March 21, 200422 yr Say that America is to bomb some other country for reasons you don't agree with. Now morally, there are consequences to your actions. Sure, you don't kill innocent people and fight for a cause you don't agree with, but it sets a precedent for not fighting when your country ask for you and because naturally most people wouldn't want to put their butts on the line would not fight. If everyone thought like that, the nazis would be running the world, because people had their reasons for not fighting the germans, for example we had nothing to do with what they were doing. I'm on the side that if your country asks you to fight, you're obligated to fight as long as you're not flat out committing acts of genocide, but this is extreme. If military commanders deem it neccessary to carpet bomb cities to kill civilians in order to end the war quicker, it is not for you to judge. It's another situation if you are told to let's say put a bunch of arabs in camps and exterminate them. Post your opinion!
March 21, 200422 yr Imagine if EVERYONE in the world said f*** this war s***. And didnt fight. Im a pacifist in principle, but if another hitler came around I would probably fight. Anything but that type of war I would object to.
March 22, 200422 yr Imagine if EVERYONE in the world said f*** this war s***. And didnt fight. Im a pacifist in principle, but if another hitler came around I would probably fight. Anything but that type of war I would object to. Unfortunately, you would not have the knowledge or perspective at the time of the conflict to be able to fully accept or object. As example, take WWII. From 1935 to the Pearl Harbor bombing the US was a quasi-isolationist, and news of the true scope of the holocaust wasn't popularly known. Would you of fought in WWII only because the Germans were blitzkreiging through Eastern Europe? Probably not, as the rest of the country didn't think it was worthwhile enough to get involved until a US interest was attacked either.
March 22, 200422 yr Author What if you were part of the army of a country ruled by an evil man (like Hitler)... What if what you are fighting for is an evil enterprise and no one else in your country thinks it is... You would be deemed a traitor and deserter. In the time of Hitler, most Germans were followers of Hitler and his soldiers fought for him to the end. I bet that whoever was a "consciencious objector" was heavily punished or killed. I would not fight for tha Nazis because they told you upfront the aim was to annihilate subhuman races because of a massive jewish conspiracy and that would of set oof my bullsh*t alarm and I would of rather died than take an innocent life.
March 22, 200422 yr What if you were part of the army of a country ruled by an evil man (like Hitler)... What if what you are fighting for is an evil enterprise and no one else in your country thinks it is... You would be deemed a traitor and deserter. In the time of Hitler, most Germans were followers of Hitler and his soldiers fought for him to the end. I bet that whoever was a "consciencious objector" was heavily punished or killed. I would not fight for tha Nazis because they told you upfront the aim was to annihilate subhuman races because of a massive jewish conspiracy and that would of set oof my bullsh*t alarm and I would of rather died than take an innocent life. I'm sure you know it wasn't that simple of an ideology. Germans got sold on the reestablishment of the German state, the abolishion of the restrictions placed upon it by the WWI armistice and the reconsolodation of Bavaria, etc.... Needless to say, you can pretty much sell the people of any country on any fruit-loop plan provided the economy of that country is far enough in the crapper. Obviously, hindsight is 20/20, and the Germans were more than a little wacked-out with their scapegoating of the jews, etc.... But at the time one usually doesn't have the ability to discern between what is morally correct and what is promoted as good for their country, especially when the call to arms is obstensively in the defence of one's patriotic honor and the survival of his country.
March 22, 200422 yr Author I would disagree. Goebble's, Mein Kampf, and the nazi establishment made it rather clear that racial domination was the goal. you don't need hindsight when you see state sanctioned destruction of synagogues and the state telling you that invading this or that country is necessary "because of the jews." The german people told themselves it was just about reestablishing the fatherland to it's inital size (thus the polish corridor, and acqquiring the never before had sudetan land, because of course hitler wanted "no czecks." However, acquiring all of czeckloslavakia combined with what's happening domestically and the racial hatred propaganda would let smart people know what was really going on.
