Ping Thanas + other German SDN members

[energiewende]

It's hard to think of a country less likely to repeat Nazi terror than Germany. Maybe some of the West European countries and US would be close, but not the East (even today Russia is acting much like Hitler in the 1930s, re-arming, attacking small neighbours, demonizing minority groups). Germany nonetheless does maintain the graves of its war dead; that is right and proper, regardless what they fought for.


Japan gives me quite a different sense, more like, "We're weak so we'd better pipe down for our own sake. But we've been here for 2,500 years, and times change." But, it's a closed country, I don't speak its language, and I've never lived there, so I say that with some reservations.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Yes, I know that Nazi Germany was the cause of everything so modern Germany SHOULD take it more seriously as a warning to never let it happen again, but look at other nations that committed genocide in the past. Italy (Roman Empire), Greece (Alexander), Mongolia (Atilla), Spain and Portugal (Conquistadors), etc...

Eventually they stop taking it hyper-seriously. It took them centuries, however, and I don't think it's a good thing for Germany to have this "National Shame" for the same period of time. That's all I mean by "move on".

How much longer should Germany feel ashamed of itself though? Most of the people alive today hadn't even been born until after the war. While I think they should be taught the history of what happened and why, I don't think they should share the blame that was cast on their parents or grandparents.

If I recall, Japan is kinda going through the same sort of thing as well.

Oh dear.

Here is the thing. Your examples DID happen centuries ago. In some cases, Millenia. In Germany... it is grandad. Imagine the stereotypical loving and doting grandfather. Then imagine knowing he was in the Wehrmacht between 1939 and 1945. Or imagine your father. Same thing. This is the case for a significant portion of the German population. The thoughts "where were you? What did you do?" must, at some point or another, creep into their heads. Especially because evidence of Nazi-Era atrocities are still there[i/] in the form of buildings (like the places where disabled people were euthanized before the Final Solution), many of the camps are still extant and used as museums/memorials etc. Rationally, one should not feel culpable. But humans have always treated evil like a sort of Miasma, as if it was contagious. This is ridiculous, but in some ways it is good. It is good precisely because so long as that remains in the general popular consciousness of the German people, there is at least one major western power we never have to worry about again.

Moving On is different from Forgetting. Moving on is good, not having all of your foreign policy dictated by guilt is good. Forgetting is bad. Because once you forget something, history can repeat itself.

The Japanese for example have...well they dont have the same more or less unified response to it that the Germans do. There are significant political factions in Japan that deny the occurrence of the Rape of Nanjing and other atrocities (positions that if expressed publicly in Germany get you sent to prison for Holocaust Denial), other somewhat overlapping factions spin the war in a way not dissimilar to the the way Neo-Confederates do the US Civil War. Others conveniently downplay hideous war crimes and instead play up civilian casualties from strategic bombing/nuking. Then you get the people who are like "Dude... what we did was fucked up, and we needed to be stopped."

Unfortunately to one degree or another, there is a policy of Not Mentioning The War Crimes in the Japanese educational system. At least as far as I have been able to determine.

References:

http://www.tofugu.com/2012/03/22/japane ... ntroversy/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21226068

................

The Germans did rancid awful shit. Then they Stopped. They have not forgotten, so it is that much harder for them to start doing rancid awful shit again.

The US, by contrast, has done rancid awful shit. But we have NEVER been confronted with the rancid awful shit we have done, and by and large forget shortly after. Therefore, we have NEVER stopped.

Non-consenting human experimentation? Oh fuck yeah, we were doing that shit well into the 70s. The Germans stopped in 1945 (at least in the west, the east, I am not sure. And this is what I have been able to find with a quick confirmation search, so I could have missed something). Forced sterilization? Oh dear. 1960s in most states, some persisting in the 70s, or even 80s (Hi Oregon). Now we just torture people and pointedly do not prosecute our Totally Not Sanctioned By The Chain Of Command war criminals and torturers, or those who give them their Not! Orders.

