What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Lynn R
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 17 Feb 2013, 01:39
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

#16

Post by Lynn R » 06 Mar 2013, 03:45

Meaning to neither defend nor validate atrocities, but wasn't the scope as much a function of the technology of the time?

Alixanther
Member
Posts: 411
Joined: 04 Oct 2003, 05:26
Location: Romania

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

#17

Post by Alixanther » 15 Mar 2013, 14:59

JU187 wrote:Human beings have been conquering each other since the beginning of human evolution. These American Indian analogies are a stretch. The Indians conquered each other in regional wars long before European colonialists ever stepped foot in the America's. And let's be honest, if the Indians were somehow more modern, advanced and had to ability to do so they would have conquered Anglo Saxon colonialists themselves. Wars have always been fought and always will be fought largely for monetary or territorial reasons. I would say however, what differentiates Hitler and the Third Reich is that despite the objective of territory expansion, the face of absolute evil and total intolerance fueled their rampage. The genocidal mass murder of men women and children in such a calculated precision based wholesale process had never been witnessed in modern times. The whole concept of a master race eradicating inferior yet innocent people is the enduring legacy of the Third Reich. Anyone defending the actions or attempting to validate the atrocities committed by the Third Reich or Empire of Japan instead only enhances the stark realization that these events occurred within the modern time frame of one lifespan.
You start by saying that everything we did since our biological existence was war (which might sound as a "nazi" thesis - "struggle for life" - darwinism under hitlerite terms) then you switch and say that Hitler and Third Reich is "totally diferentiated" by the former. To be honest, I'm puzzled. Hitler is neither the inventor, nor the most outrageous perpetrator of genocide warfare.
Absolute evil and total intolerance is more of the mark of the communist regimes, which states that no less than 10 % of the population of any country should be killed in order to make the regime effective. And that doctrine was implemented by the book, not like the nazis, which - at least in my humble opinion - were kinda biased and prone to limitations and exceptions (think of H. Göring which states "I decide who a Jew is"). In a communist regime you didn't need a special denomination to be purged. You simply needed to got slapped the "enemy of the state" emblem, then you're toast.
There's simply NOTHING to pin Hitler AND HITLER ONLY on the genocide map ALONE (except, perhaps, his intense interest in the Judaic community).

I've seen someone asking "where's British Auschwitz, where's US Treblinka?"
The problem is today there are no longer any survivors of the British Army massacres in Africa and Asia to tell the story. On the contrary, German massacres are well-known, continuously refreshed into out memory by media and there are also shrines of rememberance scattered all-over the globe by now.
If countries in Africa and Asia could benefit from the same popularisation as the jewish holocaust, then you might suddenly discover the grim story behind the red coats. Even nowadays African poverty, famine and conflict stem from the root of European colonialism (I'm not bashing English only, mind you) and if Africa would have been treated well and allowed to develop an advanced infrastructure, the world would have been a better place (and today's financial crisis might have even been alleviated by their consumer goods' demand). But you need to be more of a visionary and less of a money grabber.

There's no gain whatsoever from any so-called "anti-racist laws" in the civilized world, if people of different roots are still less able to get a social status in the country they live - be it an adoptive one. It is this mentality alone which pits groups of various ethnic and cultural origin one against each other and brings conflict and strife into the world. If this is our present world, imagine how it was a century earlier. Some might say "we cannot judge the past", well, Nazis are past too, why judge only them? If we need to judge the nazis, let's judge every social system ever invented and implemented, and compare them, if possible. Or we could let all of them rest in the dustbin of history, as we should.
wm wrote: Exactly, the victims of the British imperialism and American expansion had almost always the option to exit the fight, surrender, accept the new way of life, or even to make a career under the new political system.
The victims of the Nazi regime despite the fact that they had surrendered already didn't have any chance. Whatever they did they were destined to be exterminated.
Yup. They had the option to fight just like the Zulus had, right? Pitting spears against machinegun fire. A brilliant option.
Surrender. Yup. Another great option to work for the master race. Any difference? Don't see one, sorry.
Accept the new way of life. Yeah. This one also brings up ALMOST ALWAYS a morbid poverty and a remove any dignity of the human being - of the newly acquired workers for the empire.
Even make a career under "the new political system"??? Have you ever seen an Indian-American Senator? Do you really think any of the pacified tribes had any chance of entering the establishment other than being truly a "kapo" of his own people??? I cannot think of any non-european minority - except for the Jews, of course - which happened to gain an upper hand and a social status in any European Colonial Empire. Maybe I'm mistaken, are there any one else?


