I suppose you aren't too excited about this problem, but one thing infuriated me today, so I'd like to comment on that. This concerns Barack Obama and his statement about "Polish Death Camps" and also a hateful article by Debbie Schlussel.
As you probably know the Germans during the Second World War weren't actually Germans, they were "nazis". The Nazis existed for a very brief period of time: since the early 20's till May 1945. The whole nation evaporated on 8th of May that year. This nation committed unspeakable crimes against humankind during that period, which nobody denies, even the Germans, a nation that came to life on May 9th, 1945. They created Death Camps, many of which were built on occupied lands- Polish, Czech, Soviet and so on. The biggest one was Auschwitz- Birkenau, near a lovely town of Oswiecim, south of Cracow, Poland. Polish people during that period (1940-1945) were victims to mass murders, along with the Jews (who were Polish citizens), Czechs, Slovaks, Romanians, the Black, the disabled, the mentally ill- anyone who wasn't tall, high and blond like Adolf Hitler. I am pretty certain that there were a lot of Poles who killed Jews during that period, many of them helped Germa... nazis in the process. I am also certain, that they were a minority. Poland was the only state occupied by G.. nazis, where protecting the Jews, hiding them, not informing about their whereabouts was punishable by death. It was not a possible sentence- it was the only one. Many did betray Jews, some because of hate, some because of fear for their lives and lives of their children. And yet there were hundreds of thousands that did try to protect them, many of which died as a result. Now, I do not claim that Poles are saint and believe me, I have plenty of German friends and do not think they are responsible (how could they?!) for the crimes. But I am willing to take the risk of saying that Germans were the sole reason the horrid holocaust took place- they started it, they conducted it, Soviet, Polish and Allied forces thankfully finished it. Jews after the II WW managed to inform the world public opinion about the atrocities that they were subjected to. Germans managed to convinced the world that they were possible only because of Nazi government, which managed to kill many millions of Jews despite heroic deeds of simple Germans who tried to prevent them. Thus, there were no Germans crimes, they were Nazi crimes. I can live with that, although I don't think it is completely fair. Poles however, where never very good at conveying their thoughts this well. We are struggling now to repair that. So when president of the United States of America says- "Polish Death Camps", Polish media are in the uproar, Polish President writes a letter to Obama, and so on and so forth. Obviously Obama didn't want to offend Poland - given the circumstances in which he spoke the words (giving a medal to a Pole for trying to inform the World about Holocaust) - but some actions had to be taken. The small simple truth we want to tell the world is that they weren't Polish Death Camps - they were barely on Polish soil. Obviously there were some Poles - prisoners - who helped the Germans. I imagine that in Ukraine they were Ukrainians etc. Bear in mind that the Jews weren't the sole prisoners, there were just as many Poles, Russians and other Slavic nations there. Obama apologized, that's great. He won't make that mistake again. And than I read an article by this journalist http://www.debbieschlussel.com/50114/poles-were-complicit-in-holocaust-outrage-over-obama-gaffe-is-fraudulent-ignorant/
quote: Poland’s willing executioners took their significant place among Hitler’s willing executioners
quote: Are you kidding? Someone needs to remind Mr. Tusk that his people were the ones doing the hurting and the turning over to the Nazis and the mass murder of at least half of the six million Jews killed in the Holocaust, some of them from my family. You are “hurt” by calling Nazi death camps, “Polish”???? Um, where were they? Who helped operate them and round up and turn in the camps’ Jewish occupants, soon to be turned into ash and fumes?
Um, where were they? They were in the Third Reich, in the annexed territories of General Government, Czech and Moravia protectorate, or simply in Germany (Sachsenhausen and many, many, many, too many places more). Polish Underground Army was the largest force of this kind in the history. It had almost 1 million members who fought the Germans and died at their hands. Those who survived were persecuted after the war by the Communists, thousands of them killed and imprisoned in the vastness of Siberia. They died alongside Jews in the death camps, or simply died there because they WERE JEWS. This journalist writes that "nazi" and "Polish" were not necessarily mutually exclusive. Well, being Polish and Jewish isn't necessarily exclusive either. In the first case, except for extremely small number of people, it was exclusive. Millions of Poles died during that war. On the other hand 10% or so of Polish population was Jewish, that's more than 3 million people. Poland since 16th century the most tolerant nation in the world, it never persecuted it's citizens for their religious beliefs, making it a perfect home for Protestants and Jews during the dark times of religious wars in Europe. It remained a multicultural nation until 1945. Ever since there are almost Poles here. Because of Nazi Death Camps.
[ June 06, 2012, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Szymon ]
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
If he had said "death camps in Poland" would that have assuaged everybody's anger?
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Yes.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Although it would be best if he'd say "Nazi" or even better "German".
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Here's pretty much all you need to know about Debbie Schlussel guys
quote:In 2007, Schlussel opined that WNBA player Anna DeForge is a bad role model because she is a lesbian.[18] She was criticized for this statement by player Kayte Christensen in an Arizona Republic column.[18]
When the Virginia Tech Massacre occurred on April 16, 2007, the police told the press that the shooter was an “Asian male” Schlussel was quick to tie it to Muslims, saying in a racist tirade that "Pakis are considered ‘Asian,’” and that it could be “part of a co-ordinated terrorist plot by Pakistanis.”[19]
In 2011, Schlussel provoked controversy by her comments after CBS reporter Lara Logan's sexual assault suffered while covering the Egyptian protests. Schlussel stated, "Lara Logan was among the chief cheerleaders of this 'revolution' by animals. Now she knows what Islamic revolution is really all about. So sad, too bad, Lara.[20]
After the killing of Osama bin Laden, Schlussel wrote on her blog "1 down, 1.8 billion more to go".[21] Schlussel wrote about the 2011 Norway attacks that while she doesn't "condone violent massacres on innocent civilians" and condemned their killer, she thought that "I’m not sad for either side... Now these kids’ families know what it feels like to be victims of the Islamic terrorists whose Judenrein boycotts and terrorist flotillas against Israel they support." She also stated, "I don’t get too upset when they face the karma that is their fate."
But remember, she's totally not an islamophobe/homophobe/whatever and definitely not a horrid excuse for a human being, nossir
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Clearly "Polish death camps" was clumsy shorthand for "death camps in Poland". It was unfortunate but, surely, no reasonable person* actually thinks that the the death camps were instituted by anyone other than the Nazis or that the President meant any such thing.
People use the term "Jewish concentration camp" meaning (perfectly clearly) a camp where Jews were killed not one owned and operated by Jews.
It was unfortunate, but this outrage is overblown.
*Clearly Debbie Schlussel is not reasonable.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Yeah, I am aware of that, and so are you. But many people, like Ms Schlussel think that the fact that they were placed in Poland means they were Polish. "Um, where were they?" she says...
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Samprimary, thanks. Makes me feel better knowing that she is simply ignorant and foolish. Although I would fire her for such comments- for example this Brevik stuff you mentioned. Jesus.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I have two grandfathers born in Germany. One Catholic, one Jewish. I hate myself.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I would be more impressed by your outrage if Poland didn't have such a clear record of anti-semitic acts and attitudes long before and long after the Nazis were in power.
To claim that many Poles were not complicit in the death camps is historical revisionism. And to claim that only in Poland was failing to turn in Jews to the Nazis punishable by death is complete falsehood.
While there were certainly individual Poles who saved Jewish lives -- risking their own to do so -- your country, as a whole, has little to be proud of in the way it treated Jews during the entire 18th and 19th centuries. Or most of the 20th.
I have no idea who Schlussel is (don't especially care, either), and I certainly don't agree with everything in her article. But the degree of willing Polish complicity with the Nazis is well-documented.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
I didn't claim there was no antisemitism. There were killings even. Outrageous murders, I say maybe even a thousand Jews. Not tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, though. Polish prisoners helping in death camps were called Capos and there were many of them. Instead of receiving 200 calories a day they got 500, so they did help.
I admit that I am not sure if not turning Jews in was punishable by death. Helping them and hiding them certainly was and it was the only country.
There are acts of intolerance in every multicultural country, Poland was no exception. But it was not worse then any other country of this kind.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Actually it was, in many cases, even before the Nazis.
But that "reporter" is a moron.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
In English "Polish death camps" can mean either "Death camps organised by the Polish government" or "Death camps within Poland's borders". The degree of Polish cooperation with the Nazis is quite irrelevant; the question is whether Obama is allowed to use the English language (rather than some other language that doesn't have this ambiguity) to accurately describe history.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: I didn't claim there was no antisemitism. There were killings even. Outrageous murders, I say maybe even a thousand Jews. Not tens of thousands, not hundreds of thousands, though.
I see. It's just a question of scale?
Really?
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Polish prisoners helping in death camps were called Capos and there were many of them. Instead of receiving 200 calories a day they got 500, so they did help.
I am well aware of the Capos. In many cases, they were more vicious and enthusiastically anti-Semitic than the Nazis running the camps.
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Helping them and hiding them certainly was and it was the only country.
No, it wasn't. Hiding Jews in Germany, Austria, and other Eastern European countries under the Nazi regime got you killed too. Just as in Poland, the few who did so anyway in those countries were the exception, and their names are blessed.
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: There are acts of intolerance in every multicultural country, Poland was no exception. But it was not worse then any other country of this kind.
Again, that's neither consistent with the documentation I have seen, nor relevant. Your initial claim is that the Poles were better than the Nazis. Now you're saying they were no worse? I'd probably agree with that. They were bad in different ways, certainly, since the Poles were not in power.
But claiming that those camps were not Polish death camps, or that they could have existed without the willing -- and in many cases, enthusiastic -- cooperation of the vast majority of Poles is historical whitewashing of the worst kind.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: The degree of Polish cooperation with the Nazis is quite irrelevant; the question is whether Obama is allowed to use the English language (rather than some other language that doesn't have this ambiguity) to accurately describe history.
Maybe he should just stick with Kenyan, that might calm Debbie down.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Oh good grief. This continued political cover-up of the active participation of the Polish people, and especially the Polish RomanCatholic bishops and priests, in the Holocaust is absolutely ridiculous. Heck, the main reason the twins got elected to President and Prime-Minister -- after Poland's separation from the former SovietBloc -- is cuz they were good Nazis who loved railing against "the Jews plotting against Poland".