[energiewende]

The Germans did rancid awful shit. Then they Stopped. They have not forgotten, so it is that much harder for them to start doing rancid awful shit again.

The principal difference is that the US stopped but was not stopped. The US stopped slavery by itself, sacrificing millions of American lives to do so. Nazi Germany wasn't brought down by a civil war. Similarly the US gave up its ownership of the Philippines while colonialism was still in fashion, and there was no external pressure for it to do so. So I don't think these cases are at all comparable.

Soviet, Chinese, etc. communist abuse of their own population were comparable and largely ignored, but here the out-groups were mostly ideological or property based, not hereditary, which seems less repulsive to people. There's always a sense that you could've just stood in line and, even if you had no moral obligation to do so, you would've probably been left alone. Also, they actually succeeded in exterminating a lot of their enemies, as well as suppressing evidence, and dead men don't complain (or institute de-Communistification courts).

[Alyrium Denryle]

The principal difference is that the US stopped but was not stopped. The US stopped slavery by itself, sacrificing millions of American lives to do so. Nazi Germany wasn't brought down by a civil war. Similarly the US gave up its ownership of the Philippines while colonialism was still in fashion, and there was no external pressure for it to do so. So I don't think these cases are at all comparable.

That is a distinction without meaning, I am afraid. Yeah, the US stopped doing some shit on its own. But it never stopped doing rancid shit. It just changed the rancid shit that it performed, and there are still significant portions of the US population who are bitter about aforementioned Civil War, and who think "Slavery Was Not So Bad".

It is absolutely weird. The US and other allies basically hit Germany with a (high explosive) rolled up newspaper and said "Look at what you did! Bad Germany, Naughty!" and Germany said "Yes. We were bad. Never again.", while the US in a global display of hypocrisy never turned the gaze of ethics upon itself. It has never learned a systemic lesson. The kid who hits his little sibling for no reason, learns his lesson after the big neighbor kid beats the shit out of him, and becomes a well behaved nice child who grows into a conscientious adult. While the big neighbor kid spent his younger years tormenting HIS little sister over shared-bedroom territorial disputes, stopped shortly before confronting the child-germany, but still continued to be a douche into adulthood.

Soviet, Chinese, etc. communist abuse of their own population were comparable and largely ignored, but here the out-groups were mostly ideological or property based, not hereditary, which seems less repulsive to people. There's always a sense that you could've just stood in line and, even if you had no moral obligation to do so, you would've probably been left alone. Also, they actually succeeded in exterminating a lot of their enemies, as well as suppressing evidence, and dead men don't complain (or institute de-Communistification courts).

Do not mistake my criticism of the US as justification for the other World-Douches. I find the international hypocrisy of "we shall ignore your crimes so long as you are

A) Only doing it to your own population

and either

B) You are big and powerful
or
C) Economically important

To be disgusting, if not unavoidable given the reality that is Realpolitik.

[K. A. Pital]

The principal difference is that the US stopped but was not stopped. The US stopped slavery by itself, sacrificing millions of American lives to do so. Nazi Germany wasn't brought down by a civil war. Similarly the US gave up its ownership of the Philippines while colonialism was still in fashion, and there was no external pressure for it to do so. So I don't think these cases are at all comparable.

The US kept making human experimentation an art and recruited people from Japanese Unit 731 to help devise programs that anyone would say are a nightmare. Come on. "It stopped"? Slavery did not stop - it was stopped by people who crushed the South in a less-than-pretty war and everything that followed, and discrimination existed afterwards for decades. The US gave up ownership of the Philippines, but it did not give up Puerto Rico. Philippines, until the fall of Marcos, remained a dictator-ruled satellite state. That's like saying the USSR did not make Poland part of itself. Okay, it did not - but it was a satellite state until the 1990s.

Also, they actually succeeded in exterminating a lot of their enemies, as well as suppressing evidence, and dead men don't complain (or institute de-Communistification courts).

