No, I just don't think you are employing a very long view of history.
I’m not employing the Reverend’s “very long view of history”, for sure. As that view is all about apologizing mass murderers, adopting it is neither one of my ambitions.
You are coming from the point-of-view of Wilson and Ambassador Morgenthau, Sr.
How could I possibly? I know nothing about either.
You don't seem to realized that the corrolary to this doctrine is Morgenthau, Jr. and the Advance to Barbarism of a Holy Crusade.
That may be so in the mind of the Reverend, which does not mean it is so in history. The fact is that lunatic “corrolaries” like Morgenthau were overruled before they could do any harm.
++War is violence--a settling of scores.++
<<Mass murder as committed by the Nazis is not war.>>
I think it is.
Nuff’ said. Thank you, Reverend.
++With Unconditional Surrender conflicts cannot ultimately be worked-out. That means that there is ample fodder for "criminality." And anything can be declared illegal ex post facto.++
<<Such as mass murder, right? Is the Reverend trying to tell us that the Nazi big shots were entitled to consider their murderous actions against civilians and prisoners of war legitimate at the time they engaged in them? Or that they were entitled to consider unprovoked aggression against other countries in violation of bi – or multilateral treaties to be legitimate behavior? >>
Why not? Oh, I forgot, Jewish lives are more important than anyone else.
Another instructive statement that is highly appreciated. The issue is the lives of 5 to 6 million Jewish and about twice as many non-Jewish unarmed non-combatants snuffed out in actions that bore little or no relation to any acts of war, Reverend. For him who considers the millions killed by Stalin “a few heads”, the victims of Nazi genocide and mass murder are not likely to matter either, of course.
(Snip sermon on Nazi rhetoric. Btw, I regard Ernst Klee with as much credibility as a middle-aged German hippie smoking pot in a Volkswagen microbus.)
On what basis, Reverend? Other than the fact that the results of his research don’t fit into your ideological bubble, of course? Klee is just quoting an original document, by the way. One that apparently leaves the Reverend speachless, judging by how he avoids talking about it.
++History shows that have-nots (maybe like the Third World today) have a way of making the mighty pay dearly for their arrogance.++
<<Any examples? The Reverend’s favorite “have-nots” vented their rage on millions of helpless innocent people rather than on “the mighty”.>>
++The Nazis were German soldiers and the lower-middle-classes radicalized by war, defeat, and revolution--something that Bourgeois minds would do well to consider.++
<<Wherever they came from, they were responsible for their own actions.>>
It matters if you wake-up from your Bourgeois slumber and wind-up on the receiving-end of History.
Hollow bunk. Smith’s heroes put a lot more people on the “receiving-end of History” than those who allegedly “forged” them ever did.
++We are making "Nazis" out of the Iraqis and the Palestinians today, for example. Afghanistan is anybody's guess.++
<<I don’t see what would be so bad about that from Smith’s point of view. He obviously idolizes the Nazis.>>
Whatever. I don't like to see American citizens attacked. But on the Nazis my opinions are fairly close to Irving's in many respects.
From what I’ve seen of the Reverend, I would say that “fairly close” is an understatement.
++Today, the Israelis are the Nazis, radicalized by the collective Jewish experience in WWII, called the Shoah. (Oh, I forgot. No, they're not "Nazis" because they do not gas Arabs in diesel Gas-Vans! Silly me.) ++
<<Exactly, Reverend. The comparison stinks because the Israelis, whatever wrong they may have done to the Palestinians, never engaged in getting rid of all or a considerable part of them by shooting them into mass graves or taking them to places from which they never returned alive. Big difference.>>
I think the comparison is valid. The Nazis had to make hay while the sun shone during a very costly and unpredictable war.
Exactly, my dear friend. As Goebbels very aptly put it in his diary entry of 27.03.1942:
It's a life-and-death struggle between the Aryan race and the Jewish bacillus. No other government and no other regime would have the strength for such a global solution of this question. Here, too, the Fuehrer is the undismayed champion of a radical solution necessitated by conditions and therefore inexorable. Fortunately a whole series of possibilities presents itself for us in wartime that would be denied us in peacetime. We shall have to profit by this
Source of quote:http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/goe ... 942-mar-27
In other words: let’s kill as many Jews as we can as long as the war is going on, because afterwards it may be more difficult to do so.
The Israelis have had almost half a century for their ethnic cleansing which is less obvious.