[ June 06, 2012, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
He does have a point about the tendency to refer to German Nazis as Nazis rather than Germans, though.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Possibly because there were a goodly percentage who were Austrian.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Again, that's neither consistent with the documentation I have seen, nor relevant. Your initial claim is that the Poles were better than the Nazis. Now you're saying they were no worse? I'd probably agree with that. They were bad in different ways, certainly, since the Poles were not in power.
Well I can give you five books that say so. We need to agree to disagree.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Possibly because there were a goodly percentage who were Austrian.
No, that's not the reason. And you know it.
Again, I do not claim that some poles didn't help the Nazis. You cannot say that vast majority, or even a majority helped them, though. My point is- if the camps were built in France, there would be just as many French Capos. I am not trying to to cover up Polish collaboration. It was a fact.
Now, I really would like you to understand. I'm just saying that Poland has a really bad PR. It is so obvious that the Germans ran the camps, that it is almost forgotten. This:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: But claiming that those camps were not Polish death camps, or that they could have existed without the willing -- and in many cases, enthusiastic -- cooperation of the vast majority of Poles is historical whitewashing of the worst kind.
is completely untrue. This is a lie, and a vicious one. I don't know where you found that particular piece of information, but they existed without the willing of Poles. Man, those were mostly Polish people, how do you imagine they helped building them? Except for some scumbags? My grand uncle died there, you trying to tell me he went there willingly and died just to take some Jews down with him? You think Germans asked our permission? You think anyone in their right mind imagined that the camps were built to burn people? And once they found out, what would you have them do? Run at the wire and shout: hang in there? In Warsaw, they first set up the Ghetto. Then they were sending them away. For months people didn't know where to, for crying out loud. How would that be possible if Poles helped building it? Unless by help you mean pointing a gun at them and telling them to work. If that is the case, then yes, they were willingly building the camps. And then dying there, burned to ashes together with anyone else. By the way- hardly anyone heard about the Warsaw Uprising, whilst many more know about the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which was a brave, completely unprepared attempt to get killed quicker. Not that Warsaw Uprising was a good idea, but at least it had a shadow of a chance of success (had the Soviets helped the insurgents). Rivka, please tell me what documentation have you seen?
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Everyone's trying to separate gray into black and white. It can't be done, I tell you.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: No, that's not the reason. And you know it.
*blink* You know better than I do what I know, now?
If we're going to compare number of relatives who died in the camps, I'll win. Even though my direct ancestors were in the US by then, many cousins were not so lucky.
I have read hundreds of first-hand accounts of camp survivors, and spoken to dozens of survivors in person. Pardon me if I give them a bit more credence than someone who is clearly desperate to re-write their country's history.
And if you think anyone has forgotten that Nazism started in Germany, came to power through the German political system, and has its roots in German culture and prejudices . . . you are simply wrong. Surprisingly so.
[edited to fix one word that made no sense]
[ June 06, 2012, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: In English "Polish death camps" can mean either "Death camps organised by the Polish government" or "Death camps within Poland's borders".
A third possibility is death camps which held the Polish. Like what is meant by "Japanese internment camps" with regard to the US in WWII.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: In English "Polish death camps" can mean either "Death camps organised by the Polish government" or "Death camps within Poland's borders".
A third possibility is death camps which held the Polish. Like what is meant by "Japanese internment camps" with regard to the US in WWII.
A fourth possibility is comically incompetent death camps.
*ducks*
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm basically with Rivka on this one. Certainly Nazism was a much more powerful, evil force in the world than anything cooking in Poland at the time. That goes without saying that reiterating it frankly smacks of an effort to avoid discussing other matters.
Poland was a victim of Germany and the USSR, it's true, and more than many as a people and a country they were mutilated by the events before during and after WWII.
But...
As a nation and a people, Poland wasn't just minding its own business helping little old ladies mow their yards or something, when a Nazi came goose stepping east down Main St. while from the east a tromping Soviet came marching west on Main, to come really ruin Poland's day.
They had an awful lot of help, both in terms of willingness to use the vileness of both for short-term political gains, foolish misunderstanding of long-term threats, incompetence, so on and so forth. As for its treatment of Jews, well, any serious examination on that issue is going to turn up some things it really seems like you don't want to hear. Not even a page in, and you've got rivka telling 'vicious lies'.
Now as for knowing what was in store for Jews where Nazis had power, well yes of course, very few knew 'they will be worked to death or murdered outright in industrialized killing factories.'
As for 'hey, where'd that Jewish family go?' or 'what are the working conditions like in that factory all those Jews got sent to?' well, that's a different matter.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm basically with Rivka on this one. Certainly Nazism was a much more powerful, evil force in the world than anything cooking in Poland at the time. That goes without saying that reiterating it frankly smacks of an effort to avoid discussing other matters.
Poland was a victim of Germany and the USSR, it's true, and more than many as a people and a country they were mutilated by the events before during and after WWII.
But...
As a nation and a people, Poland wasn't just minding its own business helping little old ladies mow their yards or something, when a Nazi came goose stepping east down Main St. while from the east a tromping Soviet came marching west on Main, to come really ruin Poland's day.
They had an awful lot of help, both in terms of willingness to use the vileness of both for short-term political gains, foolish misunderstanding of long-term threats, incompetence, so on and so forth. As for its treatment of Jews, well, any serious examination on that issue is going to turn up some things it really seems like you don't want to hear. Not even a page in, and you've got rivka telling 'vicious lies'.
Now as for knowing what was in store for Jews where Nazis had power, well yes of course, very few knew 'they will be worked to death or murdered outright in industrialized killing factories.'
As for 'hey, where'd that Jewish family go?' or 'what are the working conditions like in that factory all those Jews got sent to?' well, that's a different matter.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Which 5 books?
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: But claiming that those camps were not Polish death camps, or that they could have existed without the willing -- and in many cases, enthusiastic -- cooperation of the vast majority of Poles is historical whitewashing of the worst kind.
You are claiming here that the "vast majority" of Poles were willingly, or even enthusiastically co-operating in the creation of death camps. That means at least 51% of Poles of the time, or more likely 60-80% of them, since you opted for the "vast" majority.
In other words, if the Poles were given a *free choice* to either put Jews in death camps, or not, they would choose the former. If they lacked the free choice due to external pressure from the nazis (like the threat of death, or the threat of being put to a death camp), then it would be inaccurate to say that they were "willing" co-operators.
Since this claim is the root of the disagreement at hand, can you give some links to support your claim?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: In other words, if the Poles were given a *free choice* to either put Jews in death camps, or not, they would choose the former. If they lacked the free choice due to external pressure from the nazis (like the threat of death, or the threat of being put to a death camp), then it would be inaccurate to say that they were "willing" co-operators.
By your definition, no one ever has any free choices in life. There are ALWAYS external pressures.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Polish people like to think they aren't racist or intolerant even when faced with evidence to the contrary.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Books: Snyder T,Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin (Basic Books, 2010) Davies N, (any concerning these times, God's playground, 44 uprising etc) Korboński S, Polacy, Żydzi i Holocaust (Poles, Jews and Holocaust) (the rest that I can tell from the top of my mind is also in Polish, and probably is not acceptable. The only history acceptable to you is written by Jews, I suppose, that's because they are impartial. They were the victims, the cannot be wrong. Poles, who died in millions are not the victims, they are bloody nazi helpers who welcomed Germans with open arms, cheering and dying with "Deutschland Uber Alles" on their lips. The other half, to the east, were singing "Sojuz nieruszymyj riespublik swobodnych" and dying in Katyń or freezing to death in Sibiria. Motherf...ckers. They could help the Jews!) Plenty of people were killed for helping Jews outside of Poland, but it wasn't a must. In Norway it happened, but only to men. In Netherlands it was the father of the helping family. In Poland it was the whole family, including children, and my point is there was no other punishment. It would be foolish to say that only in Poland people were killed for such help, but only in Poland there was no other option. I mean, it is easier to take the risk to help someone if you "might" get killed. Sacrificing your own family is more difficult. This special law was enforced because the numbers of Jews were the biggest in Poland and I suppose special precautions had to be taken.
Unlike many places else, Poland never surrendered to Germany. There was never any official collaboration between any Poles and Germans. Polish government in exile continued to function in London until 1989, when presidential insignia returned to Poland.
I am aware that it is not possible for me to win this argument for a number of reasons- first, I really have problems in articulating my thoughts properly, cause its not my mother tongue and my English sucks. Second of all, I am writing a hell lot of things that I correct later, make mistakes and inaccuracies that you think are made to "whiten history of Poland".
You said a funny thing about losing more family members? Man, really? I lost everyone except for my grandparents who were simply too young and lived in villages in the middle of nowhere.
What I think the world sees as "pro nazi" behavior is the indifference to Jewish tragedy. I mean, Poles were killed or caught in "lapanka" on daily basis. They were tortured in very sophisticated ways, especially the ones from Armia Krajowa. Maybe they had to worry about themselves too much, and had no compassion left in them.
What pains me is that it is a common belief that Poles were not the victims. We were victims of unprovoked aggression form the Third Reich, The Soviet Union and Slovakia. We were betrayed by our allies (France, especially) in 1939 then in Yalta and Potsdam. 6 up to 10 million of Poles lost their lives, according to different works. In those times of contempt for human lives remembering only about Jews is um... whitening? Nah, bleaching, I'd say. Why do we remember about Jews and not Poles and Gypsies?
According to Generalplan Ost :
Several million "worthy" Slavs (these are the people who look like Germans) were supposed to be germanized, 14 million were supposed to be enslaved, 51 million killed or sent to Sibiria (85 percent 80% Poles, 50% Czechs, 75% Belarussians, 65% Ukrainians, and also Russians and Tatars.)
Hitler, Generalplan Ost (quote) : "That is why I send my Totenkopfstandarte with orders to kill mercilessly all men, women and children of Polish race and language"
Why don't you feel sorry for Poles, Rivka? Because you are Jewish? Why can I feel compassion for your loss and you can't for mine?
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Kama, e tu Brute contra me? I never once claimed there is no racism in Poland. I never once claimed there was no antisemitism in Poland. I claim there would be no Holcaust if it was Poland that invaded Germany and won.
