Another question:Better if we didn't enter world war I? Versaille was a treaty that was fairly 'draconian' due to the overwhelming defeat that was taken. If US had not entered that war, perhaps the deal would have been a lot more lenient....? I think in any war you get a full surrender of the enemy...you flush them completely out of the system, and you do good with the people of virtue. Germany was a shithole after that war, and their recovery was almost permanently on hold. Hitler was just a machine. A coldly practical man. His enviroment was ripe for the picking. Odd that a single assassination of an archduke led to a major war, conditions for a second major war (in which a dictator committed genocide), and ultimately gave the Bolshevik a new evil empire that would spawn conflict throughout the world. And Gavrilo Princip (the assassin) just by chance ran into the archduke. One man...responsible for major wars, nucleur esclation....amazing isn't it? What a shame....
The way I see it, Stalin wasn't any better than Hitler. As a matter of fact Stalin killed way more people. The gulag beats the concentration camp any day. Hitler though was the one that got the bad press. The law against holocaust denial is plain wrong. Why? Because it transform sthe anti-semitic bastards into martyrs. You want an example? Bruno Gollnisch, number two in Le Pen's party. Convicted of Holocaust denial, he is now head of the far right group (which also includes Alessandra Mussolini, granddaughter of you know who) in the European Parliament. Just my 2c. Regards, George
And Brits killed even more indians with their agricultural reforms.....more than Hitler and Stalin together ... ! This is a quote from another forum where we had this conversation Read it and educate yourself ....
An answer like that deserves a reply. The way I talk about the gulag derives from a first hand testimonial, my grandfather being exact. On 23 August 1945, the Romanian Army changed sides from the Nazis to the Soviets. Given the chaotic east front situation at the time, my grandfather's regiment didn't find out that until 3 months later. During the time he fought the Russians. When his regiment was captured he found himself on the Gulag Express to Siberia. He spent six years there, suffering humiliation and almost dying. The preferred method of execution there was starvation. Half of his regiment never made it back home. He told me terrifying stories of days on end without food, cannibalism, the joy of finding a rotten cabbage in the latrine and the such, with a glimpse of hope when two German officers managed to escape. And there is a point in comparing Hitler and Nazis with Stalin and the Soviet Union. Why? Because the application of double standards only weakens the cause of democracy and free speech, which is the whole point of this debate. It is like saying that Hitler committed crimes against humanity, while the communists committed crimes for the benefit of humanity. And with the rise of such leaders like Hugo Chavez in Latin America, I see communism as being far more dangerous than those lunatics blaming a Zionist conspiracy. Best regards, George
Ok that Gavrilo Princip guy sure is not responsible for WW1....It is Austro-Hungarian empire with "push" from Prussia. As we know austo-hungarian empire could not expand to to the west, nor to north ( Prussia ) and east ( Russia ). So they decided they will go south to the balkans ..... The problem was that the world was pretty much already divided between great powers and Austo-hungarian empire and Prussia wanted colonies also .... For example they wanted railroad all the way to the Baghdad. So they decided to go through Balkans. That Serbia and Russia and some groups of serbian patriots didn't like ( We can include among didin't like British empire also ) and they went and kill archduke .... The war didn't start imediately after that. First austria gave serbia ultimatum to let austrian army to serbie etc ... you know to occupy it ..... Serbs didn't allow it so the war started .....
Did I say that Stalin was a good guy ? The same thing as Stalin the British did to Indians kind of .... so now you say British are the same evil as Hitler ... come one man .... Stalin was a dictator but there is a difference between him and Hitler and that is what was driving them to do what they did. Hitler wanted to erase the whole race and Stalin was driven by his ideological beliefs to keep power ....
The similarities between Hitler and Stalin are more profound than you would like to think. First of all Hitler did not want to exterminate the Jewish race, but exterminate the Jewish race in Europe. Why is this distinction important? Because Stalin also conducted acts of ethnic cleansing, true with the gulag only being an instrument. The Ukrainian famine of 1932-1933, the Holodomor is perhaps the best example and ended up with the death of about 10 million people, the famine itself was not determined by poor crops, but by murderous policies employed. You also make a distinction between the reasons of these two tyrants. Wrong again. Hitler's Holocaust was politically motivated too. The rise of the new class of German industrialists like Krupp or Porsche required some assets that belonged to Jewish people. Of course that there was also interracial hate, but that was on both sides. Best regards, George
I can see your stand point... your grandfather experienced russian camp but could not experience german since he was on nazi's side right ? Give me a break ... there is big difference between Hitler and Stalin, many differencies which you don't want to see because you are personally involved. Yes that disqualifies you from serious debate. If you didn't bring that grandfather argument I would might think different but this is not the case here .... Yeah ........ I am out of this .... don't have time debating with one already convinced because his grandfather was in Stalin's camp and told him how to think ....
