most easily identifiable, though it appears I did it wrong.
Hardcore_gamer said:
This is stupid.
People can change, but they cannot just go from one extreme to the other within the timeframe of a single lifetime.
If a person is so morally bankrupt that he has no problem with people being gassed to death in a death camp then there is zero reason for why he would ever regret it later on.
I suggest you read this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralEventHorizon
Did, a while ago. Life isn't made of tropes. Well, it is, but no one group universally follows the same one.
Who says he never regretted anything? He was probably trying to make up for it his whole life (what with the philanthropy) and likely did it because there weren't any other options. He might even still dislike Jews. I never gave anything that specific, just that he regretted the forced labour and deaths.
Jedihunter4 said:
My question to you would be what gives you the right to judge?
How do you know he is telling you the truth?
Hence hand him over to the police and the international community can judge him, which is the case with war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Also there is a difference between being a Nazi and being in the German army during world war 2. Nazi's were members of the political party and openly supported the regime in every way including their "final solution". where as unless they had direct interaction with it most German soldiers would not have even known about the holocaust.
And as for the people being so harsh on the term of people saying "I was only following orders" I think many people are being very dismissive, German soldiers made an oath to the regime, which i know to some people their word does not mean allot, but it should tbh. Also their commanders and superiors would have known where their family were and were probably ensuring their safety and looking after during the conflict .. . Also there is the simple fact that soldiers especially of that era were trained to have no emotion and carry out their orders regardless of what they were, being as the horrible things that happen in war, this is a self defence mechanism for the mind to shut off as not their moral responsibility. so its not just some switch to turn off. Not saying any of it is the right thing, but just seems a bit stupid these "dr who" children's morals put to such a serious event.
1. What gives you the right to judge? The power he has given you.
2. How do you know he is telling you the truth? You don't.
3. Not the point. I said nazi officer that served in a concentration camp, nazi was used because long titles turn people away. If you had said that I never specified death camps, then you'd be getting at something as most people have taken it to mean that he was involved with the gas chambers. Should I have been more specific? Possibly. Done now.
4. As above, this was a simple morality-based question: "Would you make someone pay?". And yes, people can and have felt bad and tried to change it after the fact. This isn't one of Hitler's personal advisors.
5. I do not view the Holocaust as an unimportant event. That's why I asked the question; because it's one I couldn't necessarily answer myself. Does a lifetime of repentance make up for a few short years of despicable acts? Not entirely sure on that one. Even with the measure of the acts in question.
jeretik said:
Drake_Dercon said:
READ BEFORE VOTING!
You live in a small town. In it, there is a man.
He is a generous man, kind to all and very into philanthropy. He is by any definition a good neighbour and friend.
One day he asks you to house him for a while. He tells you he was an officer in a concentration camp. He cries for a long time. He is very sorry for what he's done (which happens to be a lot). He knows he will never be able to fix what he has done, but is afraid of what will happen to him if he is incarcerated.
Police soon come to your door asking for him. What do you do?
I was talking about something similar with my english teacher. We are both very convinced that rehabilitation is the best solution to crime, but for very severe crimes there is an instant desire to make someone pay. Usually harshly. This is that internal debate at its logical extreme.
Edit: Crimes against humanity, in case you were wondering.
*Drake_Dercon watches "Apt Pupil" and decides to throw a mind-bendingly wise question at The Escapist crowd. The world stands still as he puts the ballsy option of "kill them myself" in the poll.*
Do not make an ass of yourself. Please refer to earlier portions of this for most of the answer to your statement. "Kill them myself" is because it's a valid option for something as horrible as the Holocaust. I might consider it in such a situation. I asked it to see what other people think, so please answer it rather than posting worthless taunts.
Not 'just', more like 70 years ago. Also, as others have said, the Nazi party wasn't something that was introduced and everyone signed willingly. You joined it or faced some rough shit. Your family could have been imprisoned or whatnot.
And when it comes to moral questions like this, I assume that whatever is stated in the question is 100% true, which means the guy really is sorry for his deeds.
For the record, if he had JUST committed these atrocities, I'd kick his ass out of my house.
To be honest, the little convo up there is entirely hypothetical. What I wanted was to show the incredible flaws of 'forgiveness'.