(edited not to triple)
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
eh, I'm just annoyed at all the outrage first about Obama's misstatement, and then about that BBC thing about racist football fans Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Yeah, well, not only fans. I heard the players are no better...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: In English "Polish death camps" can mean either "Death camps organised by the Polish government" or "Death camps within Poland's borders". The degree of Polish cooperation with the Nazis is quite irrelevant; the question is whether Obama is allowed to use the English language (rather than some other language that doesn't have this ambiguity) to accurately describe history.
The issue is partly translation, and partly cultural. I have a few polish friends here, and students, and they were peeved about the statement, but accepted the premise that it was not meant as a direct affront. The issue is that it is difficult to explain to a Polish speaker that the ambiguity is important to an English speaker. They are also suspicious of Germans and pro-German sentiment in Europe countenancing a shift from calling them anything but German camps. Considering the horrifying circumstances of Poland at the time, and the proceeding half century of oppression, I can't but agree with that sentiment.
The explanation is filtering out however: a Polish friend told me that the Polish media had done a pivot on the issue within a few days, and was explaining the statement as an issue of translation rather than revisionism.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Yes, as I have said, Obama's speech made no impression on me whatsoever. It was this Debbie journalist who made me angry. Now that I think of it I don't know what would be the best way to put it, Death camps on German-occupied-former-Polish -territory ?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Huh. Now Rivka only believes Jews, because they're Jews and therefore impartial, and she feels no compassion for Poles, and doesn't even recognize that they too were victims.
I'm not sure how much of this to attribute to language differences, and how much this reflects your actual thoughts on the matter, Szymon.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Rare is the European who can see the grey morality of those times. I think because in order to fully appreciate the horror, you'd have to be willing to admit that it could and probably would happen the same way again, given a similar set of circumstances. People don't like believing something like that- its very disturbing.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Ok. Probably the first thing. Maybe I don't understand what Rivka has to say. Maybe we have no differences after all. Let me rephrase my thoughts:
1. Polish role in the Holocaust was marginal or nonexistent. But I am aware of the fact that there was a pogrom in Jedwabno, but I have to stress that this was not a part of Holocaust. There are 3 thousand documented facts of Polish help to the Germans, most of which were not actual killings. I call this marginal- Poland had a population of around 30 million at that time.
2. Polish PR is weak and due to this fact people all around the globe tend to believe that Poles took active part in Holocaust. This was the primary reason why I started the thread, to express my anger at the fact how easily Debbie Schlussel accuses Poles. Obama's statement did not have an impact on me at all. It merely started a discourse in which Ms Schlussel took part later on.
3. (Rakeesh)I came to a conclusion that Rivka and I have different sources, that seem to claim two exclusive views on the matter at hand. I believe that my sources are more accurate, because I live here, I know people who lived then and there are thousands of historians, even a large institute, whose sole purpose is to study this subject. So I also presumed that Rivka would attack my sources for being Polish. I admit, that was a preemptive strike, but not entirely:
quote:Originally posted by Rivka: I have read hundreds of first-hand accounts of camp survivors, and spoken to dozens of survivors in person. Pardon me if I give them a bit more credence than someone who is clearly desperate to re-write their country's history.
So have I, so have I, so have I. Pardon me if I give mine a bit more credence than someone whose interest in the subject is purely academical. Never have I met a Jew who would tell me that it would be impossible to build concentration camps without Polish consent. Until now.
4. The whole thing about Poland being a victim: being attacked, oppressed, imprisoned and subjected to mass murder made Poles afraid for their own lives, giving them little chance and means to help others, like Jews. Just like Jews, Poles where supposed to be exterminated. If so, why weren't Jews helping Poles? Just as many died, or more. I agree that Poles didn't help much, for various reasons, and there were signs of indifference.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Orincoro, I really am not trying to whiten Poles. I am just saying that Holocaust was entirely a German invention. The scales and outcome of Polish antisemitism is virtually nonexistent comparing to German crimes.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
And I agree with you, history goes in circles, unfortunately.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Um, sorry about that academical thing, this is not true and I didn't mean that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Orincoro, I really am not trying to whiten Poles. I am just saying that Holocaust was entirely a German invention. The scales and outcome of Polish antisemitism is virtually nonexistent comparing to German crimes.
There's certainly a case to be made for some of this, but the Holocaust would not have been possible as it happened were it not for this 'indifference' (a charitable term), the sort of outlook which says, "Eh, a few less moneygrubbing Jews is a good thing. So long as they make them leave here."
Also, you're very clearly trying to whiten Poland's history here, presenting them as complete and utter victims. I think there are probably some Czechs who would disagree, for example-Poland participated along with Germany in her violation.
I'm sorry, Szymon, but like almost everyone throughout Europe in the 30s, it wasn't exactly a secret what sort of leader Hitler was and where he wanted Germany to go. It was a rough situation to say the least, but again like so many Poland was willing and even eager to use German aggression to serve its own ends, sometimes.
Now as for the Holocaust, Poland's record before and since on relations with Jews isn't one where they're in a position to react with outrage to strong questions either. We can talk about this, but before we do, it would be helpful to know which sources you would deem credible, and which are to be dismissed out of hand as biased (such as Jews).
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Rare is the European who can see the grey morality of those times. I think because in order to fully appreciate the horror, you'd have to be willing to admit that it could and probably would happen the same way again, given a similar set of circumstances.
Well, here I have to stand up for my nation. I don't see how it could happen again in Norway, for the good and simple reason that there are really not many Jews left after the first go-around.
That... didn't come out as patriotic as I intended it to be.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: In other words, if the Poles were given a *free choice* to either put Jews in death camps, or not, they would choose the former. If they lacked the free choice due to external pressure from the nazis (like the threat of death, or the threat of being put to a death camp), then it would be inaccurate to say that they were "willing" co-operators.
By your definition, no one ever has any free choices in life. There are ALWAYS external pressures.
I specifically mentioned that these external pressures were things "like the threat of death, or the threat of being put to a death camp". We could add the threat of torture, imprisonment and slavery among other things. And these things were not a threat to only to the person being pressured, but also a threat to all his loved ones. A person might be willing to sacrifice his own life for greater good, if he has nobody to care for. But if you know that your children are going to be sacrificed along with you, it's suddenly much harder to make that sacrifice.
While everyone has external pressures in their life, most of the time these external pressures are not comparable to the external pressures provided by the Nazi regime during WW2 in Poland.
For Polish people during WW2 the aforementioned VERY serious external pressures were a likely result of not co-operating. So it seems dubious to claim that they had the same amount of free will towards co-operating with Nazis as you or I might have right now.
I'm still waiting for you to provide the links, BTW.
[ June 07, 2012, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Rakeesh, obviously, Poland was a young nation then and it was aggressive. It took Cieszyn from Czechoslovakia (now, I am realllllly not whitening Poland as I should! I am proud of it, I could say Poland REtook Cieszyn in october 1938 which was taken from us 20 years earlier, but I am not saying it, no! ). For the sake of making me sound more impartial- ok, it did participate (but please note how small was that territory, no blood was shed. But this indeed was a shortsighted and wrong move by Polish Foreign Affairs Minister Beck. I agree. This is an example of Polish cooperation with Hitlers establishment, which we certainly cannot be proud of.
This cannot, however be compared to Third Reich's invasion a year later and Soviet's stab in the back two weeks later than that.
Please do not take me wrong. I absolutely do not think that Jewish sources are not credible, some of them obviously are, and I hope it is a sarcasm. How do you want me to tell you which of therm are credible? Those which were hatred-driven obviously aren't. Which were, I don't know. Really.
I will give you a for instance. When writing about Jedwabno I checked it on the IPN website. This is Polish Institute of National Remembrance, and I do not like it, because it is ran by some of the most antisemitic and hateful people in this country, "The Twins" circles, as someone mentioned before. For many years Jedwabno Pogrom was believed to be organised by Germans. This is untrue. Even this hateful Institute had to conclude that it was the Poles that organised it, and killed almost 400 Jews in the process. Certainly it is one of the most shameful moments in my countries history. I am personally ashamed of it. When I learned about it, I started to think that Poles really were antisemitic back then, and there probably where really many of them. This is why I suppose many of them "didn't mind" that Jews were killed by Germans. I certainly am ashamed of that either. I would really love if Poles organised some kind of evacuation, show the Jews that they are not alone.
So I consider this a credible source.
I can understand that this could be called a "good environment" for Death Camps- occupied land of people, who were disarmed and not very enthusiastic about fighting to protect Jews.
But I still claim that none of it would have happened if there was no war and the Nazi sick minds were the only place in the Universe where an Idea of creating human-killing factories was possible to emerge.
[ June 07, 2012, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Szymon ]
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
And to make myself clear (please forgive me all these posts, this is a good practice for me to speak my mind in the way I want to :
Rivka, I have to admit that I was wrong. I remembered something from my history classes about punishments for hiding Jews. I found some sources that claimed that only in Poland it was punishable by death- but this is not true. It was the fact that the punishment was much more severe and I am behind Tuukka on this one- it is way more difficult to risk the life of your family than your own.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Having people inform me what what I think, what I feel, and why doesn't really do much to brighten my day.
I've said my piece, and it's clear that nothing more I have to say will be productive.
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Having people inform me what what I think, what I feel, and why doesn't really do much to brighten my day.
I've said my piece, and it's clear that nothing more I have to say will be productive.
So I guess we won't be seeing those links, then.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
This got me thinking about the Japanese internment in the United States. I've never heard stories about people hiding Japanese families. Is that because no one did, or because it's just not well-publicized? If there wasn't much hiding going on, is that because people didn't think the US government would do anything really bad to the Japanese? I've wondered how much the average person in Nazi-controlled countries knew or suspected about what was going on.
I could also see the stories about people helping the Japanese just not getting much attention since it turns out that they probably wouldn't have died in the internment camps.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
I don't know about this too much, but while checking it out I found out that the Internment was initialized by FDR's executive order 9066. I wonder if Darth Sedious's order 66 was inspired by this one.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Having people inform me what what I think, what I feel, and why doesn't really do much to brighten my day.
I've said my piece, and it's clear that nothing more I have to say will be productive.