Orwell1984
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 18 Jun 2011, 19:42

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

#18

Post by Orwell1984 » 15 Mar 2013, 15:13

Alixanther wrote:Even make a career under "the new political system"??? Have you ever seen an Indian-American Senator?
Leaving aside the rest of your post, you need to do some more research on the role of Native Americans in US politics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Na ... oliticians
Two Senators, including one who was in the running to become the Democratic candidate for President back in 1920 as well as a number of members of the House of Representatives.
However you're correct that no Indian-American has become a Senator, members of the House of Representatives yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_po ... ted_States

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

#19

Post by David Thompson » 15 Mar 2013, 15:23

Alixanther -- Your post (at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1777605) is just an unsourced opinion rant. Our readers expect verifiable information in the research sections of the forum, our rules require it, and you aren't providing it. See the announcement at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 676#990676 and the forum and section rules on claims at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53962, and consider this your warning.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

#20

Post by David Thompson » 15 Mar 2013, 15:30

Orwell1984 -- Alixanther asked:
Have you ever seen an Indian-American Senator?
You replied:
However you're correct that no Indian-American has become a Senator, members of the House of Representatives yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_po ... ted_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Nighthorse_Campbell. Now let's get back on topic.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

#21

Post by David Thompson » 15 Mar 2013, 18:57

An off-topic post from Alixanther, speculating on the racial and/or ethnic origins of an assortment of people, was removed by the moderator - DT.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

#22

Post by wm » 15 Mar 2013, 22:26

Alixanther wrote:Yup. They had the option to fight just like the Zulus had, right? Pitting spears against machinegun fire. A brilliant option.
Surrender. Yup. Another great option to work for the master race. Any difference? Don't see one, sorry.
Accept the new way of life. Yeah. This one also brings up ALMOST ALWAYS a morbid poverty and a remove any dignity of the human being - of the newly acquired workers for the empire.
Let's not over do it. Millions and millions of poor people in Eastern Europe and Asia would gladly exchange their places with those defeated Zulus. Their standard of living would probably even improve. If not at least the climate would be better.
Alixanther wrote:Even make a career under "the new political system"??? Have you ever seen an Indian-American Senator? Do you really think any of the pacified tribes had any chance of entering the establishment other than being truly a "kapo" of his own people??? I cannot think of any non-european minority - except for the Jews, of course - which happened to gain an upper hand and a social status in any European Colonial Empire. Maybe I'm mistaken, are there any one else?
Just a few random names of people who "suffered" under the British occupation. All those Sirs, FRS, Nobel Prizes must have been an unbearable burden:

Sir Chandrasekhara Venkata Rāman
Birbal Sahni FRS
Dattaraya Ramchandra Kaprekar
G.N. Ramachandran
Har Gobind Khorana
Harish-Chandra FRS
Homi Jehangir Bhabha FRS
Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose
Kailas Nath Kaul
Kalpathi Ramakrishna Ramanathan
Sir Kariamanickam Srinivasa Krishnan

Dr. Ali Moustafa Mosharafa Pasha
Sameera Moussa

Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi
Chaudry Mohammad Aslam
Mian Mohammed Sharif

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

#23

Post by David Thompson » 16 Mar 2013, 01:39

Another off-topic post from Alixanther was removed by this moderator - DT.