I mean, where do you draw the line when it comes to forgiveness? There is no middle ground, no 'partial-forgiveness'. It is literally all or nothing. To give this man, this murderer, this nazi forgiveness, you are essentially saying that his crimes are ok and he should not be punished.
Forced or not, he still committed the crimes. His punishment could be reduced, yes, but it shouldn't disappear just because he's sorry.
A phrase comes to mind about this topic. "He made his bed so let him lye in it." A crime is still a crime and he still had the same beliefs as Hitler at one time, so I would tell him to turn him self in then tell the cops where he is.
If he's truly a good man then I would stand as a character witness for him. I have faith in the justice system. Besides, who am I to put justice in my own hands?
If you changed anything, the world would be a much worse place.
- America is no longer a superpower.
- Russia unchallenged.
- European governments never learned humility. Nazis took every atrocity European powers ever committed, including religious genocide which was common to Europe, and turned it on them.
- Moon landing never happened.
- Stealth Fighters never invented.
- UN never established.
- Wars more likely.
- etc.
granted it was a tragedy, but a hell of lot better than the alternatives that could have happened. German technology was advanced, even in the 70s. Without it, technology would be much less evolved as it is today.
EDIT: Also due to the surge in technology, it is entirely possible that we would have not known about climate change (or not have the means to combat it) until AFTER it was too late if WWII never happened.
How dare you sir! It is NOT A HELL OF A LOT BETTER than the alternatives! The holocaust of my people is the greatest crime in human history. Representing the Jewish people on this forum, and everywhere, let me set your facts straight.
I would've changed the holocaust, that would NOT affect the research or the results of WWII, as I would be killing the soldiers stationed at the concentration camps, not researching weapons or fighting the wars, and even if I were to be killing (extremely hypothetical scenario) all it would've done, if it were after pearl harbour, would be to end the war sooner and save more lives.
Now to tell you how all your points are wrong. (the quoted text is above; I'm not going to re-quote each line).
- America is no longer a superpower.
- Russia unchallenged.
- European governments never learned humility. Nazis took every atrocity European powers ever committed, including religious genocide which was common to Europe, and turned it on them.
- Moon landing never happened.
- Stealth Fighters never invented.
- UN never established.
- Wars more likely.
- etc.
-No impact would result on America being a super power
-Russia would still be challenged
-HUMILITY! How dare you! The holocaust has nothing to do with 'Europe' learning humility, it's about the near genocide of the Jewish people! The Nazi's may I remind you were IN EUROPE!
-Moon landing would've still happened
-Stealth would've still been invented had I not killed the scientists working on experimental jets at the end of WWII
-League of Nations was established well BEFORE WWII, in fact, 1919, the year after WWI was it's founding year (its on wiki, go check).
-Wars more likely? No.
My points stand to say, if the holocaust never happened, but WWII still did, we'd likely be in the same place we are today.
The only history 'what if' you could draw from this, was without the Nazi's pursuit of purity, and if they weren't such an evil nation to begin with, their efficiency combined with their greater resources (i.e. the German Jews that would not have been killed), this might have lead them to defeat the allies. But if they did that, then they wouldn't be the evil Nazis, now would they?
Now, if you could please apologize to myself and my fellow Jews, and restate that you meant 'if world war two didn't happen' instead of your currently perceived statement of 'if the holocaust didn't happen' that would be well received, and frankly, expected.
1. Actually yes it would. The cold war. If America wasn't a super power, the world would be very different. The great depression was ended by WWII. The military wouldn't have grown to the numbers it did. Economics, and military would be entirely different.
2. No they wouldn't, Europe would still be hurting from World War I and even in World War II some countries failed to over come the World War I mindset. France was a prime example.
3. I didn't say it was the cause, but it was a consequence. Europe had every chance to stop another World War, but instead laid the groundwork for another. Why? Self entitlement. If it isn't them, they wont care unless it becomes their business. Look at Europe's history, as long as it benefits them it doesn't matter who suffers. Crusades (which killed 9 million) over trade routes in the middle east, screwing over native Americans, and imposing military and cultural imperialism on weaker nations. WWII was a learning lesson for everyone. A lesson humanity would have learned anyway regardless (Stalin). Every atrocity European powers has done throughout history came back in World War II, except it was used against European powers. If it hasn't happened to the European power itself, it doesn't care. France wanted reparations from Germany, but when anyone else is asked for an apology and reparations, it rarely does anything. The most you would get is a few cheap words, and no reparations "because that would bankrupt us." They don't want bankruptcy through reparations, but gladly forced it on WWI Germany?