For what it's worth, I thought your piece was awesome, and I'm glad you said it. Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: This got me thinking about the Japanese internment in the United States. I've never heard stories about people hiding Japanese families. Is that because no one did, or because it's just not well-publicized? If there wasn't much hiding going on, is that because people didn't think the US government would do anything really bad to the Japanese? I've wondered how much the average person in Nazi-controlled countries knew or suspected about what was going on.
I could also see the stories about people helping the Japanese just not getting much attention since it turns out that they probably wouldn't have died in the internment camps.
My grandparents worked in the camp at Topaz. My grandfather was a dishwasher and I think my grandmother worked in the hospital. My uncles were there every day and would play baseball with the Japanese internees.
My aunt was born there, and a Japanese woman gave my grandmother a broach to celebrate the birth. My aunt now owns the broach after my Grandmother passed away. The Topaz museum has a few images of the broaches to give an idea of what it looks like.
I can't speak for the general attitude of Americans, but I know my grandparents weren't fond of the internment or how the Japanese were treated. As time went on through the war, my Grandparents came to realize that the interned weren't the threats that they'd been painted as. While the camp was being evacuated, the military destroyed a lot of the things in the camp. A couple soldiers started smashing the plates (which were hand made like the broaches) and my grandfather felt sickened by the sight. So he grabbed a box and stuffed it full of plates the soldiers hadn't reached yet. He then went around the camp and snuck plates into the luggage of the Japanese leaving so they'd have something left in case their homes had been taken over. It's not much--like actively campaigning against the detainment, but it is one of the few things in my family history I'm proud of.
As for the general attitude of Americans, I think they were pretty well caught up in the propaganda. After Pearl Harbor, if the government deemed that the Japanese-Americans on the west coast were a threat, then people probably thought that they were. I know the governor of Utah didn't want the camp built there because if it was true that the Japanese were a threat on the west coast, than those Japanese would be a threat in Utah. I don't know of any account of people hiding the Japanese, but I'd be interested to see if there were any. One thing worth noting is that while I think the Nazi's Death Camps and Japanese Internment are both terrible things, it's important to realize they were substantially different in the ways they were run.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: One thing worth noting is that while I think the Nazi's Death Camps and Japanese Internment are both terrible things, it's important to realize they were substantially different in the ways they were run.
Yeah.
To the extent that it's actually sort of mind boggling whenever I see someone draw equivalency between them.
It's really not just a case of "The nicest thing that can be said is that we didn't take the final step and just kill 'em all like the Nazis did!"
Not specifically saying anyone in this thread thinks that (in fact I hope they don't)... but it's a sentiment I've seen before. And the level of historical ignorance mixed with anti-Americanism that believing such a thing requires just floors me.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: My aunt was born there, and a Japanese woman gave my grandmother a broach to celebrate the birth. My aunt now owns the broach after my Grandmother passed away. The Topaz museum has a few images of the broaches to give an idea of what it looks like.
The book The Art of Gaman presents an enormous variety of art produced in the Japanese internment camps. I was fortunate enough to see the associated museum exhibit when it was at the Renwick Gallery. Beautiful and also really upsetting.
[I am not touching the rest of this thread, because I don't think I can while staying within TOS.]
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Thanks for sharing the story, Vadon. I found it very interesting. My grandparents weren't interned because they lived in Hawaii, so I haven't heard a lot of personal stories about the internment camps.
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: One thing worth noting is that while I think the Nazi's Death Camps and Japanese Internment are both terrible things, it's important to realize they were substantially different in the ways they were run.
Indeed. I don't see them as equivalent at all -- there might be some interesting parallels (governments forcing people into camps based on who they are), but they were very different situations. The internment camps were an injustice. The death camps were an atrocity.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: This got me thinking about the Japanese internment in the United States. I've never heard stories about people hiding Japanese families ...
I've heard stories about Nazis hiding Chinese families if it helps Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Clearly, Tuuka, what rivka was claiming was that a vast majority of Poles knew specifically that the Nazis were engaged in the Holocaust. Rather than, say, claiming that the vast majority of Poles would've fought quite a lot sooner if their own loved ones or friends were being dragged off, never to be heard from again, but not ever as a group for Jews.
What you should do is pin rivka down on the claim she didn't make but could, with some stretchy reading, be claimed to have made, and then get snide when she doesn't defend it.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: This got me thinking about the Japanese internment in the United States. I've never heard stories about people hiding Japanese families ...
I've heard stories about Nazis hiding Chinese families if it helps
Also Japanese diplomats helping Jews get out of Europe
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Clearly, Tuuka, what rivka was claiming was that a vast majority of Poles knew specifically that the Nazis were engaged in the Holocaust.
Rather than, say, claiming that the vast majority of Poles would've fought quite a lot sooner if their own loved ones or friends were being dragged off, never to be heard from again, but not ever as a group for Jews.
What you should do is pin rivka down on the claim she didn't make but could, with some stretchy reading, be claimed to have made, and then get snide when she doesn't defend it.
I only pulled direct quotes from her, so that there could be no confusion about what she said. The quotes were not out of context. She said what I said she said.
On the other hand, I can't find anywhere the content you claim she said. Can you give me a quote?
It seems pretty clear at this point that she made a ridiculous, historically inaccurate statement (Which I quoted), couldn't back it up, followed it with an even more ridiculous statement (Which i quoted again), couldn't back that one up either, and then refused further discussion.
If you can find evidence to the contrary, you are free to quote my posts to find flaws in my arguments.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
No, that is not clear at all.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Dan_Frank : For what it's worth, I thought your piece was awesome, and I'm glad you said it.
May I ask why do you think her part was awesome and why are you glad about her saying it?
Posted by Tuukka (Member # 12124) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: No, that is not clear at all.
You are also free to quote me, or Rivka, to back-up your statement. The following post is intended for anyone who for some reason finds my reasonings flawed:
I can only debate what has been said, not what people might interpret what has been said. It seems that regarding to Rivkas statements, some people are privy to knowledge about her intentions that I can't find in this thread, or at least they think they are privy to that kind of knowledge.
I can't possibly know either way. I can know only what has been said in this thread. I've re-read the thread, to see if I have to change my statements due to information I missed the first time. I couldn't find such information.
Again, here is the original quote. I didn't quote the entire post, because it doesn't provide any context that would change the meaning of this quote (And neither do other posts from Rivka):
quote:Originally posted by rivka: But claiming that those camps were not Polish death camps, or that they could have existed without the willing -- and in many cases, enthusiastic -- cooperation of the vast majority of Poles is historical whitewashing of the worst kind.
That sounds like a pretty clear-cut statement.
I answered with:
quote:Originally posted by Tuukka: ]You are claiming here that the "vast majority" of Poles were willingly, or even enthusiastically co-operating in the creation of death camps. That means at least 51% of Poles of the time, or more likely 60-80% of them, since you opted for the "vast" majority.
In other words, if the Poles were given a *free choice* to either put Jews in death camps, or not, they would choose the former. If they lacked the free choice due to external pressure from the nazis (like the threat of death, or the threat of being put to a death camp), then it would be inaccurate to say that they were "willing" co-operators.
It seems logical on my part to assume that "willing -- and in many cases, enthusiastic -- cooperation of the vast majority" means that the vast majority of Poles were willingly to co-oparating in the creation of the death camps. What other interpretations I could derive from that text? There might be some, but I chose the most logical interpretation, that follows literally what was being said. Rivka's claim sounds logical and coherent in its own terms. It's also consistent with what she said elsewhere.
Thus I raised the question of how much actual free-willing co-operation there is, if you are punished by death (among other terrible things) for not co-operating. This seems like a rather important question regarding the concept of free will, or free choices.
She answered with:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: By your definition, no one ever has any free choices in life. There are ALWAYS external pressures.
...And that was it, as far as her participation in the debate with me went. I further questioned her logic regarding "free choices", for reasons that seem entirely logical to me (expanded in my 2nd post in this thread). But I was given no more answers.
And that's that. Since there have already been two members to question me or accuse me about either misinterpreting or intentionally twisting the words of others, I would prefer them to take direct quotes from me to prove their point. If they are not willing to do that, the discussion becomes pointless.
Thanks.
[ June 08, 2012, 11:05 AM: Message edited by: Tuukka ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Right. Her response was a pretty straightforward rebuttal to your weaseling on the issue.
People are responsible for their choices. Even the hard ones.
No. Especially the hard ones.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It seems logical on my part to assume that "willing -- and in many cases, enthusiastic -- cooperation of the vast majority" means that the vast majority of Poles were willingly to co-oparating in the creation of the death camps. What other interpretations I could derive from that text?
Willing cooperation of the vast majority: vast majority cooperated with it.
Willing cooperation -- and in many cases, enthusiastic -- cooperation of the vast majority: vast majority cooperated with it, AND many cases of enthusiastic cooperation within that subset. Note that "many cases" does not mean a base percentage or majority, just that the number of people complicit and engaged enthusiastically was certainly not negligible.
This is pretty much all was needed: an operational quantum of enthusiastic cooperaters, coupled with the permissiveness — fairweather or not — of an in degrees complicit populace.
Don't even care a whit much about Poland's 'national character' or whatever, it's just that if you sit down and look at how what happened in poland happened this does not get to just be thrown away as a 'just a few bad eggs' thing.
Countries are often great at whitewashing their own 'product of the times/influences' thing. Hell, we built our nation on a continent-wide genocide, then had a war over whether we had the god-given right to trade darkies as property, but many of us still try to pull the same sort of card, or are just productively (as in, through the product of intentional historical whitewashing) ignorant about the things we should be looking back at with disgust!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I guess I should mention I'm about to read this wonderfully happy book, too!
quote:the sad-sack German draftees who perpetrated much of the Holocaust were not expressing some uniquely Germanic evil, but that they were average men comparable to the run of humanity, twisted by historical forces into inhuman shapes. Browning, a thorough historian who lets no one off the moral hook nor fails to weigh any contributing factor--cowardice, ideological indoctrination, loyalty to the battalion, and reluctance to force the others to bear more than their share of what each viewed as an excruciating duty--interviewed hundreds of the killers, who simply could not explain how they had sunken into savagery under Hitler.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
to be honest, I don't think I'd be willing to risk my life for that of a stranger.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Assuming I had been drafted up in a similar movement in my teenage years, the odds of me ending up one of the people who steps up and refuses to go along with this activity, as opposed to following along even if just out of fear for what would happen to me if I disobeyed, is extremely slim and to assume that I would would be a lot of hubris involving a highly idealized version of my younger self. Pervasive attitudes in a culture that you acculturate yourselves to can so easily be rolled forward into "unspeakable" acts.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Szymon, I don't think your English sucks at all.
