Carville: Wake up Democrats; you could lose

[Zinegata]

It again really demonstrates blatant biases when people like DXIII blithely ignore simple realities like how Japan or Germany was out aggressively attacking their neighbors or committing atrocities in favor of blaming everything on the Allies.

"If the Allies hadn't moved to stop Hitler, he might not have accelerated his campaign of genocide!"

Really, what the fuck? What we're hearing is really nothing more than DXIII stupidly providing apologies and justifications for crimes against humanity.

I need to dig up a quote made by a former German Chancellor (I think it was Adenauer) regarding the attempts to compare Allied war crimes with the Holocaust; which essentially shows how stupid these attempts at moral equivalency are.

[HMS Conqueror]

You're a bad guy if you think the different thing to do instead is wait until 3/3 of Jews are dead, and then keep doing nothing.

[Simon_Jester]

Heh.

I've heard quite a few things said about Heinrich Himmler. But I don't think I've ever heard anyone ever compared him to a legal minor, with the implication that he was not responsible for his actions, before.

This just keeps getting better and better.

[Grumman]

I'm really curious: where the fuck did this false dilemma come from, anyway? If you don't kill people, why are you all automatically assuming the only other option is "do nothing"?

The only other option is "do nothing useful". This isn't Captain Planet, and Hitler isn't going to stop enslaving and murdering people he doesn't like unless you make him stop. The Doctor Phil treatment just isn't going to cut it.

[evilsoup]

Destructinator, you seem to be trying to live in a perfect world. Or even a good world; in a good world, we wouldn't have beggared Germany after Versailles and there would be a tradition of peacemaking and so on. But those things weren't there in the 1930s. If it had started much earlier, before the nazis came to power, then stuff like what you are suggesting could have prevented them from coming to power in the first place, but by the time of the invasion of Poland I don't think they could have worked.

But what exactly are you proposing? Are you going to lay down economic sanctions on Germany if they don't leave Poland?

[Block]

I already explained this, but experts nowadays say using physical correction on children - beatings, spankings, etc. - is not particularly effective as to teaching them good vs bad behavior.

When they say "don't spank your kids", they are NOT saying "ignore them children should just run wild and ~free~". They tend to prefer methods that actually work. Being nonviolent is just an added bonus.


I'm really curious: where the fuck did this false dilemma come from, anyway? If you don't kill people, why are you all automatically assuming the only other option is "do nothing"?

You keep saying do nothing wasn't the other option. Then what was? What meaningful steps could've been taken that would've saved that other 1/3rd of Jews, the various Romani tribes that survived and the Blacks, Slavs and gays Hitler and his cronies didn't slaughter? You're the one creating a false analogy. Countries are not children, mass murder is not "bad behavior" to be gently corrected.

Frankly I think you're just trolling.

[Block]

You keep saying do nothing wasn't the other option. Then what was?

Here's an idea: when the Germans tell you to deport your Jews to the extermination camps.... tell them "no" and refuse to rat out your neighbor. When fleeing refugees come to you asking for help, tell them "yes".

Atrocities don't commit themselves.


I have to go, I'll come back later after looking at what some more European countries did to resist evil.

You don't have to rat out your neighbors when the Nazis went through town records looking for people of 1/8th or more Jewish descent. Again your lack of historical knowledge is pretty obvious.

[Bakustra]

Yes, I certainly am aware of the fact that Belgians mutilate Congolese every day today, because since we never invaded Belgium, Leopold II was never stopped! Turns out that this bullshit absolutism, far from making you sound like historical geniuses, makes you sound like complete fucking Hitler-obsessed idiots.

[HMS Conqueror]

Do you also beat children? Or do you completely ignore them?

I would certainly hit a child if he were in the course of trying to murder someone.

Japanese aren't children, though. That's rather racist.

[Rogue 9]

Yes, I certainly am aware of the fact that Belgians mutilate Congolese every day today, because since we never invaded Belgium, Leopold II was never stopped! Turns out that this bullshit absolutism, far from making you sound like historical geniuses, makes you sound like complete fucking Hitler-obsessed idiots.

You, sir, are an imbecile. Leopold II is dead. That Hitler wasn't immortal doesn't mean he wouldn't have lived a lot longer and done a lot more if the Red Army never stormed Berlin.

[Bakustra]

Yes, I certainly am aware of the fact that Belgians mutilate Congolese every day today, because since we never invaded Belgium, Leopold II was never stopped! Turns out that this bullshit absolutism, far from making you sound like historical geniuses, makes you sound like complete fucking Hitler-obsessed idiots.

You, sir, are an imbecile. Leopold II is dead. That Hitler wasn't immortal doesn't mean he wouldn't have lived a lot longer and done a lot more if the Red Army never stormed Berlin.