4. There was no American or Russian space program. All the tech they used were from World War II GERMANY. It may still happen, but far into the future.
5. Again, stops technological development.
6. The league of nations was a joke. It was only AFTER WWII did the United Nations (not the league of nations) was founded.
7. Yes it would. The UN tends to step in and interfere in some cases. Not to mention the alliances formed by countries started World War I, not prevented it. It creates a false sense of power "because i got my big buddies backing me up." Its easy to be brave when you're standing behind walls of foreign soldiers fighting your battles for you. Not to mention Stalin had planned to do what Hitler did, but was beat to the punch.
8. WWII without the deaths or persecution of the Jewish? You assume that it would play out in Germany's favor, and with a different culture. The anti-Jewish attitude was widely known throughout history, essentially making it an inevitability. Jews have been demonized and used as scapegoats since Roman times. Germany would also not win against the allies, even if they did they wouldn't be able to extend beyond Europe. The costs of maintaining an empire that spans multiple continents is astronomical.
1. Actually yes it would. The cold war. If America wasn't a super power, the world would be very different. The great depression was ended by WWII. The military wouldn't have grown to the numbers it did. Economics, and military would be entirely different.
No, no it bloody wouldn't, read my post again, and I still expect an apology.
Ultratwinkie said:
2. No they wouldn't, Europe would still be hurting from World War I and even in World War II some countries failed to over come the World War I mindset. France was a prime example.
You better draw the line that you're talking about the war and NOT the holocaust.
Ultratwinkie said:
3. I didn't say it was the cause, but it was a consequence. Europe had every chance to stop another World War, but instead laid the groundwork for another. Why? Self entitlement. If it isn't them, they wont care unless it becomes their business. Look at Europe's history, as long as it benefits them it doesn't matter who suffers. Crusades (which killed 9 million) over trade routes in the middle east, screwing over native Americans, and imposing military and cultural imperialism on weaker nations. WWII was a learning lesson for everyone. A lesson humanity would have learned anyway regardless (Stalin). Every atrocity European powers has done throughout history came back in World War II, except it was used against European powers. If it hasn't happened to the European power itself, it doesn't care. France wanted reparations from Germany, but when anyone else is asked for an apology and reparations, it rarely does anything. The most you would get is a few cheap words, and no reparations "because that would bankrupt us." They don't want bankruptcy through reparations, but gladly forced it on WWI Germany?
Your point that reparations from the Great War did lead us to World War II is certainly valid. But it has nothing to do with harbouring a Nazi and the fact they played part to mass genocide of the Jewish people!
Ultratwinkie said:
4. There was no American or Russian space program. All the tech they used were from World War II GERMANY. It may still happen, but far into the future.
This is still completely irrelevant to the holocaust! Yes, WWII lead to breakthroughs in jets, and nuclear science, but the holocaust could've EASILY been avoided, whilst still achieving this, in fact, had they harnessed the rich and the intelligent Jews, we might be much further ahead technologically - The holocaust can only be seen as an atrocity
The league of nations wasn?t a joke, go read your history again, without the league of nations we wouldn?t have the united nations we have today.
Ultratwinkie said:
7. Yes it would. The UN tends to step in and interfere in some cases. Not to mention the alliances formed by countries started World War I, not prevented it. It creates a false sense of power "because i got my big buddies backing me up." Its easy to be brave when you're standing behind walls of foreign soldiers fighting your battles for you. Not to mention Stalin had planned to do what Hitler did, but was beat to the punch.
Yes it would? There's no direct link I can see between this statement and the fact the holocaust could've been avoided.