It sure is. No mass executions, no extermination camps. How many Palestinian lives has the Israeli “ethnic cleansing” claimed so far, Reverend? Any figures from a reliable source you can show us?
In addition, I qualified with my analogy of the Israeli schoolyard bully who is encouraged but restrained by Uncle Samuel, which thus prevents any resoultion of the conflict. The bully will never win except by attrition and the bully will never get beaten-up himself.
Aha, it is because of Uncle Sam that those bloodthirsty Talmudists don’t proceed like the Nazis did, in Smith’s opinion. Another instructive statement that is very much appreciated.
Palestinian schoolgirls are now willing to sacrifice their lives to kill as many Israeli civilians are they can; that's how badly the pot is simmering, my good man. I do not regard either set of lives as any more or less important, but I guess that must make me anti-Semitic. For is it not written in the pages of the Shoah, that the lives of the Gentiles are not worth more than a single Jewish fingernail?
Getting better. The suicidal terrorism of fanatics emerging from a religion and culture that extols and encourages martyrdom and self-sacrifice Smith sees as nothing other than an indication of how bad those bloody Jews are. There’s nothing wrong about considering all lives to be equally important, but I strongly doubt that the Reverend gives a damn about the innocent civilians that are victimized by his hallowed martyrs.
++Examples? How about 'Nam? ++
<<A better example than Smith’s beloved Nazis. The VC and NVA primarily targeted a world power rather than defenseless people deemed “inferior”, after all.>>
Actually, I was thinking of wars-of-national-liberation, more-so than the Nazis, but they can be seen in those terms as well.
Yeah, the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union was a German war of national liberation. Hear the screw dropping to the floor?
Indeed, it is impossible to understand the Nazis without getting into their heads a little, and of the two of us, I would say that is me.
It takes one to know one, as they say.
You even mistake me for a Nazi.
I used to think it might be a mistake, but I no longer do.
++I suppose there are no Haves and Have-Nots in your worldview and that Democracy-Capitalism floats all boats equally.++
<<Dead wrong, buddy. I just have a problem in seeing the Nazis as poor have-nots trying to grab their well-deserved share of the cake.>>
Although we will never be free of our own biases, a good student of history will try to see people on their own terms from time to time.
Except that the Reverend is not trying to see his heroes on their own terms for the sake of studying history. He adheres
to those terms.
It's all about perspective.
The Reverend’s being rather clear to whoever has followed his ramblings.
++Coming from Columbia, from Ruhr refugee stock, as you do, I find your attitude curious but not surprising.++
<<Two mistakes, Reverend. The country is called Colombia, >>
My apologies on the spelling mistake. The new board is so easy to use that I hate to use a wordprocessor, which would have caught such an egregious typo! I hope a good spell-checker can be added because I don't usually have much time to proofread. In any case, you will allow that as a typical American I'm not too involved with Third World countries (oops, I almost wrote "toilets").
Why, are countries like Colombia peopled by sub-humans, in the Reverend’s opinion? I wouldn't be surprised if so he thought.
...and my parents emigrated from Germany but were not “refugees”. Or are you just trying to insult me?
No, and I'm sorry if you took it that way. Were they dispossed Ruhr industrialists, then, who bought a plantation in South America?
The Reverend feels urged to insult my family, yet he keeps saying that he’s not mad at me. Never mind. Who knows the Reverend is aware that he never had a problem with contradicting himself.
Genocide Greuelpropaganda is one such puerile distraction, IMHO.
It sure is, but documenting and remembering ugly historical facts is not, however inconvenient to the Reverend’s beliefs they may be.
++When successful, they are heroes and liberators; if not, then they are criminals.++
<<Dead wrong. They are criminals whether successful (like Joe Stalin) or not (like Adolf). The difference being that the latter got caught and the former did not, for which reason it took some more time for the crimes of the former to be exposed.>>
++No, had Hitler been successful he not only would have been Time magazine's "Person of the Century" but perhaps the Millennium.++
<<Maybe so, but the Reverend seems to be unaware that the “Man of the …” – award bestowed by Time magazine does not necessarily signal a positive view of the character in question...>>
In this case it was.
In what case, Reverend? Didn’t Time
state that if Hitler had beaten Stalin in 1942, he would have been Man of the Year instead of Uncle Joe? Quite remarkable for the leader of a nation that the United States were at war with at the time, hence an inconvenient fact that the Reverend is quick to sweep under the carpet.