Geegel - first of all, I understand where you are coming from. My wife's family is Estonian, who will never forgive the Stalinist regime, as it wiped out a good part of her family. That said, I am afraid I have to disagree with several of your points. First of all, the scope of Hitler's genocidal campaign was global, not European, as you say. Europe was only the starting point, but "World Jewry" was his declared enemy. A few quotes, I think, are illustrative: Finally, the likely last written lines of his life, the final paragraph of his Political testament: -It is pretty clear to me that wherever Hitler's reach would have extended, he would have sought to eradicate jews, however possible. Secondly, the Krupp family "rose" long before Hitler came to power - supplying steel arms to Europe going back to the early to mid 1840's (and supplying many "big bertha" artillery pieces during the U.S. Civil War, for example). By the end of the 19th century, Krupp was the world's largest manufacturing company, and by WWI, the family was fully involved in war profiteering, selling arms to both sides. That Krupp willingly took the largesse bestowed by Hitler is no surprise - in fact, Alfred Krupp, the man responsible for the family's industrial ascendancy during the latter half of the 19th century, was himself a rabid anti-semite and social reactionary. But Krupp didn't "rise" during Hitler's regime - the family empire rose long before. There is some speculation that Hitler's anti-semitism was merely a pretext, a calculated political move of coalition building and regime sustenance. But it is pretty clear to me what his thoughts were, stretching way back. That the anti-Jewish platform served the nazi regime well does not mean Hitler felt it in every fibre of his being. He did. On Princip: I think the world was set for war. Germany for centuries, a flexible "playing grounds" of duchies and principalities, the chessboard over which Europe moved to buy peace between east and west with the give and take of conquered middle-European territory, was seriously "sludged up" with the unification of Germany post-1871. The game was kicked up a notch, in a word, and no longer could limited accessions and cessions be used to limit the scope of war in the modern state system. Coupled with the race of late, furious, state-sponsored industrial development among the "later" states (and here, I include the United States), I think it almost inevitable that war would break out, and when it did, it would break out totally due to the aforementioned conditions set from the late 18th through 19th century. The tragedy is that in Germany (as well as Italy and Spain), the class coalitions available from before WWI, attendant on industrialization, were equally limited; there would be no ascendancy of a liberal middle class, strong enough to "buy off" the more radical demands of labor with social programs. Class struggle from the 1840's through to post-WWI Germany would be a keenly salient one. Under such conditions, the socialists could not go to bed with the middle class liberals (as happened in the nordic countries), and all that was available was extreme choice, right or left. Hitler came forth under such a political milieu. Princip provided a context, and a match to the fire that was set long before. The timing of the outbreak can be ascribed to his act and what followed, perhaps, but not the event itself. It was inevitable.
I agree with many of your points above, Rick. At the heart of it, I think a unified Germany scared the bejeezus out of a Europe accustomed to centuries of the checkerboard pattern of middle Europe. If Wilson had a messianic zeal for global democracy, Europe, I firmly believed, simply wanted "Germany" as an entity gone. It was shortsighted in the extreme, as much as Macarthur's framing of post-WWII Japan was far-sighted. I agree with you wholly here. I also agree with your assessment of Hitler. I think his genius lie in raw politics - his ability to capitalize on the coalition possibilities extant on the ground at the time, enabling his rise to power (when he could finally do whatever the hell he wanted). Going to bed with the communists, his arch-ideological rivals, for instance, while the SD waited on the sidelines over "ideological" purity; his political genius, the SD's undoing. But again, from my post above, such class and ideological saliency was, I'm afraid, all that was available to Germany, from all that transpired before. Where you and I will likely differ is over the importance of Princip, from my post above. He was nothing. The conditions leading up to WWI made the war itself inevitable, in my opinion. The world was locked in a zero-sum game, and could not sustain a unified juggernaut, late on the scene, itself as hungry as the Old Powers of Europe.
How many dead bodies do you think we'll find in Iran or do you believe that it's just talk? How many dead bodies do you think we'll find in Saudi Arabia or is the persecution of non-Muslims just talk?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations That was why the UN was founded to begin with; to prevent genocide. Doesn't seem like they're doing a particularly good job about it. They don't have the ability (or care) to see what countries are really doing to their citizens. I'm sure they had a good excuse for not doing much about Rwanda and Saddam. How were they supposed to know there were so many dead people? There's also a huge difference between unintended consequences (such as putting clothes on the nekkid natives, giving formula to poor African mothers without telling them to not water it down) and intentional genocide. I don't think the British intended to cause the death of so many people. Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, etc did. Or maybe they just didn't realize how many Jews, Kurds, etc their were when they started trying to kill them all. Maybe they thought it'd just be a hundred or so at most.
And they are doing wonders in Darfur. Money dictates the UN's actions, 100% of the time. Yes, money. It's easy to turn a blind eye when you have nothing to lose and everything to gain --- all the while, no one holds you accountable.
The UN including USA has been pressuring Sudan to accept UN aid to stop the genocide in Darfur for months if not more. The problem is that Sudan is only accepting African Union (AU) aid. The AU does not have enough resources to resolve the genocide/conflict. So there is a deadlock as AU is already at its limit. UN cannot just go into the country without acceptance of Sudan and Sudan does not want to change its view.
Of course the UN spent the better part of well over a decade "pressuring" Saddam, and we see how well that worked. Resources have very little to do with Sudan's unwillingness to preserve life. Seems to me like the UN cannot do much of anything.
I don't know which country you come from, but what would you say if the UN just entered your country and dictated things. I bet you would not like it. Yes the UN cannot do much. If it invades Sudan the damage would be much greater than it is now.
They did and they are. Take a guess where I am from? Of course, anything the UN touches turns to shit. I agree with you completely.
I have no idea where you come from. If life was so simple, everything would be so well. Every action has a consequence. Anyway the only solution I see from the bit I have read is that the UN shoud provide the resources. Resources are land , labour, capital, machinery, knowledge etc to the AU. Indirectly the UN will be helping the situation in Darfur.
It's not that hard to figure out. True, but things can ALWAYS be better. Once again, with the UN... we see where that got them. The resources provided in Iraq, ie., food for oil, mean money in the pockets of those in the UN and the countries that participated in that scandal. Resources are not going to help if they do not find their way to the ones that need them the most. The UN's track record when it comes to getting things to those who need them is far from perfect. Using the "UN" and "helpinp" in the same sentence is an oxymoron.