Ultratwinkie said:
8. WWII without the deaths or persecution of the Jewish? You assume that it would play out in Germany's favor, and with a different culture. The anti-Jewish attitude was widely known throughout history, essentially making it an inevitability. Jews have been demonized and used as scapegoats since Roman times. Germany would also not win against the allies, even if they did they wouldn't be able to extend beyond Europe. The costs of maintaining an empire that spans multiple continents is astronomical.
Yes WWII without the holocaust. YES, bloody oath it would play out better, see my previous posts as to why. An inevitability! That is disgusting sir, and I now demand an immediate apology for myself and my fellow Jewish people for the disgraceful notion, that our near genocide was 'an inevitability'.
The Roman Empire and the British Empire are two right off the bat I can name that successfully maintained massive empires for hundreds of years. The German's may have been able to do it, with better strategic planning, better morals, and less waste. But again, had they been a smarter, less violent, more noble nation (eg. No Hitler), they might not have rebuilt themselves as quickly and as efficiently as they did either.
I want an apology to the Jews and myself now, thank you.
No, dispute the justice system's short comings it is still justice. And i must be upheld, he would have to pay for his crimes, especially since they are so bad.
If you changed anything, the world would be a much worse place.
- America is no longer a superpower.
- Russia unchallenged.
- European governments never learned humility. Nazis took every atrocity European powers ever committed, including religious genocide which was common to Europe, and turned it on them.
- Moon landing never happened.
- Stealth Fighters never invented.
- UN never established.
- Wars more likely.
- etc.
granted it was a tragedy, but a hell of lot better than the alternatives that could have happened. German technology was advanced, even in the 70s. Without it, technology would be much less evolved as it is today.
EDIT: Also due to the surge in technology, it is entirely possible that we would have not known about climate change (or not have the means to combat it) until AFTER it was too late if WWII never happened.
How dare you sir! It is NOT A HELL OF A LOT BETTER than the alternatives! The holocaust of my people is the greatest crime in human history. Representing the Jewish people on this forum, and everywhere, let me set your facts straight.
I would've changed the holocaust, that would NOT affect the research or the results of WWII, as I would be killing the soldiers stationed at the concentration camps, not researching weapons or fighting the wars, and even if I were to be killing (extremely hypothetical scenario) all it would've done, if it were after pearl harbour, would be to end the war sooner and save more lives.
Now to tell you how all your points are wrong. (the quoted text is above; I'm not going to re-quote each line).
- America is no longer a superpower.
- Russia unchallenged.
- European governments never learned humility. Nazis took every atrocity European powers ever committed, including religious genocide which was common to Europe, and turned it on them.
- Moon landing never happened.
- Stealth Fighters never invented.
- UN never established.
- Wars more likely.
- etc.
-No impact would result on America being a super power
-Russia would still be challenged
-HUMILITY! How dare you! The holocaust has nothing to do with 'Europe' learning humility, it's about the near genocide of the Jewish people! The Nazi's may I remind you were IN EUROPE!
-Moon landing would've still happened
-Stealth would've still been invented had I not killed the scientists working on experimental jets at the end of WWII
-League of Nations was established well BEFORE WWII, in fact, 1919, the year after WWI was it's founding year (its on wiki, go check).
-Wars more likely? No.
My points stand to say, if the holocaust never happened, but WWII still did, we'd likely be in the same place we are today.
The only history 'what if' you could draw from this, was without the Nazi's pursuit of purity, and if they weren't such an evil nation to begin with, their efficiency combined with their greater resources (i.e. the German Jews that would not have been killed), this might have lead them to defeat the allies. But if they did that, then they wouldn't be the evil Nazis, now would they?
Now, if you could please apologize to myself and my fellow Jews, and restate that you meant 'if world war two didn't happen' instead of your currently perceived statement of 'if the holocaust didn't happen' that would be well received, and frankly, expected.
1. Actually yes it would. The cold war. If America wasn't a super power, the world would be very different. The great depression was ended by WWII. The military wouldn't have grown to the numbers it did. Economics, and military would be entirely different.
2. No they wouldn't, Europe would still be hurting from World War I and even in World War II some countries failed to over come the World War I mindset. France was a prime example.