That's why Evil Hitler was not selected and Goody Einstein was.
Please enlighten us, Reverend: When did Einstein beat Adolf for the award? The contest seems to have been between Hitler and Stalin, not between Hitler and Einstein.
A better argument on your part would be the sheer irrelevance of Time magazine's covers.
Shown that his argument is wrong, Smith now contends that it’s irrelevant. Again very instructive.
But my point stands.
What point, brother? Unless I missed something, you didn’t make your point.
++In any case, had he died before September 1, 1939, Hitler would have been an incontestably great German hero and a remarkably tolerant dictator who ruled with a heavily-padded velvet glove.++
<<Sure. Tell that to the victims of the “Night of the Long Knives”, the inmates of the concentration camps and the Jews who were gradually stripped of all rights and had their property smashed to pieces during the Reichskristallnacht.>>
The Röhm purge was pretty-much kid-gloves compared to anything orchaestrated by Stalin.
Different people, different categories of victims. Unlike Stalin, Hitler tended to trust people and thus bumped of only 100-odd of his old party cronies – but you have to be Reverend Smith to see the murders of the Röhm purge as “kid gloves”.
And Goebbels got the blame for Reichskristalnacht in 1938 by Hitler and he was in the doghouse until 1944. Only Goebbels' fanatic devotion to duty saved him during that period. Dr. G really screwed up. Irving sees him as one of the masterminds of continued policies against the Jews, though he was not alone of course. Hitler had other things to worry about, however.
The Reverend is cooking up Irving’s nonsensical assertion that the Führer had nothing to do with the Reichskristallnacht
. Could it be that he has not yet read the judgment at the Irving-Lipstadt trial, where the falsity of these contentions was thoroughly exposed?
++Had Churchill been "caught" he would have hung with greater justification than many of the Nuremberg Eleven. Possibly even Roosevelt as well, or at least some of his advisors like Morgenthau.++
<<They were small kids compared to...>>
They were not small kids at all but Machiavellian masters.
Maybe so, but they didn’t produce nearly as many mass graves as their opponents.
I do not think that Göring was a warcriminal
Sure. How could one of the masterminds of the genocide of the Jews and the mass starvation of Soviet prisoners of war possibly be a war criminal?
, and as far as Keitel, naïvete and incompetence is different than criminality.
Except that he naively issued those funny orders calling for the reckless massacre of prisoners of war and civilians on the Eastern Front, among other products of his incompetence …
Keitel was useful to Hitler mainly because the Junker generals were so disagreeable. Hitler should have cleaned-house.
As I said, the meat hooks …
Anyway, I have said before that the neglect and exploitation of the Russian POWs was one the greatest warcrimes, IMHO.
Neglect and exploitation – what sweet euphemisms for mass murder. And Göring, who bragged to Count Ciano about starving Soviet prisoners of war resorting to cannibalism, had nothing to do with it, of course …
But that was a matter for negotiation and investigation, not for Victor Justice and legal philippics.
Negotiation - hardly so. As Goebbels once pointed out, the Nazis had broken down all bridges behind him.
Investigation – was carried out on a scale and with a degree of thoroughness never seen before in similar cases, at the Nuremberg Trials.
“Victor justice and legal philippics” – hollow slogans coined by an avowed supporter of the Nazi regime unwilling to look at facts that don’t fit into his bubble.
++As far as Stalin, only the West has the view of the Man of Steel as the Evil gangster. In Russia, he is the Red Peter the Great.++
<<I wonder what our Russian posters will say to this.>>
Exactly what I thought. In any case, you can ask them yourself.
The exact opposite, I would say after reading Oleg’s post. Smith seems to know as little about Russians as he does about Germans – and that is saying something.
Ah, I'm bored with the rest of your self-righteous rodomontade...
The good old smokescreen of insults to cover up your lack of arguments, Reverend?
I will close with the idea that when one is convinced of his moral justness, his Moral Certainty, he enters a slippery-slope, a region where any injustice is permitted to advance his crusade.
A very accurate self-portrait, Reverend. Congratulations.
Which of the two of us, me or you, has ever admitted to the possibility that he could be wrong?
Let’s say that neither has, the difference being that the Reverend has every reason to do so, as he would recognize if he left his dream world of Faith for just a moment.