User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

#24

Post by LWD » 18 Mar 2013, 18:58

Alixanther wrote:
JU187 wrote:Human beings have been conquering each other since the beginning of human evolution. These American Indian analogies are a stretch. The Indians conquered each other in regional wars long before European colonialists ever stepped foot in the America's. And let's be honest, if the Indians were somehow more modern, advanced and had to ability to do so they would have conquered Anglo Saxon colonialists themselves. Wars have always been fought and always will be fought largely for monetary or territorial reasons. I would say however, what differentiates Hitler and the Third Reich is that despite the objective of territory expansion, the face of absolute evil and total intolerance fueled their rampage. The genocidal mass murder of men women and children in such a calculated precision based wholesale process had never been witnessed in modern times. The whole concept of a master race eradicating inferior yet innocent people is the enduring legacy of the Third Reich. Anyone defending the actions or attempting to validate the atrocities committed by the Third Reich or Empire of Japan instead only enhances the stark realization that these events occurred within the modern time frame of one lifespan.
You start by saying that everything we did since our biological existence was war (which might sound as a "nazi" thesis - "struggle for life" - darwinism under hitlerite terms) then you switch and say that Hitler and Third Reich is "totally diferentiated" by the former. To be honest, I'm puzzled.
Perhaps because you didn't understand what he wrote. Certainly your paraphrasing changes a number of key elements.
Hitler is neither the inventor, nor the most outrageous perpetrator of genocide warfare.
That's may be true but only because of a rather misleading phrasing. The Nazi genocide was the first in modern times directed at citizens of the home country. The Nazi's also killed more pople implementing it that any other power to date.
Absolute evil and total intolerance is more of the mark of the communist regimes,
Is it? That's certainly argueable. They did admitedly persecute thier political enemies or percieved political enemies to a degree that makes them comparable to the Nazis. However the Nazis did it for racial reasons (among others).
There's simply NOTHING to pin Hitler AND HITLER ONLY on the genocide map ALONE (except, perhaps, his intense interest in the Judaic community).
Indeed a number of others (many also Nazis) have been convicted and even more accused by legitimate authorities of genocide. So unfortunatly Hitler wasn't alone in this. Of course no one here has said he was which makes your argument a straw man.
I've seen someone asking "where's British Auschwitz, where's US Treblinka?"
The problem is today there are no longer any survivors of the British Army massacres in Africa and Asia to tell the story.
Really? Care to name a few of these? Look in any detail and I suspect you will find that your comparison is an apples to oranges one.
If countries in Africa and Asia could benefit from the same popularisation as the jewish holocaust, then you might suddenly discover the grim story behind the red coats.
But most likely not.
Even nowadays African poverty, famine and conflict stem from the root of European colonialism (I'm not bashing English only, mind you) and if Africa would have been treated well and allowed to develop an advanced infrastructure, the world would have been a better place (and today's financial crisis might have even been alleviated by their consumer goods' demand).
??? A lot of the infrastructure in Africa was built by or at the behest of the Europeans. Much of the problems caused by the Europeans came not as a result of drive for profit but simply due to organizing countries and regions without regard to tribal politics. Tribal politics and corruption are the real curse of Africa and much of the rest of the third world.
There's no gain whatsoever from any so-called "anti-racist laws" in the civilized world, if people of different roots are still less able to get a social status in the country they live - be it an adoptive one.
Nonsense.
wm wrote: Exactly, the victims of the British imperialism and American expansion had almost always the option to exit the fight, surrender, accept the new way of life, or even to make a career under the new political system.
The victims of the Nazi regime despite the fact that they had surrendered already didn't have any chance. Whatever they did they were destined to be exterminated.
Yup. They had the option to fight just like the Zulus had, right? Pitting spears against machinegun fire.
Really? How many machineguns did the British deploy against the Zulus?
Even make a career under "the new political system"??? Have you ever seen an Indian-American Senator? Do you really think any of the pacified tribes had any chance of entering the establishment other than being truly a "kapo" of his own people???
Yes. I suggest you do a bit more research before you make such pronouncments.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: What did Germany do which the Brits had not done before?

#25

Post by David Thompson » 19 Mar 2013, 05:01

After reviewing this topic and its premise, I think it's too broad for a coherent discussion, so it's locked. Interested readers can start separate threads on its component elements dealing with specific war crimes.

Locked

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”