3. I didn't say it was the cause, but it was a consequence. Europe had every chance to stop another World War, but instead laid the groundwork for another. Why? Self entitlement. If it isn't them, they wont care unless it becomes their business. Look at Europe's history, as long as it benefits them it doesn't matter who suffers. Crusades (which killed 9 million) over trade routes in the middle east, screwing over native Americans, and imposing military and cultural imperialism on weaker nations. WWII was a learning lesson for everyone. A lesson humanity would have learned anyway regardless (Stalin). Every atrocity European powers has done throughout history came back in World War II, except it was used against European powers. If it hasn't happened to the European power itself, it doesn't care. France wanted reparations from Germany, but when anyone else is asked for an apology and reparations, it rarely does anything. The most you would get is a few cheap words, and no reparations "because that would bankrupt us." They don't want bankruptcy through reparations, but gladly forced it on WWI Germany?
4. There was no American or Russian space program. All the tech they used were from World War II GERMANY. It may still happen, but far into the future.
5. Again, stops technological development.
6. The league of nations was a joke. It was only AFTER WWII did the United Nations (not the league of nations) was founded.
7. Yes it would. The UN tends to step in and interfere in some cases. Not to mention the alliances formed by countries started World War I, not prevented it. It creates a false sense of power "because i got my big buddies backing me up." Its easy to be brave when you're standing behind walls of foreign soldiers fighting your battles for you. Not to mention Stalin had planned to do what Hitler did, but was beat to the punch.
8. WWII without the deaths or persecution of the Jewish? You assume that it would play out in Germany's favor, and with a different culture. The anti-Jewish attitude was widely known throughout history, essentially making it an inevitability. Jews have been demonized and used as scapegoats since Roman times. Germany would also not win against the allies, even if they did they wouldn't be able to extend beyond Europe. The costs of maintaining an empire that spans multiple continents is astronomical.
1. Actually yes it would. The cold war. If America wasn't a super power, the world would be very different. The great depression was ended by WWII. The military wouldn't have grown to the numbers it did. Economics, and military would be entirely different.
No, no it bloody wouldn't, read my post again, and I still expect an apology.
Ultratwinkie said:
2. No they wouldn't, Europe would still be hurting from World War I and even in World War II some countries failed to over come the World War I mindset. France was a prime example.
You better draw the line that you're talking about the war and NOT the holocaust.
Ultratwinkie said:
3. I didn't say it was the cause, but it was a consequence. Europe had every chance to stop another World War, but instead laid the groundwork for another. Why? Self entitlement. If it isn't them, they wont care unless it becomes their business. Look at Europe's history, as long as it benefits them it doesn't matter who suffers. Crusades (which killed 9 million) over trade routes in the middle east, screwing over native Americans, and imposing military and cultural imperialism on weaker nations. WWII was a learning lesson for everyone. A lesson humanity would have learned anyway regardless (Stalin). Every atrocity European powers has done throughout history came back in World War II, except it was used against European powers. If it hasn't happened to the European power itself, it doesn't care. France wanted reparations from Germany, but when anyone else is asked for an apology and reparations, it rarely does anything. The most you would get is a few cheap words, and no reparations "because that would bankrupt us." They don't want bankruptcy through reparations, but gladly forced it on WWI Germany?
Your point that reparations from the Great War did lead us to World War II is certainly valid. But it has nothing to do with harbouring a Nazi and the fact they played part to mass genocide of the Jewish people!
Ultratwinkie said:
4. There was no American or Russian space program. All the tech they used were from World War II GERMANY. It may still happen, but far into the future.
This is still completely irrelevant to the holocaust! Yes, WWII lead to breakthroughs in jets, and nuclear science, but the holocaust could've EASILY been avoided, whilst still achieving this, in fact, had they harnessed the rich and the intelligent Jews, we might be much further ahead technologically - The holocaust can only be seen as an atrocity
The league of nations wasn?t a joke, go read your history again, without the league of nations we wouldn?t have the united nations we have today.
Ultratwinkie said:
7. Yes it would. The UN tends to step in and interfere in some cases. Not to mention the alliances formed by countries started World War I, not prevented it. It creates a false sense of power "because i got my big buddies backing me up." Its easy to be brave when you're standing behind walls of foreign soldiers fighting your battles for you. Not to mention Stalin had planned to do what Hitler did, but was beat to the punch.