Also, I was the one asking for your book list, so when you went off on Rivka for it I kinda scratched my head.
There is a difference between thinking up the Holocaust and participating in it, to me sure. But to some of us at least, it sounded like you were trying to absolve all of Poland from participating in it, which your country most certainly did.
The death camps in Poland were conceived by German's, but many Poles participated in them, and not all of them were coerced. Even before those camps, Poland had a very poor record based on their treatment of Jews.
I do think it was a problem in translation....I doubt President Obama meant Poland was solely to blame for those camps....but when the Polish media and a large number of Polish individuals jumped on him, it sounded like they were also trying to whitewash history, and deny Poland's history of antisemitism.
Poland....along with many other occupied countries...did participate in these atrocities. Forgetting that, or allowing others to deny or belittle that, is madness.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Kama...maybe not. Most people wouldn't.
But would you actively torture or kill them? Would you turn a blind eye if you saw others doing it, and try to deny it ever happened later in life?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Kama...maybe not. Most people wouldn't.
But would you actively torture or kill them? Would you turn a blind eye if you saw others doing it, and try to deny it ever happened later in life?
We all like to tell ourselves that we wouldn't. It would be interesting to put our younger selves into situations akin to the stanford prison experiments or the milgram experiment, just to see how truly different reality is versus our hopeful, noble impressions of ourselves.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
I can't answer this question without actually being in a situation like this. I'm pretty sure I would turn a blind eye, but would I go further than that and actively participate in the killing? I don't know. Most people didn't, though. They were probably aware of what was going on, but so what? It's not like they had a power to stop it. If they did, they woldn't have been occupied.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
Kwea, I will say it again- Polish participation in the Holocaust was minimal or nonexistent. This is not whitewashing, this is fact.
And I did give you books, why do you think I asked anyone for any books? Where? It was Tuukka asking rivka about them, not me.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Right. Her response was a pretty straightforward rebuttal to your weaseling on the issue.
People are responsible for their choices. Even the hard ones.
No. Especially the hard ones.
And what is that supposed to mean? Are you trying to judge people who didn't help Jews because they were affraid of having their family killed?
Well, what is your verdict? Please give it to me.
I have this feeling that it is the people who threaten to kill, who kill, who imprison and torture that are the bad ones. But I am not sure.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: Are you trying to judge people who didn't help Jews because they were affraid of having their family killed?
Yes.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
heh. it's easy to be righteous in the safety of one's home.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: I have this feeling that it is the people who threaten to kill, who kill, who imprison and torture that are the bad ones. But I am not sure.
Are you saying that because the Nazis were worse it's unfair to say that Poles acted badly?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Hmm, I wonder how many Jews died at Polish hands during World War II, compared to say... how many civilian Iraqis have died at the hands of Americans?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Well said, Jebus.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
With the Holocaust as the Holocaust? Again, with the knowledge of 'these Jews that are suddenly just not here anymore (which we, like much of the world, aren't unhappy with) are either being worked to death or killed outright in murder factories?'
Well, no then, Polish participation in the Holocaust was minimal, absolutely.
Unless we include in the discussion the mere fact of getting rid of the Jews. Participation in 'hey, these guys are handling this infestation of Jews we've got. It's pretty nasty the way they're doing it, but...Jews.'
The question isn't whether they were acting as doormen for the cattle cars, the question could be rephrased: if it were random Christian Poles of a given sect, just gone in a quick but definitely noticeable way, would the Poles have been so thoroughly intimidated by the threat of Nazi violence?
Please note, I'm not suggesting Poland was particularly bad in this respect-Europe and even my own home country was rife with indifference and even satisfaction at that time with the plight of the Jews. I'm just rejecting your suggestion, not so thinly veiled at times, that the Poles would've stood up for the Jews, defended them, had the threats of retaliation been not so obvious.
There really aren't very many nations out there with a record that would suggest that, particularly if they were in a weaker posture than Germany-screwing over the Jews was a remarkably easy sell.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Also...what? Sheesh. No, it's not. We certainly have a lot to answer for in terms of negligence and even criminal behavior with respect to the Iraq War, but to bring in a discussion of the Holocaust into that arena...geeze. It's like a distilled Godwin or something. I realize you're pretty far left from me on this particular topic, Destineer, but even so I'm baffled that would rate a 'well said' from you. I can only hope I'm radically misunderstanding your meaning.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
you make it seem, Rakeesh, like Poland invited Germany to invade it just so they could get rid of the Jews Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Also...what? Sheesh. No, it's not. We certainly have a lot to answer for in terms of negligence and even criminal behavior with respect to the Iraq War, but to bring in a discussion of the Holocaust into that arena...geeze. It's like a distilled Godwin or something. I realize you're pretty far left from me on this particular topic, Destineer, but even so I'm baffled that would rate a 'well said' from you. I can only hope I'm radically misunderstanding your meaning.
What he said.
I'm really surprised to see you say that, Destineer. Civilian deaths in the Iraq War are equivalent to the Holocaust now?
Posted by Hedwig (Member # 2315) on :
According to www.iragbodycount.org 14,786 documented civilian deaths were reported as directly caused by the U.S.-led coalition. Adding in the standard margin of error of 1 million, that's roughly the number of Jews who died at Auschwitz.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If I do, Kama, then I did a poor job explaining myself. That wasn't my meaning at all. I even went out of my way to say Poland was not exactly lonely in being willing to tolerate the removal of Jews.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's not quite what he said, Dan. He only referred to Jebus's post. I'm not sure which part or in what way was well said.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, I may have overreacted.
Sorry, Destineer. I have immense respect for you, so I'll do the fair thing and reserve judgment until you respond. Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
All kinds of things are analogous to all kinds of other things in countless ways, so I don't often see the point of getting upset with people for "equating" something with the Holocaust (or anything else).
I take it Jebus's point was that the present-day Americans casting stones are complicit in the deaths of Iraqi innocents in a similar way, and to a similar extent, as the average WW2-era Pole was complicit in the deaths at Auschwitz. In some ways we're more complicit, since it's our elected government rather than an occupying foreign power that actually made the decision to kill.
Obviously the numbers of bodies are not even close. So in that sense Jebus's post could have been better thought out.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I take it Jebus's point was that the present-day Americans casting stones are complicit in the deaths of Iraqi innocents in a similar way, and to a similar extent, as the average WW2-era Pole was complicit in the deaths at Auschwitz. In some ways we're more complicit, since it's our elected government rather than an occupying foreign power that actually made the decision to kill.
So...the Nazis were killing Jews (and quite a few others) in Poland because they were engaged in (or in preventing) an insurgency/civil war against an enemy that often made it a point to take steps to increase rather than decrease civilian casualties-for whom those casualties were, depending on religion, gender, political affiliation, or time and location, the point rather than a side effect?
No. The comparison falls apart almost immediately after even a brief examination. As for your point about equivalencies, true, but if there's commonalities in many things, why pick the Holocaust? It's surely not just a random choice from the gigantic list of things that share things in common with still other things-it's because it carries extra weight. Which is also why the surprised and irritated reaction, because it's so often a cheap, transparent ploy as it was here.
Unless the average WWII era Pole told themselves that all those Jews were just being forcibly removed never to be heard from again to, I don't know, go to summer camp or something.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Destineer, do you think that the deaths in Auschwitz and the deaths in Iraq occurred in an analogous manner?
Or how about this: Do you think that Americans in WW2 were complicit in the deaths of German innocents in a similar way, and to a similar extent, as the average WW2-era Pole was complicit in the deaths at Auschwitz?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... if there's commonalities in many things, why pick the Holocaust? It's surely not just a random choice from the gigantic list of things that share things in common ...
In fairness, I don't think I don't think that Destineer "picked" the Holocaust. He picked the Iraqi war, the Holocaust was already "in play" so to speak as the topic of the thread.
It seems like we have a corollary of the Godwin rule in play here, as in the initial topic of the thread is the Holocaust/Nazis so that comparisons can't be made with anything else Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hedwig: According to www.iragbodycount.org 14,786 documented civilian deaths were reported as directly caused by the U.S.-led coalition. Adding in the standard margin of error of 1 million, that's roughly the number of Jews who died at Auschwitz.
Hah. Anyway, the number of Jews who died in Auschwitz =\= number of Jews who died through active participation of the polish people.
Fun fact from the website: Nearly a third of the number of civilian deaths caused by the US-led coalition, that they can document, were children.
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Or how about this: Do you think that Americans in WW2 were complicit in the deaths of German innocents in a similar way, and to a similar extent, as the average WW2-era Pole was complicit in the deaths at Auschwitz?
America's intervention in WWII and America's invasion of Iraq are clearly two different wars that exist on different ends of the moral scale.
[ June 10, 2012, 04:46 AM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QUOTE]So...the Nazis were killing Jews (and quite a few others) in Poland because they were engaged in (or in preventing) an insurgency/civil war against an enemy that often made it a point to take steps to increase rather than decrease civilian casualties-for whom those casualties were, depending on religion, gender, political affiliation, or time and location, the point rather than a side effect?
What an interesting way to describe how Iraqi civilian deaths came about, my heart actually goes out to the American forces now.
quote:No. The comparison falls apart almost immediately after even a brief examination.
Heh you're right, the comparison does fall apart almost immediately, after all, Poland became involved in the Holocaust by being violently invaded by a foreign power whose name has now become synonymous with evil and morally bankrupt, while America became involved in the Iraq war through the support of their democratically elected leaders.
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Dan, would you also say that the families of Polish people killed in concentration camps were complicit in their deaths?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What an interesting way to describe how Iraqi civilian deaths came about, my heart actually goes out to the American forces now.