It is blatantly untrue: where the number of the dead was extreme, like in Cambodia, courts were put in place, and most of Eastern Europe instututed a process of lustration to relieve former functionaries of political power.

the out-groups were mostly ideological or property based, not hereditary, which seems less repulsive to people

Aristocracy and oligarchs were killed in revolutions in many places. For some reasons, Europeans find the destruction of aristocracy and oligarchy acceptable. Dunno why. Maybe it's that "all men are equal" thing, I guess we should do away with this vestige and return to the idea that some are born to rule. Contrast this with repressions that come after a revolution (e.g. current system of forced labour in China which the West routinely calls to abolish, and it seems that there are some results down the road) - these are much less eagerly accepted. Many Western intellectuals were enamoured with the Chinese and Russian, and other revolutions - but few accepted Stalinism.

[energiewende]

The principal difference is that the US stopped but was not stopped. The US stopped slavery by itself, sacrificing millions of American lives to do so. Nazi Germany wasn't brought down by a civil war. Similarly the US gave up its ownership of the Philippines while colonialism was still in fashion, and there was no external pressure for it to do so. So I don't think these cases are at all comparable.

That is a distinction without meaning, I am afraid. Yeah, the US stopped doing some shit on its own. But it never stopped doing rancid shit. It just changed the rancid shit that it performed, and there are still significant portions of the US population who are bitter about aforementioned Civil War, and who think "Slavery Was Not So Bad".

It is absolutely weird. The US and other allies basically hit Germany with a (high explosive) rolled up newspaper and said "Look at what you did! Bad Germany, Naughty!" and Germany said "Yes. We were bad. Never again.", while the US in a global display of hypocrisy never turned the gaze of ethics upon itself. It has never learned a systemic lesson. The kid who hits his little sibling for no reason, learns his lesson after the big neighbor kid beats the shit out of him, and becomes a well behaved nice child who grows into a conscientious adult. While the big neighbor kid spent his younger years tormenting HIS little sister over shared-bedroom territorial disputes, stopped shortly before confronting the child-germany, but still continued to be a douche into adulthood.

You're talking as if the US is currently perpetrating a crime equal to the Holocaust; if so, what and where? It's of course true that the US Government is perpetrating crime, governments being little different from street gangs after all, but the Holocaust was on another plane to ordinary crime. Slavery was not as bad (slave owners at least didn't actively try to destroy their property), but comparable. Treatment of the Philippines was better still - it wasn't meant to be the ordinary civilian government, but only done to retain control - but nonetheless a monstrous crime. So, I chose those as examples and the US simply decided those things were bad and stopped doing them all on its own, which provides a very clear distinction to Nazi Germany. Your examples are drone strikes and rendition tortures, both of which affecting very small numbers of people many of whom likely are guilty of serious crimes themselves. Is it like Stalin said - one death is a tragedy, a million a statistic? And that the two blur together for you? I'm afraid they don't for me, even after granting both are crimes.

Soviet, Chinese, etc. communist abuse of their own population were comparable and largely ignored, but here the out-groups were mostly ideological or property based, not hereditary, which seems less repulsive to people. There's always a sense that you could've just stood in line and, even if you had no moral obligation to do so, you would've probably been left alone. Also, they actually succeeded in exterminating a lot of their enemies, as well as suppressing evidence, and dead men don't complain (or institute de-Communistification courts).

Do not mistake my criticism of the US as justification for the other World-Douches.

Yet it seems like a strange first example to choose if that isn't your intention.

The US kept making human experimentation an art and recruited people from Japanese Unit 731 to help devise programs that anyone would say are a nightmare.

Come on, it's not like they brought the Chinese test subjects with them, which was the bad thing involved here. It's no more equivalent to the Holocaust than was hiring von Braun for NASA.

Come on. "It stopped"? Slavery did not stop - it was stopped by people who crushed the South in a less-than-pretty war and everything that followed, and discrimination existed afterwards for decades.

A war fought by other Americans.

The US gave up ownership of the Philippines, but it did not give up Puerto Rico.

Puerto Rico wasn't treated with the brutality of the Philippines either.

Philippines, until the fall of Marcos, remained a dictator-ruled satellite state. That's like saying the USSR did not make Poland part of itself. Okay, it did not - but it was a satellite state until the 1990s.