Yes it would? There's no direct link I can see between this statement and the fact the holocaust could've been avoided.
Ultratwinkie said:
8. WWII without the deaths or persecution of the Jewish? You assume that it would play out in Germany's favor, and with a different culture. The anti-Jewish attitude was widely known throughout history, essentially making it an inevitability. Jews have been demonized and used as scapegoats since Roman times. Germany would also not win against the allies, even if they did they wouldn't be able to extend beyond Europe. The costs of maintaining an empire that spans multiple continents is astronomical.
Yes WWII without the holocaust. YES, bloody oath it would play out better, see my previous posts as to why. An inevitability! That is disgusting sir, and I now demand an immediate apology for myself and my fellow Jewish people for the disgraceful notion, that our near genocide was 'an inevitability'.
The Roman Empire and the British Empire are two right off the bat I can name that successfully maintained massive empires for hundreds of years. The German's may have been able to do it, with better strategic planning, better morals, and less waste. But again, had they been a smarter, less violent, more noble nation (eg. No Hitler), they might not have rebuilt themselves as quickly and as efficiently as they did either.
I want an apology to the Jews and myself now, thank you.
1. It was an inevitability but not in your context(that prejudice could lead to violence against Jews in that time, if you haven't noticed it didn't mean extinction). Why? Jews have been used as escape goats for everything. Europe persecuted (and heavily used genocide against) protestants, Muslims, and Jews before. It was only a matter of time before another religious oriented war or persecution broke out. Hell, now Muslims are being persecuted out of fear. People attack them, demonize them, and mistreat them. Religious tolerance isn't exactly something Europe has been known for, even now. In fact, hate crimes against Jews rose in 2000. Why? Old hatred coupled with hatred of religion over the past (crusades, despite Judaism not being responsible for it. People believe all religion is bad even though Christianity isn't the only religion). It has nothing to do with Jews themselves, but violence against them was inevitable given Europe's habit of blaming Judaism, heightened tensions, and the cycle of prejudice and violence. Anti-Muslim attitudes are rising, and the same still applies. Violence was bound to happen due to cultural prejudice. Want an example from CNN?
Anti-anything attitudes rise, violence against the party that the culture (of the time) despises is inevitable. It's a tragic mechanism in the psyche of humanity, but such as human nature it can't be changed. Many tried, but human nature is too corrosive.
2. The league of nations was a joke. It's threats were empty, and the incentive to work out their problems were damn near nonexistent. It failed, and was criticized for it.
3. The Anti Jewish hate was at an all time high after World War I. A scapegoat situation. Desperation, hatred, etc. All that anger took one person to point to anyone for everyone to blame them. The same situation Europe (and in one case I know of, China) repeated over and over and over.
4. Where did i say harboring a Nazi? I said that changing the past would only negatively effect us. You seem to bring out points completely unrelated to what i said, and try to link them in some blinded rage. You seem to try every logical fallacy in the book to twist what i said. A strawman argument does not work, nor does crystal ball logic.
5. Rome collapsed over becoming too large. Britain only put the colonies, and basically created a protectorate smaller state to cut down on costs. Germany expanding to multiple continents would never work, not to mention the rioting people in the newly conquered cities. It would spread Germany too thin.
Where is the apology to the Jewish people in all of this? Your comments are outlandish, make up for it now with an apology, 'please'.
1. Your comments are near irrelevent. Yes, many of us are aware that being jewish wasn't exactly popular, and I'm sure without me reading through the soup of a paragraph you wrote you list various examples why.
2. In your opinion needs to be stamped all over that paragraph. Regardless of how they acted, disregarding their fundemental involvment in the formation of the UN is a mistake.
3. Are you a neo-nazi? No seriously? If you want to look into the art school that rejected Hitler, which had jewish association, go ahead, but the bottom line is, Hitler's hatred for Jews stemed from the lack of success he had as an artist, and the jewish communities rightful option to decline him.
4. Exactly, where did you say it? You're going completely off topic by not mentioning its relevance. Strawmen and Crystalballs? How about, not linking your arguments directly to mine, and instead writting an eight and five point list trying to defend your position that the holocaust was necessary for human evolution, its disgusting.