March 22, 200422 yr I'm not arguing that Hitler didn't scapegoat the Jews as a major plank in his ideology, but I disagree that it was the cornerstone in which German aggression was founded. Also, although Jews were persecuted to the max by the Nazi's, the perception of the common public was that the Jews were being "relocated" and removed from advanced German society to the ghettos, Not systematically exterminated. The German public in general was not aware of the execution of the "final solution." Germans fought because, for the most part, Hitler appealed to their sense of superiority while making promises to restore the Fatherland to economic viability political legitimacy.
March 22, 200422 yr Author I'm a firm believe that the nazis went to war mostly for economic reasons (look at hitler's special interests), but to say that one wouldn't realize the wrongness of invading an entire country that was never part of germany for the sake of dominating them racially is totally absurd. The racist wouldn't mind and the level headed people would know that 100% such a cause should not be fought over.
March 22, 200422 yr Imagine if EVERYONE in the world said f*** this war s***. And didnt fight. Im a pacifist in principle, but if another hitler came around I would probably fight. Anything but that type of war I would object to. Unfortunately, you would not have the knowledge or perspective at the time of the conflict to be able to fully accept or object. As example, take WWII. From 1935 to the Pearl Harbor bombing the US was a quasi-isolationist, and news of the true scope of the holocaust wasn't popularly known. Would you of fought in WWII only because the Germans were blitzkreiging through Eastern Europe? Probably not, as the rest of the country didn't think it was worthwhile enough to get involved until a US interest was attacked either. I should have put that as a disclaimer in my post. Good point.
March 22, 200422 yr I'm a firm believe that the nazis went to war mostly for economic reasons (look at hitler's special interests), but to say that one wouldn't realize the wrongness of invading an entire country that was never part of germany for the sake of dominating them racially is totally absurd. The racist wouldn't mind and the level headed people would know that 100% such a cause should not be fought over. You are right in a moral sense, but pragmatically speaking it proves out wrong. Just ask the 80 percent of the German population in the 30's and 40's who weren't members of the Nazi party and went along. Are you trying to say that it wasn't ignorance and patriotic fervor that lead them to participate, but instead because none of them were level-headed? By the time of the Blitzkreig Germans were sold on the fact that they were an uber-society, somewhat of a German manifest destiny ideology. In the German's minds the Jews in those occupied countries were a contributing cause to that country's problems and neded to be addressed, but not the sole or overriding factor in deciding to invade them.
March 22, 200422 yr quite simply.... if the US and their allies hadnt basically blamed Germany for WWI and enacted such idiotic and severe consequences that they could never pay for.... WWII doesnt happen. How is that for a theory.
March 22, 200422 yr quite simply.... if the US and their allies hadnt basically blamed Germany for WWI and enacted such idiotic and severe consequences that they could never pay for.... WWII doesnt happen. How is that for a theory. Sure the regulations and punishment put on Germany after WWI were extremely harsh and Wilson didn't get his way in a resolution without victory but should not have been appeased. The punishments should have been better enforced. They placed the punishments on Germany but when came to power he broke these regulations but wasn't punished. He was allowed to build an army and take other countries by force.
March 23, 200422 yr Author We had no business in WW1. Just ask the 80 percent of the German population in the 30's and 40's who weren't members of the Nazi party and went along. Are you trying to say that it wasn't ignorance and patriotic fervor that lead them to participate, but instead because none of them were level-headed? Didn't you say earlier that people will accept anything when the economy is down the crapper? I'm not debating whether or not people were complacent and brainwashed, but with my firm understanding of history, my BS alarm would of went of and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one.