While this man was an anti-communist his policies seem quite different from those of the US, and his background doesn't look out of place for a home-grown coupist. Regardless, he didn't waterboard millions either.

It is blatantly untrue: where the number of the dead was extreme, like in Cambodia, courts were put in place, and most of Eastern Europe instututed a process of lustration to relieve former functionaries of political power.

Cambodia was invaded and stopped forcibly by outsiders, just like NG.

Aristocracy and oligarchs were killed in revolutions in many places. For some reasons, Europeans find the destruction of aristocracy and oligarchy acceptable. Dunno why. Maybe it's that "all men are equal" thing, I guess we should do away with this vestige and return to the idea that some are born to rule. Contrast this with repressions that come after a revolution (e.g. current system of forced labour in China which the West routinely calls to abolish, and it seems that there are some results down the road) - these are much less eagerly accepted. Many Western intellectuals were enamoured with the Chinese and Russian, and other revolutions - but few accepted Stalinism.

[/quote]
I'm not sure I agree. Killing aristocrats is only seen as ok to the extent that they are seen as the guilty controllers of a tyrannical state. See how people generally regard the Tsar and his family as victims because they were killed months after the Bolsheviks consolidated their power, while if they had been killed defending their palaces or leading their troops then, oh well, all's fair in love and war.

[K. A. Pital]

Come on, it's not like they brought the Chinese test subjects with them, which was the bad thing involved here. It's no more equivalent to the Holocaust than was hiring von Braun for NASA.

You mean Americans infecting Guatemalans with syphilis was like the hiring of von Braun? You're a fucktard then.

A war fought by other Americans.

A war fought by a part of the group to put the slavers down, yes. That is hardly a peaceful abolition via decree, which many nations - but not America - could boast.

Puerto Rico wasn't treated with the brutality of the Philippines either.

So it is not about sovereignity but about brutality? If you genocide someone then let him go, your sins are absolved?

Cambodia was invaded and stopped forcibly by outsiders, just like NG.

You mean Vietnamese Communists?

I'm not sure I agree. Killing aristocrats is only seen as ok to the extent that they are seen as the guilty controllers of a tyrannical state. See how people generally regard the Tsar and his family as victims because they were killed months after the Bolsheviks consolidated their power, while if they had been killed defending their palaces or leading their troops then, oh well, all's fair in love and war.

Only monarchists regard Czars as victims. Usually they are killed to prevent a royalist restauration that can happen during civil conflict.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You're talking as if the US is currently perpetrating a crime equal to the Holocaust; if so, what and where?

No. But we did (you do not appear to be able to read). See near-extinction of first nation peoples. The Germans stopped ALL the rancid shit post WW2. We continued doing rancid shit (none on a holocaust scale, but still fucking awful). But we only stopped killing off the native americans when they were ethnically cleansed to land no white person wanted, and there were VERY few left anyway.

Your examples are drone strikes and rendition tortures, both of which affecting very small numbers of people many of whom likely are guilty of serious crimes themselves.

No dipshit. I am talking about forced sterilization of criminals and the mentally disabled that continued into the 60s and 70s. We executed people for shit we continued to do. I am referring to consent free human experimentation using Radiation, spreading STDs among central American Civilians. Again, we executed people for shit we continued to do. Tuskeegee. Same thing. Various horrific experiments in captive prison populations who cannot say no. And yes. THEN the fucking drone strikes and rendition torture of innocent people. Yes. Innocent people, including several of our own citizens. And those drone strikes often target weddings and shit, thus killing lots of children etc. To say nothing of the regular war crimes.

As for slavery, the US is the ONLY major power that did not simply say "Slavery is fucked up. Lets end it". It required a multi-year war to end it, and for decades after it still all-but existed in the form of share-cropping and Jim Crow.

Yet it seems like a strange first example to choose if that isn't your intention.

No asshole. I just live in the US and have to deal with the constant "Best Most Free Nation On Earth" bullshit.