5. Ever heard of a concept known as 'sacking'? It's where an invading army, once defeating the defending army, essentially raides the enemies village, rapes the women, steals the resources, and enlisted total soverign domination of the people there. If successful, they could easily have bent the people to obey them, how about how they treated the French during the war? They were occupied (yes, it is great that the French resisted the Germans, but I'm not aware of evidence that without the allies support they could've over thrown the German occupying forces.
The main point here, if you wouldn't mind getting back to it, is that the holocaust was a horrible tragedy that was NOT necessary for human development. Correct yourself immediately, please, and state that it was infact the second world war which contributed greatly to technology of the 20th century, and we can end this back and forth. But I'll carry on writting till my fingers are bare until you apologize, or a mod closes this thread.
Even if he wasn't sorry for what he did...I refuse to turn in this man. Hollywood, Israel, and the Jewish people have villianized these people just for the sole sake that their ancestors were killed and it makes me sick.
Has the man apologized to God? Has he confessed his sins to Him alone? Has he said "God, Jesus...forgive me?". Even then, what right are you to judge in the midst of warfare?
The man is innocent until death in my eyes.
It's only because we've been force-fed that image so many times in our lives, via movies, via war films, via Hollywood...that we actually believe this shit that we're often told. Was it bad? Yes. But it's been overstated as to how "horrible" it really was. I see their deaths as no different than the deaths of soldiers.
Signed.
A man with German ancestry and other "untermenscht" mixings.
Now if your just talking about being 'German', thats fine. I have always felt bad for modern age Germans that have had to live with 'Nazi guilt'. This is unfair. Not all Germans were Nazis and not all Nazis were evil. The clearest example of this can be seen in the case of 'Field Marshall Rommel' a leading Nazi general that down to his core was an honourable soldier.
Now you say that we are fed dramatic images of the 'evils' of the Holocaust in Hollywood and by descendants of those that were lucky enough to survive. This is also true, Nazidom has been very villified in Hollywood and throughout the world. However, what you are blindly ignoring is that the reason why Nazis are seen as the 'ultimate evil' is because they did many, many terrible things. I know this because I have studied the Third Reich for many years. If you need some basic's on the evils that the Nazis did, i suggest you search 'Josef Mengele' known as the 'Angel of Death'. Modern horror, as in torturous experimentations on innocent victims, dervived from very true stories in many of the cases. For instance, I remember reading a story were doctors chose to cut off one of the testicles of a disabled man, no numbing agent, simply because they wanted to see what would happen.
"I see their deaths as no different then the deaths of soldiers".
WOW. Last time I checked soldiers were usually given weapons to defend themselves (Now I know you could find cases in which this is not true, note: Soviet Union-Eastern Front. But it usually is the case) However, as horrible as it is for a soldier, atleast they are fighting. In the holocaust, men, women and children were all executed because they were seen as inferior life forms. NOT because they were combatants of a war. The Nazis specifically went out to annihilate these people.
I really need to do work so I'm going to stop writing, but here are some points to dwell on:
-'War of Annihilation' - Nazis invade Eastern Europe and Soviet Union in an effort to gain 'lebensraum' or 'living space'. Hitler declares that the 'rules of war' do not apply here and that any soldier who kills, rapes or does anything else to CIVILIANS will not suffer penelties.
-'Aktion T4 - Killing of the Handi-capped' - Before the Holocaust, the Nazis who deemed disabled people inferior begin killing. hundreds of thousands are killed starting with babies, then children, then adults.
The Nazis stood to wipe out anyone that did not fit their 'perfect' bill, soldier or civilian.
I always wondered, why is it that German WW2 soldiers can't say "just doing my job" (which I see as a completely legitimate reasoning. If people came to me, gave me a gun, and said, go kill this person or else we will kill you AND your family, I'd do it.)...
But the US pilot who murdered hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians with a nuclear bomb...
Or the Allied bombers murdering thousands of civilians in Dresden...
Or the Russian soldiers raping thousands of women and murdering even more thousands of educated polish men...
... where just doing their jobs?
This is hypocrisy to the top. Allied atrocities are okay, because they won, but everybody on the Axis side, including people who did not know about it, are all guilty?