Be pithy in your usual style to avoid things you don't like if you will, but tell me then: why were we fighting there? I'm not asking questions about why we got involved in the first place, for good or bad or true or false reasons.
quote:Heh you're right, the comparison does fall apart almost immediately, after all, Poland became involved in the Holocaust by being violently invaded by a foreign power whose name has now become synonymous with evil and morally bankrupt, while America became involved in the Iraq war through the support of their democratically elected leaders.
Ohhh, that scathing Jebus wit! Of course, that was not all that had to happen for Poland to play host with others to the Holocaust, but hey.
Oh, listen, can you do me a favor, Jebus? If you could, could you make use of sarcasm and irony almost constantly, alongside a refusal to engage here and there, in this discussion? Thanks.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:What an interesting way to describe how Iraqi civilian deaths came about, my heart actually goes out to the American forces now.
Be pithy in your usual style to avoid things you don't like if you will, but tell me then: why were we fighting there? I'm not asking questions about why we got involved in the first place, for good or bad or true or false reasons.
quote:Heh you're right, the comparison does fall apart almost immediately, after all, Poland became involved in the Holocaust by being violently invaded by a foreign power whose name has now become synonymous with evil and morally bankrupt, while America became involved in the Iraq war through the support of their democratically elected leaders.
Ohhh, that scathing Jebus wit! Of course, that was not all that had to happen for Poland to play host with others to the Holocaust, but hey.
Oh, listen, can you do me a favor, Jebus? If you could, could you make use of sarcasm and irony almost constantly, alongside a refusal to engage here and there, in this discussion? Thanks.
Wait, huh? You want to remove the justification and rationale for the invasion of Iraq from a discussion on the cause of the civilian deaths in said war? And I'm the one being accused of a refusal to engage?
Well sure, apart from supporting, and subsequently re-electing, an executive that chose to start an unwarranted and inexplicable invasion of another sovereign nation, you guys did nothing wrong.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I wanted to remove it from the discussion, or at least not talk about it, because if you'll pardon the humor I knew it would serve as a quagmire. I don't think many people here would suggest I'm unwilling to discuss it.
That said, it's an absurd comparison, again, because no one could ever say that the Nazis were brutalizing Jews in Poland, and Poles in Poland, because they were endeavoring to stop some sort of civil war or minimize civilian casualties. In fact there is quite a lot of really good evidence that the gradual plan for Poland was to kill their government and culture after the war was won, reducing them to a thoroughly submissive, subservient state suited for menial labor.
So even if you claim the worst, most ridiculously partisan reasons for our involvement in Iraq-say, blood for oil or something-that would *still* be a laughably bad comparison to make. Because even the flimsiest justifications and the most irrational rationales are far, far removed.
Which makes sense: it's the freaking Nazis. In human events, not much comes into their ballpark for aggressive cruelty and bloodletting. Now if you were to start talking about Manifest Destiny and our various wars with natives here, then you'd have some traction. The intents and results were much closer together. I say this not only to illustrate what an actual, non-laughable comparison would look like but to show that I'm also not unwilling to cop to American inhumanity.
quote:Well sure, apart from supporting, and subsequently re-electing, an executive that chose to start an unwarranted and inexplicable invasion of another sovereign nation, you guys did nothing wrong.
Heh. Almost everything after the third comma is either hotly contested (unwarranted) or outright wrong (inexplicable). You may not like the explanations, which is fine, but they are there. Oh, and sovereign, really? Yeah, I guess. If only we'd shown proper respect for the sovereign rights of the Hussein family and the Ba'ath party. What cads we are.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: No. The comparison falls apart almost immediately after even a brief examination. As for your point about equivalencies, true, but if there's commonalities in many things, why pick the Holocaust?
Well, this is a thread about the Holocaust. And people who have blood on their own hands (via Iraq) were getting pretty sanctimonious about the role of Poles in the Holocaust.
quote:Destineer, do you think that the deaths in Auschwitz and the deaths in Iraq occurred in an analogous manner?
No, what I meant was that the involvement of US civilians and Polish civilians was the same: sitting by when many of them could have done something to have at least a small impact.
quote:Or how about this: Do you think that Americans in WW2 were complicit in the deaths of German innocents in a similar way, and to a similar extent, as the average WW2-era Pole was complicit in the deaths at Auschwitz?
Since the US participation in WW2 was morally justified, no.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
The moral I draw from this, by the way, is that it's very hard not to be morally bad in the way a lot of European civilians were bad during WW2. I don't think it says that much one way or another about a nation's character (or a person's) when they do the easy thing and stand by while the proverbial Other gets killed. I've certainly done it. I'm sure I'll do it again, the next time the US works up the gumption to do something really nasty.
ETA: That's not to say there wasn't a lot of anti-Semitism in Poland back then. That fact does say something about their character. But I doubt it's the most important factor in explaining why they let Auschwitz happen. The main explanation, rather, is that they're pretty much just like everybody else. They let bad things happen, because that's the safe, easy choice.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*snort* Some people? Anyway, I didn't realize 'blood on hands' was the only qualifier needed to start rating comparisons with Nazis. Geeze, who knew the bar was so low?
Anyway, if you think the comparison was made only because it was incidental to the thread's topic and not intentionally for additional shock and smugness value, well, we'll simply have to disagree then. Doesn't fit with Holocaust comparisons like that I've seen before-almost as a rule, any likening of modern political events to the Holocaust is a cheap political ploy-or the poster in question. Think what you like.
quote:No, what I meant was that the involvement of US civilians and Polish civilians was the same: sitting by when many of them could have done something to have at least a small impact.
Yes, except the things each group 'sat by' were radically different. In the former case, the things being done were much less awful or even good in many cases, IMO, with a much higher rate of personal responsibility; in the latter case the things done were much worse, but also with a much lower level of personal responsibility.
Which is *another* reason the comparison is a bad, deeply flawed on. The only actual commonality you've got is civilian deaths, and even then they're a poor comparison considering the reasons they occurred-even if you grant the worst possible reasons.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Anyway, if you think the comparison was made only because it was incidental to the thread's topic and not intentionally for additional shock and smugness value, well, we'll simply have to disagree then. Doesn't fit with Holocaust comparisons like that I've seen before-almost as a rule, any likening of modern political events to the Holocaust is a cheap political ploy-or the poster in question. Think what you like.
How else is one supposed to make the point that those who are criticizing Poles for letting the Holocaust happen have also let very bad things happen on their watch? Is that sort of point entirely out of order, just because our recent crimes have been significantly less harmful?
quote:Yes, except the things each group 'sat by' were radically different. In the former case, the things being done were much less awful or even good in many cases, IMO
As you've acknowledged already, your O and mine are pretty different on this issue. But I agree with you that Iraq was less bad, and the responsibility of individual Americans was overall a bit more per capita.
quote: Which is *another* reason the comparison is a bad, deeply flawed on. The only actual commonality you've got is civilian deaths, and even then they're a poor comparison considering the reasons they occurred-even if you grant the worst possible reasons.
It's flawed in some ways, apt in others. All I'm trying to say is that the way I sat by during the Iraq war has helped me somewhat to understand how Europeans let the Holocaust, and other bad things, happen in the 30s and 40s. And that's why I don't judge the Poles of that time any more harshly than I judge myself now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm definitely not in the 'sanctimonious about Poles' camp but seriously the attempt to make actions like auschwitz analagous to the iraq invasion in terms usable for this conversation is just really, really dumb.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: ETA: That's not to say there wasn't a lot of anti-Semitism in Poland back then. That fact does say something about their character. But I doubt it's the most important factor in explaining why they let Auschwitz happen. The main explanation, rather, is that they're pretty much just like everybody else. They let bad things happen, because that's the safe, easy choice.
Let? Let? How did they let Katyn happen? And razing Warsaw it the ground? How did they let it happen?
I know the answer, they lost the war. Andlet me tell you one thing- they were pretty mad about it. In septemer 1939 this war still looked pretty much "normal" - soldiers died, as they always did. Hitler lost a hell lot of equipment, Starzynski surrendered Warsaw, and... people from Warsaw where pissed about how badly this war went. Week later schools opened, well, it wasnt that bad.
If those were the circumstances, then yeah, you could blame Poles for letting it happen.
Then lapanki started. And massive killings. Wiping out the intelligentsia. Tortures. Ghettos. And the Camps.
During one black day of August 1944 the combined forces of Germans and Ukrainians and Tatars, who formed the worst division in the history of man kind- all women of Ochota, my own district in Warsaw, were raped, most of them killed afterwards...
There was this thing that Bartoszewski once said- why didnt all those Poles and Jews fight more? During the executions, knowing that they are about to be killed, they still did nothing. So maybe if they were all so unbelivably indifferent about their own deaths- how could they give a Damn about others? I mean, they really knew they were going to die. Why didnt they at least try to do something?
But I think I am beginning to grasp your point. I simply think that someone who is put in unbelivably evil situations, affraid of his life and the lives of his family is not responsible for his actions the way a "normal" person should be. Simple as that.
So, their indifference was evil, but they werent evil themselves. It was inflicted upon them. (is t
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... Which makes sense: it's the freaking Nazis. In human events, not much comes into their ballpark for aggressive cruelty and bloodletting.
Well.
I've come across stories from American POWs, trading stories about life in captivity, the gist of which was that if you hypothetically had a choice between surrendering to the Nazis and surrendering to the Japanese, you'd better surrender to the Nazis because surrender to the Japanese would quickly lead to a fate worse than death while you'd at least have a chance with the Nazis.
ex:
quote:According to the findings of the Tokyo Tribunal, the death rate of Western prisoners was 27.1%, seven times that of POWs under the Germans and Italians.[37] The death rate of Chinese was much larger. Thus, while 37,583 prisoners from the United Kingdom, Commonwealth and Dominions, 28,500 from the Netherlands and 14,473 from the United States were released after the surrender of Japan, the number for the Chinese was only 56.
[ June 10, 2012, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
'Not much'.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It's like the very same war at the same time.
Maybe we're interpreting the use of the word "freaking" differently. That implies to me that there should be some difficulty in picking an example that's *worse* rather than one of the first things that come to mind.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I meant it as an emphasis for the point that of human history, the Nazis serve as an example of depravity and bloodshed and destruction that few other groups would measure down to, rather than it being difficult to find an example or that they were the absolute worst ever or possible.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm definitely not in the 'sanctimonious about Poles' camp but seriously the attempt to make actions like auschwitz analagous to the iraq invasion in terms usable for this conversation is just really, really dumb.