I want you to stop for a second- actually, I want the lurkers reading this and thinking that you've got something of a point here to stop for a second. You I want to go jump in a lake. The point here is that there is a false dilemma between "KILL EVERYBODY AXIS UNTIL THE KILLING STOPS" and "do absolutely nothing at all" being presented here, with the implication that the first is the only option that will stop injustices. If this were the case, people would be mutilated everyday in the Congo because nobody ever invaded Belgium and burned a couple hundred thousand Belgians alive. It isn't, so people are presenting a demonstrably wrong ideology, and you're defending them. Shame on you.

As another example, this would mean that the eight-hour day had to have been won by the IWW murdering literally every director of the major corporations until they got their wishes, or any number of absurd, blood-soaked horrors.

[Rogue 9]

Yes, I certainly am aware of the fact that Belgians mutilate Congolese every day today, because since we never invaded Belgium, Leopold II was never stopped! Turns out that this bullshit absolutism, far from making you sound like historical geniuses, makes you sound like complete fucking Hitler-obsessed idiots.

You, sir, are an imbecile. Leopold II is dead. That Hitler wasn't immortal doesn't mean he wouldn't have lived a lot longer and done a lot more if the Red Army never stormed Berlin.

I want you to stop for a second- actually, I want the lurkers reading this and thinking that you've got something of a point here to stop for a second. You I want to go jump in a lake. The point here is that there is a false dilemma between "KILL EVERYBODY AXIS UNTIL THE KILLING STOPS" and "do absolutely nothing at all" being presented here, with the implication that the first is the only option that will stop injustices. If this were the case, people would be mutilated everyday in the Congo because nobody ever invaded Belgium and burned a couple hundred thousand Belgians alive. It isn't, so people are presenting a demonstrably wrong ideology, and you're defending them. Shame on you.

As another example, this would mean that the eight-hour day had to have been won by the IWW murdering literally every director of the major corporations until they got their wishes, or any number of absurd, blood-soaked horrors.

No, it would not mean that at all. That stopping a rampaging nation-state might be best accomplished by force of arms does not mean that every problem is best solved by force of arms. Quit being stupid.

[Nephtys]

What a thread this is. Turning from a thing about if the Democrats are complacent or not, to showing that DXIII's misguided ultra-pacifism thinks that the Nazis were /goaded into the Holocaust/ by evil Americans and Westerners.

Not to mention how Noble Nippon was free to conduct it's war of ruthless extermination, only because evil Americans refused to sell them weapons and fuel for weapons.

Thank you for informing all of us of the one true path. If only those silly jews had used non-violence, everything would have worked right! Or if all germans suddenly simultaneously and spontaneously pushed Hitler into a jail cell!

This has been the most hilariously sad read I've had in ages.

[Nephtys]

Yet another illiterate fucktard who doesn't even understand the basic point.

Just because I'm not willing to kill them doesn't mean I approve of their actions. Christ.

Oh no, know your basic point entirely.

You are not willing to stop plain and obvious evil, by a means that can stop evil. Therefore, you condone it by inaction.

[Bakustra]

No, it would not mean that at all. That stopping a rampaging nation-state might be best accomplished by force of arms does not mean that every problem is best solved by force of arms. Quit being stupid.

That's not what people are saying, you stupid asshole. They're denying that there can be any other options than "force of arms" (what a polite way to describe killing) and "do nothing", with the implication that doing nothing is the wrong thing. That implies that all good things in history had to be won through mass slaughters. This didn't actually happen, so they're demonstrably wrong, and you should still be in that lake.

What a thread this is. Turning from a thing about if the Democrats are complacent or not, to showing that DXIII's misguided ultra-pacifism thinks that the Nazis were /goaded into the Holocaust/ by evil Americans and Westerners.

Not to mention how Noble Nippon was free to conduct it's war of ruthless extermination, only because evil Americans refused to sell them weapons and fuel for weapons.

Thank you for informing all of us of the one true path. If only those silly jews had used non-violence, everything would have worked right! Or if all germans suddenly simultaneously and spontaneously pushed Hitler into a jail cell!

This has been the most hilariously sad read I've had in ages.

What is wrong with your head that you think that lying about what people say is a good idea? Are you, like, taking advantage of pacifists? Do you do this sort of shit because you're convinced they're complete wimps who would never fight back? Or is it some sort of congenital disorder?

PS:

Or if all germans suddenly simultaneously and spontaneously pushed Hitler into a jail cell!

In point of fact, this would have meant that everything would have worked out where the holocaust is concerned! Governments, even totalitarian ones, can only govern with the consent of the governed!

Yet another illiterate fucktard who doesn't even understand the basic point.

Just because I'm not willing to kill them doesn't mean I approve of their actions. Christ.

Oh no, know your basic point entirely.

You are not willing to stop plain and obvious evil, by a means that can stop evil. Therefore, you condone it by inaction.

BRB, going to stop some plain and obvious evil by beating the shit out of marketing majors and ad agency employees. If you think that this is stupid, you're condoning evil by inaction.

[Rogue 9]

No, it would not mean that at all. That stopping a rampaging nation-state might be best accomplished by force of arms does not mean that every problem is best solved by force of arms. Quit being stupid.