I'm not a fan of the Nazi's, in fact I'm quite happy the Allies won. But this hypocrisy makes me mad.
I always wondered, why is it that German WW2 soldiers can't say "just doing my job" (which I see as a completely legitimate reasoning. If people came to me, gave me a gun, and said, go kill this person or else we will kill you AND your family, I'd do it.)...
But the US pilot who murdered hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians with a nuclear bomb...
Or the Allied bombers murdering thousands of civilians in Dresden...
Or the Russian soldiers raping thousands of women and murdering even more thousands of educated polish men...
... where just doing their jobs?
This is hypocrisy to the top. Allied atrocities are okay, because they won, but everybody on the Axis side, including people who did not know about it, are all guilty?
I'm not a fan of the Nazi's, in fact I'm quite happy the Allies won. But this hypocrisy makes me mad.
From a Nazi point of view, the holocaust was completely necessary. From a Japanese view, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing was completely unnecessary.
being a german soldier and being a nazi aren't really the same thing, being a US marines doesn't make you a democrat because the president happens to be
Being a German soldier during WW2 kind of defaulted to being a Nazi...
Every soldier swore allegiance to the party and to Hitler and any dissidence was dealt with harshly.
You can argue that swearing allegiance as a mandatory condition doesn't reflect the individual, but when all is said and done, what is the difference between a man who supports an ideology and a man who doesn't oppose it?
They still were not members of the Nazi party, soldiers are payed to fight in the military not support the government, it's why we use things ike axis forces, being a soldier also did not make you a member of the SS either
It's a fairly common distinction to make
and yes since allegiance was mandatory much like the hitler youth, you were automatically no matter your personal feelings, either thoses who fled germany would still be
No forgiveness for Nazis. It's as simple as that. I talked to holocaust survivors. I've seen the numbers. No amount of good deeds could ever fix what the Nazis, and especially the officers, did. No redemption for them, in this life, or any other.
I've spoken to about 3 survivors in my time. Only 1 of them still has any animosity towards the Nazis. The other 2 don't really see them as evil anymore. They don't defend them, but they don't rant about how sick and twisted and demonic they were.
If people who experienced it 1st hand don't have anger left over it, why should I suddenly feel horrified by it and want to punish them?
Obviously can't speak for every survivor, but the ones I spoke to were all too happy to talk about it. They figured everyone should know exactly what it was like to actually be there. With one of them in particular who came to my school once me and him had this really long conversation about it, and I actually asked him point blank: "Do you hate the Nazis for what they did to you and your people?" and his answer, after over half an hour of talking in detail about his experience, was a simple "No." He went on to say that while it was horrific, the stuff that happened, there's no point now still holding a grudge. It was still painful for him to remember all that stuff, but his thinking was that it was done ages ago. There's nothing to be done about it now and since the main high-ranking officers with any real power have been found and executed/imprisoned, there's no point in anybody holding a grudge against the ones that are left.
This discussion aside, what happened was horrible. It seems as if these people you spoke with have truly healed from it, and I am glad to hear it. They deserve peace of mind.
I'd turn him in. I know not every German was a true nazi, and many were acting out of fear for themselves and their family, but he still assisted in the murder of countless innocents. He deserves to be brought to justice.
First of all I'd decline him just for the risk, I wouldn't want to get involved and punished with him. Second of all if he had changed that he should face the punishment for the crimes he did, and hopefully whoever is persecuting him would realize that and give him a lighter sentence. I would speak up for him, but I wouldn't break the law for him (I'm not sure if Canada has an obstruction of justice law or if these are evil cops).
I don't trust justice system, he can be hitler himself and I wouldn't tell police anything.
Not to mention justice system is meant to protect the population, not to punish (at least it should be). If he's remorseful, then there's no need to imprison him.
I don't trust justice system, he can be hitler himself and I wouldn't tell police anything.
Not to mention justice system is meant to protect the population, not to punish (at least it should be). If he's remorseful, then there's no need to imprison him.
Then I'll ask you as well to answer my question... Would you also protect the 80 year old ex-pedophile priest who had abused, and possibly even murdered, dozens or even hundreds of little boys and girls but who is now deepl remorseful and hasn't hurt fly in 50 years?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