Even if you take my post at face value and ignore the implied point about how easy it is for a people to be whipped into a frenzy that devalues people they don't view as part of their own, that's still not what I said.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Heh. Almost everything after the third comma is either hotly contested (unwarranted) or outright wrong (inexplicable). You may not like the explanations, which is fine, but they are there. Oh, and sovereign, really? Yeah, I guess. If only we'd shown proper respect for the sovereign rights of the Hussein family and the Ba'ath party. What cads we are.
Hotly contest within the borders of the United States perhaps, everywhere else has this issue wrapped up, but then you lads are still trying to work out evolution, so we do appreciate there will be a delay.
And as to Hussein, yes you are cads, because invasion and war and regime change doesn't actual equal delivering anything better for the people of Iraq.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Hotly contest within the borders of the United States perhaps, everywhere else has this issue wrapped up, but then you lads are still trying to work out evolution, so we do appreciate there will be a delay.
It is? Is that why for example every attempt to teach ID in public schools has been roundly nixed by our courts?
Do you really want to go toe-to-toe on backward, ignorant thinking country by country? I'd be happy to. Where are you from again?
Anyway, sure, plenty of countries agree (now) we shouldn't have done it, but then plenty of countries also have within their own borders contested support for their own highly controversial policies too. Unless your idea is that these other countries are just so concerned with the sovereign rights of other nations for their own sake?
Yeah, thought not.
As for being cads, you've shifted topics. I challenged your statement of sovereignty, and you return with questions of overall improvement of civilian life. Nice dodge, there. I suppose what we should have done was what most of Europe wanted us to do, that is either maintain the status quo indefinitely (inflicting quite a lot of domestic suffering of itself) either until Saddam died, followed of course by a peaceful transition of power to (one) of his law abiding nonviolent sons? Or until the Iraqis rose up and rebelled, I don't know, like Gandhi or something.
Listen, maybe you should stick to in-and-out snappy witty retorts. False comparisons, subject changes, and it's only been a few minutes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm definitely not in the 'sanctimonious about Poles' camp but seriously the attempt to make actions like auschwitz analagous to the iraq invasion in terms usable for this conversation is just really, really dumb.
Even if you take my post at face value and ignore the implied point about how easy it is for a people to be whipped into a frenzy that devalues people they don't view as part of their own, that's still not what I said.
What you said was an attempt to make actions like auschwitz analogous to the iraq invasion in terms usable for this conversation (the implied point you mention here does, in fact, do exactly that), so, yeah, no. What you did is what you did.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
If that isn't what you mean, then what DID you mean? Because that seems to be how most people read it....
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Jebus if you want the titillation of comparing pro-war Americans to Nazis without all this flak about false equivalencies, maybe you should try this:
Americans citizens during the Iraq war were complicit in the deaths of Iraqi innocents in a similar way as the average WW-2 era German citizen was complicit in the deaths of British civilians.
There. Now we're comparing collateral civilian deaths with... a few orders of magnitude more collateral civilian deaths. Which is at least apples-to-apples.
At this point the respective justifications for war become more relevant, so perhaps folks thoroughly opposed to the Iraq War will see a lot of equivalency.
And best of all, now you can still call us Nazis without explicitly invoking the freaking Holocaust to do it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Jebus if you want the titillation of comparing pro-war Americans to Nazis without all this flak about false equivalencies, maybe you should try this:
Americans citizens during the Iraq war were complicit in the deaths of Iraqi innocents in a similar way as the average WW-2 era German citizen was complicit in the deaths of British civilians.
I would say that is true.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Cool, I hoped you would. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:you'd at least have a chance with the Nazis.
If you were an American, sure. Untermensch Slavs, not so much. The Bataan death march was pretty civilised compared to some of what was done to Russian POWs. (That is to say, both Russians who were taken prisoner, and people taken prisoner by the Russians.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Jebus if you want the titillation of comparing pro-war Americans to Nazis without all this flak about false equivalencies, maybe you should try this:
Americans citizens during the Iraq war were complicit in the deaths of Iraqi innocents in a similar way as the average WW-2 era German citizen was complicit in the deaths of British civilians.
I would say that is true.
Thinking about it a bit more, I think that we are more complicit to the extent that we likely have more freedom to direct what our government does.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
And more knowledge about what it is doing.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: If you were an American, sure. Untermensch Slavs, not so much.
If we start splitting it out that way, I figure that's more than cancelled out by how Chinese soldiers would be treated by Japanese.
This does seem to be a quick race to the bottom, although I did find this cheery quote.
quote:It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians [i.e. Soviet citizens]; the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers—and, in the case of the Japanese, as [forced] prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4% chance of not surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30%.
The real differences between the two nations, however, developed in the years and decades after 1945.
I have to admit that reading this thread impelled me to join the forum and comment.
I'd like to point out that many of the Poles who were complicit to the crimes commited in Poland were in fact Poles of German ethnicity, or rather Silesians.
One Pole that I would like to mention, is a man named Witold Pilecki, who was an officer in the Polish Army, who, after Germany invaded, continued on as a member of the Armia Krajowa, or Polish Home Army.
One of the orders that he followed after the Germans invaded was to find out what was happenening to all of the Poles who were rounded up in mass arrests and report back on what was happening.
He was transported to Auschwitz, where spent a few years not only documenting what was happening in Auschwitz, but also setting up a clandestine intelligence/resistance network inside the camp.
After a few years in Auschwitz, he escaped, filed his report on Auschwitz, and took part in the Warsaw Uprising.
While I'm sure that there were many Poles who were complicit in what was happening with the Nazis, there were many who were not. --FWIW, The Report of Witold Pilecki is available online, Google it.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
It's good there are no Silesians here, Comrade Volk But obviously Pilecki is a good example. I used to live near Pilecki St. in Warsaw Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Heh. Almost everything after the third comma is either hotly contested (unwarranted) or outright wrong (inexplicable). You may not like the explanations, which is fine, but they are there. Oh, and sovereign, really? Yeah, I guess. If only we'd shown proper respect for the sovereign rights of the Hussein family and the Ba'ath party. What cads we are.
Hotly contest within the borders of the United States perhaps, everywhere else has this issue wrapped up, but then you lads are still trying to work out evolution, so we do appreciate there will be a delay.
And as to Hussein, yes you are cads, because invasion and war and regime change doesn't actual equal delivering anything better for the people of Iraq.
:yawn:
Anti-American windbags who carp about oil are half right. Certainly the war was not motivated by altruism.
But do go on feeling superior while our navies ensure your continued access to world markets... Wherever in the world you happen to be living. Yeah, America sucks so much.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Jebus if you want the titillation of comparing pro-war Americans to Nazis without all this flak about false equivalencies, maybe you should try this:
Americans citizens during the Iraq war were complicit in the deaths of Iraqi innocents in a similar way as the average WW-2 era German citizen was complicit in the deaths of British civilians.
I would say that is true.
Thinking about it a bit more, I think that we are more complicit to the extent that we likely have more freedom to direct what our government does.
I think you'd have to pick that apart pretty deeply to define just how much influence, and of what quality, an average German had at the time, and how much an average American has now. They had a smaller population, a more unstable political situation, and on average a much higher willingness to engage in war efforts, and more motivation to do so.
We have a big population, which is politically more stable, a relatively low military enrollment, and less material motivations for funding that military. Certainly so in comparison to Germany, where military enrollment and war production became a catch-all safety net against poverty.
And the quality of that culpability is different. Is our inaction or cooperation motivated by greed? Certainly for Germans, it was often motivated by fear or desperation. But does that have an effect on your culpability in the acts of a nation? Can we even convert these terms? Is it useful to us to do so? And what of the degree of the crimes? We accidentally killed thousands of civilians in tht war, or did so willingly in an effort to hit other targets. Or we let people die. We did not, as a general rule, engage in attacks against population for the purposes of demoralization in Iraq. The Germans bombed museums, homes, train stations, and killed indiscriminately. And we, the allies, did likewise in Germany and Japan, not restricting ourselves as we did in France or Holland. these would all be issues you'd have to unpack to talk about what's worse, and who is "more" responsible.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:But do go on feeling superior while our navies ensure your continued access to world markets... Wherever in the world you happen to be living.
Do you think the Iraq war helped ensure people's access to world markets?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Not in the sense that you mean. But in avery long term sense, as part of the American grand strategy in the middle east, I would have to say yes.
That is: following a long chain of action, consequence, and reaction, the destabilization of the region (which was the primary aim of the war) bolstered American and Western domination of the petroleum market, which ensured prolonged access to cheap fuel for transportation and military use, which strengenthened the position of the US navy and other armed forces, our service economy, and subsequently all the exporters and importers of raw materials and finished goods around the world. And this was of course all done to a) ensure that America stayed in complete control of the global system, and b) help ensure that the political and cultural values represented by hostile governments in the middle east gained no long term traction, and led to no enhancement of their states' strategic situations.
For many reasons, all of which are quite complex, American involvement in the global trade system, including such actions as the Iraq war, have stabilized great swaths of the western world, and kept war from the doorsteps of millions of people for decades. It's apros pos that we're talking about World War 2, because the consequences of increased US involvement in the global system throughout and following that war are still being played out. US involvement is a key reason why war did not errupt in Europe again after 1945, and continued US strength is one reason why war is not a likely scenario in much of the modern world today. I don't point to this as a particular justification of anything, but merely as a fact of the world we currently live in. I've met plenty of Europeans who would like to believe that somehow none of this depended on America being a strong stabilizing force in the Western world, and a strong destablizing force in the middle east and far east, but it's hard to imagine the prosperity that the west currently enjoys having occurred without it.
I don't put my stamp of endorsement on any of the particulars or aims, but it's foolish not to acknowledge the aims, and the very real, and often materially positive adantages that so many people enjoy because of what has been done, even against their wishes. The negative consequences, of death, destruction, and suffering, were not the aims of the war, but they were prices some people were willing to pay (or rather make others pay). Again, I think too few people are prepared to acknowledge that culpability in these matters is more complex than an individual can properly appreciate.