March 23, 200422 yr quite simply.... if the US and their allies hadnt basically blamed Germany for WWI and enacted such idiotic and severe consequences that they could never pay for.... WWII doesnt happen. How is that for a theory. Sure the regulations and punishment put on Germany after WWI were extremely harsh and Wilson didn't get his way in a resolution without victory but should not have been appeased. The punishments should have been better enforced. They placed the punishments on Germany but when came to power he broke these regulations but wasn't punished. He was allowed to build an army and take other countries by force. Wilson is a great example of why consensus building and international policing don't work. The League of Nations was a paper lion mired in the paralyzing quagmire of ineffectual power mandates. The UN is great if you want to feed starving kids, or stop 3rd worlders from throing rocks at each other. But when it comes to intervening against a nation-state that poses a real threat the UN is about as worthwhile as tits on a boar.
March 23, 200422 yr if the US and their allies hadnt basically blamed Germany for WWI and enacted such idiotic and severe consequences that they could never pay for.... True, the US had a hand in those peace talks (though the treaty was never ratified. Here is something I've always wondered: does that technically mean we are still in WW1?), but there is no question the British and the French were the ones pushing for unconditional surrender and total subjugation of the German people. Not everything in this world, believe it or not, can be blamed on the US. Not saying your statement is incorrect, just needs to be reworded because as you put it you lay most of the blame on the US when in reality this was not the case. And to the points before. Soriano, lets admit it. You are biased in this circumstance. Why do the common people fight for any strong, charismatic leader that comes around? Why did most of Cuba back Castro's revolution in 57 and 58? Why did Venezuela back Chavez? Or Ho Chi Men (sp?)? Because the leaders promise a change, leave all the bad details out (like Castro neglecting to tell everyone he was a communist), and speak constantly against the current system, which is causing these people so much pain. Simple as that.
March 23, 200422 yr Say that America is to bomb some other country for reasons you don't agree with. Now morally, there are consequences to your actions. Sure, you don't kill innocent people and fight for a cause you don't agree with, but it sets a precedent for not fighting when your country ask for you and because naturally most people wouldn't want to put their butts on the line would not fight. If everyone thought like that, the nazis would be running the world, because people had their reasons for not fighting the germans, for example we had nothing to do with what they were doing. I'm on the side that if your country asks you to fight, you're obligated to fight as long as you're not flat out committing acts of genocide, but this is extreme. If military commanders deem it neccessary to carpet bomb cities to kill civilians in order to end the war quicker, it is not for you to judge. It's another situation if you are told to let's say put a bunch of arabs in camps and exterminate them. Post your opinion! What if you were part of the army of a country ruled by an evil man (like Hitler)... What if what you are fighting for is an evil enterprise and no one else in your country thinks it is... You would be deemed a traitor and deserter. In the time of Hitler, most Germans were followers of Hitler and his soldiers fought for him to the end. I bet that whoever was a "consciencious objector" was heavily punished or killed. i feel you should always fight for your country my country, right or wrong, may she always be right but thats just m, im sort of a nationalist
March 23, 200422 yr Author And to the points before. Soriano, lets admit it. You are biased in this circumstance. Why do the common people fight for any strong, charismatic leader that comes around? Why did most of Cuba back Castro's revolution in 57 and 58? Why did Venezuela back Chavez? Or Ho Chi Men (sp?)? Because the leaders promise a change, leave all the bad details out (like Castro neglecting to tell everyone he was a communist), and speak constantly against the current system, which is causing these people so much pain. Simple as that. dude, you are mentioning guys who did not hold wars of conquest and two, hitler made his intentions rather clear. He said all the time that the jews must be exterminated and ect. I'm sure most people didn't imagine death camps, but you would have to be stupid to know it was not good.
March 23, 200422 yr i feel you should always fight for your country my country, right or wrong, may she always be right but thats just m, im sort of a nationalist Then you're pretty much just a robot that has zero ability to reason for iteslf. You do have a brain remember?
March 27, 200422 yr Author Why did Ali get away with it, but not everyone else who believes in the 5th commandment? (no i'm not sparking religious debate, I wasn't alive at the time.)
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.