[ June 24, 2012, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Huh, I thought it was pretty widely accepted that the war weakened our strategic position in the region by strengthening Iran.
I agree with you that US hegemony is a positive force for Europe, I just don't see how it's been helped in any way by the Iraq war. Indeed, when you factor in the trillions the war cost, plus the reduction in our readiness for other conflicts, it seems likely to have been a net negative.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Huh, I thought it was pretty widely accepted that the war weakened our strategic position in the region by strengthening Iran.
Serious question: what would've happened in and to Iraq when Saddam died, had he died while still in power as the leader of Iraq?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Qusay would probably have taken over.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
...and how would he have gone about doing that, and securing his position once in office?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
He was the heir apparent. I imagine it would've worked a lot like the way power is handed over in other hereditary dictatorships, like Syria or Cuba. I wouldn't expect much violence, unless the circumstances became weird in some way.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, it's the Hussein family for one thing, and the two brothers were psychopaths. Uday in particular was known for erratic behavior-in fact it was one of the things which led to his ouster as heir apparent.
But for the sake of argument, no problem, a peaceful transition of power from Saddam to Qusay, the brother doesn't raise a fuss and neither do other members of the Ba'ath party.
Iran does...what, exactly, in this time of transition in Iraq? The other nations in the region? Qusay again assuming a thoroughly peaceful transition (and when we're looking at transfers of power in dictatorships, you need to cast your eyes much further than just those two-it wasn't even a hereditary dictatorship yet), what does he do with respect to his neighbors?
There is this what I think is a fantasy that the choices back in 2002-2003 were between an indefinite continuation of the status quo, and invasion. I don't believe that was the actual choice, which is what I'm getting at, is all.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Well, it's the Hussein family for one thing, and the two brothers were psychopaths.
More so than the Assads or the Kims?
quote:Iran does...what, exactly, in this time of transition in Iraq? The other nations in the region? Qusay again assuming a thoroughly peaceful transition (and when we're looking at transfers of power in dictatorships, you need to cast your eyes much further than just those two-it wasn't even a hereditary dictatorship yet), what does he do with respect to his neighbors?
I don't know. My guess: Given the way the US watches that region like a hawk, the most likely thing would be for none of these countries--especially Iraq--to rock the boat.
A violent outcome would certainly be possible, just not the most likely thing. And it would take a whole lot for it to be worse than what actually happened.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
[quore]I don't know. My guess: Given the way the US watches that region like a hawk, the most likely thing would be for none of these countries--especially Iraq--to rock the boat.
A violent outcome would certainly be possible, just not the most likely thing. And it would take a whole lot for it to be worse than what actually happened.[/quote]
Well first let's be clear: you're not exactly happy with the way the US watches the region like a hawk and not uncommonly interferes, either, unless I'm mistaken?
Anyway, as for rocking the boat...well, not openly, anyway. Or at least not directly that is to say-directly in public. And as for being worse than what happened, well, alright. It's a decade later of crushing sanctions, and with a stable transition of power there's no end to that in sight, with the ultimate necessary (and agreed to, by the way, by most of the world) goal of removing the Husseins from power, still to be done. In your example, assuming the sort of stability you do with that sort of oversight, Iraq is just..ground down by sanctions and Husseins until what, one of them is sterile and can't reproduce?
As for the Assads and the Kims (strange that you would make an example of the Assads, given what is happening in Syria this very second)...there are more than just three military dictatorships in the world, Destineer. You seem to be cherry picking to an astounding degree.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Well first let's be clear: you're not exactly happy with the way the US watches the region like a hawk and not uncommonly interferes, either, unless I'm mistaken?
I think we go too far sometimes, other times we do just fine. Afghanistan, Desert Storm and Libya were all fine by me.
I also thought the threats leading up to the Iraq war were perfectly appropriate and very successful. There's a nearby alternate universe in which GWB got the UN inspectors back in, then didn't pull the trigger on the war and became a hardball-playing diplomacy hero.
quote:Anyway, as for rocking the boat...well, not openly, anyway. Or at least not directly that is to say-directly in public. And as for being worse than what happened, well, alright. It's a decade later of crushing sanctions, and with a stable transition of power there's no end to that in sight, with the ultimate necessary (and agreed to, by the way, by most of the world) goal of removing the Husseins from power, still to be done. In your example, assuming the sort of stability you do with that sort of oversight, Iraq is just..ground down by sanctions and Husseins until what, one of them is sterile and can't reproduce?
I see it in much the same way as other small, non-threatening dictatorships. Let it be, maybe take a good opportunity to deal with it if one is handed to us.
quote:As for the Assads and the Kims (strange that you would make an example of the Assads, given what is happening in Syria this very second)...there are more than just three military dictatorships in the world, Destineer. You seem to be cherry picking to an astounding degree.
I mentioned the Assads because you were talking about handing off power, which is something they've done successfully.
Of course I'm going to list the evidence that backs up my claim. Feel free to bring up some countervailing examples. It sounds kind of like you're asking me to make your argument for you.
I'm not saying for certain everything would go swimmingly with the transfer of power. I'm just saying it already has, in some similar situations in the past. So we have at least some reason to believe it would've gone just fine.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Huh, I thought it was pretty widely accepted that the war weakened our strategic position in the region by strengthening Iran.
I agree with you that US hegemony is a positive force for Europe, I just don't see how it's been helped in any way by the Iraq war. Indeed, when you factor in the trillions the war cost, plus the reduction in our readiness for other conflicts, it seems likely to have been a net negative.
In the short term, a net negative, I agree. In the long term? Well that's a lot harder to say.
I'd have to say I agree with much of what Geroge Friedman has said on the matter in the last few years. There is essentially no real negative outcome for the US in the Iraq conflict or in Adghanistan, because, as he sees things, the destablization of e region, in any regard, is an eventual net positive for US interests. So even short term strategic losses mount to considerable costs, that doesn't really factor heavily in the final sum, years down the road.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I don't see why that would be the case. US leaders constantly talk about wanting stability in the Middle East. Do you have a link to this Friedman argument?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, what US leaders are talking about is not "stability" in the sense that I think it is sold to the public. Rather, stability in the sense of ease of access and decreased danger to energy supplies and markets. That kind of stability. The US emphatically *doesn't* want a strong and assertive power in the region, except were such power to be pro-west (like Egypt under the former leadership, or Israel today). Failing that, instability is preferred.
Friedman runs Stratcom, and has published a number of books on geo-politics. I don't have a link, but the arguments i refer to appeared in his most recent book: The Next Hundred Years. While the second half is wildly speculative pop-geopolitics / sci-fi futurism, the first half is pretty much an argument against the concept of national self-determinism. An interesting read.
He would argue, for example, that while politicians do in fact talk about stability in the middle-east, and sell that as a goal, the actions of any particular nation do not actually accord to the values of political leadership or ideology, but rather to the better interest of the nation in regards to material access to resources and geographical security. That is, nations are predictable actors not based on political orientation, but on their motivations for self-preservation and advancement. Which is why, for example, the United States could at one time occupy the leadership position in NATO, *and* act unilaterally against the coalition when its aims did not match those of other nations. There is not much in our political ideology that justifies this approach, but our need to expend resources in reaction to threats against national security (real or imagined) outweighed our ideological reservations against unilateralism. Essentially, Friedman argues that nations will always eventually persue security and the broadest reach of power available, and that political culture is a mediating force, and not a guiding one.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm not big into national self-determination either, but I don't think it's moral to kill off hundreds of thousands for the sake of long-term economic expediency. It sounds like you're not exactly endorsing that, but the important difference of opinion here is about whether the war was moral.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I doubt we have a difference of opinion there. I agree with Sagan- war is equivalent to murder.
However, I'm realistic about what we should expect from geopolitics- and moral behavior in line with our personal values, or even our shared social values, is an unreasonable expectation.
Posted by Tovarich Volk (Member # 12847) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: It's good there are no Silesians here, Comrade Volk But obviously Pilecki is a good example. I used to live near Pilecki St. in Warsaw
That's because when the Nazis lost the war all of the Poles who had started calling themselves Silesian Germans were coerced, (I mean invited) to go back to Germany where they belonged! --Not that what replaced the Nazis was really any better of course. -- Is Pilecski Street the one that the Communists killed him on?
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
I'm Silesian. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Which country?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I doubt we have a difference of opinion there. I agree with Sagan- war is equivalent to murder.
I think it's oversimplifying to lump the Iraq war in with, for example, WW2, which was a just and noble struggle. Or even Desert Storm, which was perhaps a war of choice, but not a war of aggression in the same way as the '03 war.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Just and noble perhaps. But that isn't why the war was fought.
Think about how the war began for America. It didn't start in Europe. It started in Asia, and it started when we threatened Japanese access to trade and resources. Why would we do that? Could it be because we could see 5 years done the road, or 20, and new that controlling as much of Asia as possible would be good for us? Because we were right to think so.
Strategically, Europe was a wash for the US. We focused on it at the beginning to stop Russia from dominating all of Europe by the war's end, but we didn't gain much strategically from the war effort until the 1990's, and the rollback of the soviet satellites. At least, we gained little in comparison to the threats Russia mounted anew in Europe.
But our strategic victory in Asia was profound. We gained a foothold there that lasted decades, and was the focus of most US military action for 35 years.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Even further back than that....
...before we entered WWI in Europe, we were not only supplying weapons but were actively using civilian ships to do so. We used them thinking that the German's wouldn't kill civilians, and when they sank the RMS Lusitania we then used that as a justification for entering the war....even though the German's not only TOLD us they would, but they took out newspaper ads here in the US telling our population they would skin it.
Fast forward to today's wars, and listen to us decry terrorists killing civilians, and using them as shields. It's ironic, isn't it?
Posted by Kama (Member # 3022) on :
Poland, Ori. But I have family in Germany, like pretty much everyone else Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Our hidden motives aside, there were reasons out there to morally justify WW2 (WW1, probably not). Maybe they weren't the reasons we started the war, but they did make it right.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Those weren't hidden motives- just motives. Our *justificiations* were different. But saving world Jewry, or freeing Slavs, was not our motivation. Point in fact: millions of Jews died, and millions of Slavs were never freed.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I never once claimed there is no racism in Poland. I never once claimed there was no antisemitism in Poland.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)