That's not what people are saying, you stupid asshole.

You are. In fact, you just did it again:

BRB, going to stop some plain and obvious evil by beating the shit out of marketing majors and ad agency employees. If you think that this is stupid, you're condoning evil by inaction.

Last I checked, marketing majors and ad agency employees didn't have a massive army at their beck and call, ready to assault any who dare oppose them, therefore there are solutions to the problem other than violence that can assuredly work, because there's not the rather serious time pressure of your imminent demise forcing you to fight back or die.

[Bakustra]

No, it would not mean that at all. That stopping a rampaging nation-state might be best accomplished by force of arms does not mean that every problem is best solved by force of arms. Quit being stupid.

That's not what people are saying, you stupid asshole.

You are. In fact, you just did it again:

BRB, going to stop some plain and obvious evil by beating the shit out of marketing majors and ad agency employees. If you think that this is stupid, you're condoning evil by inaction.

Last I checked, marketing majors and ad agency employees didn't have a massive army at their beck and call, ready to assault any who dare oppose them, therefore there are solutions to the problem other than violence that can assuredly work, because there's not the rather serious time pressure of your imminent demise forcing you to fight back or die.

Do you understand mockery, you pathetic shell of a man? Oh, I forgot that this is about scoring points and blood-evangelism rather than discussion, lol.

[Pelranius]

The point here is that there is a false dilemma between "KILL EVERYBODY AXIS UNTIL THE KILLING STOPS" and "do absolutely nothing at all" being presented here, with the implication that the first is the only option that will stop injustices. If this were the case, people would be mutilated everyday in the Congo because nobody ever invaded Belgium and burned a couple hundred thousand Belgians alive. It isn't, so people are presenting a demonstrably wrong ideology, and you're defending them. Shame on you.

Then what's your plan, oh wise one?

[Grumman]

That's not what people are saying, you stupid asshole. They're denying that there can be any other options than "force of arms" (what a polite way to describe killing) and "do nothing", with the implication that doing nothing is the wrong thing. That implies that all good things in history had to be won through mass slaughters.

No, we are implying that this good thing in history (stopping Hitler's war of conquest and genocide) had to be won through physical force. A worldview that does not allow one to fight genocidal madmen like Hitler provides no other effective means of stopping him. Are you really so stupid that you can't tell the difference? If a doctor says the only way to save your life is to operate, does this translate in your nervous system to "All good things in history had to be won by cutting people open"?

[Simon_Jester]

I'd be interested to see D-13's version of how diplomacy helped halt the massacres in Hungary. Or how Sweden maintained independence and neutrality. I know what the story looks like in history books published by real historians; I wonder how clear his picture of the context of those events were?

Context is king, especially when trying to judge historical events... but context makes it hard to cherrypick.

[Zinegata]

Do you understand mockery, you pathetic shell of a man? Oh, I forgot that this is about scoring points and blood-evangelism rather than discussion, lol.

You're not engaging in mockery. You're engaging in outright strawman attacks, and in doing so expose yourself as a fool who knows nothing of history.

Rogue9 is pointing out that you and DXIII are absolute retards by attempting to compare situations that are not comparable.

Belgium (or more specifically, its King) was running a terrible slave empire in the Congo, but neither was it a rampaging nation-state invading its other neighbors. It was not Nazi Germany.

Which is why Belgium met with massive international condemnation, but it wasn't invaded by a coalition of France, Britain, and Russia.

So again: You made false moral equivalencies, got caught doing so, and are now hiding behind claims of mockery when you were in fact engaging in strawman. That you accuse Rogue9 of point-scoring when he is simply factually correcting your absurd assertions only demonstrates your own blabbering insecurities.

Cue more whining in New Testingstan to soothe your damaged ego. Oh wait, you're already doing it and admitting that you were trolling Nephtys for having the temerity to point out that it's unrealistic to believe that the German people will spontaneously push Hitler into a jail cell.

[Zinegata]

THE HOLOCAUST SUCCEEDED IN REAL LIFE. I can't believe I have to point this out to people. It actually happened, and ran its course pretty much to completion.

2/3 of Europe's Jews were dead. One in six Polish people. 20,000,000 Soviet citizens. And so, so many more.

The war did NOT prevent any of these deaths. The war did NOT stop it. The exterminations stopped more or less because there was nobody left to kill.

I guess there are no Holocause survivors then?

Oh wait, there are. What an idiot.

But hey, if you're saying it suceeded, then what you're actually saying is that Oskar Schindler completely wasted his time and his wealth. Thus invalidating your own stupid assertions that the Germans should say "no" when their neighbors were getting carted off.

After all, the Holocaust succeeded! Oskar Schindler's efforts were worthless! So why follow his example?

Again, DXIII: Justifier of any genocide not conducted by Americans.

[Akhlut]

Again your lack of historical knowledge is pretty obvious.

Let's go back to this.

You want to know what disgusts me most about the Holocaust? It isn't Hitler nor Himmler. It's the collaborators. So many people in the occupied territories didn't just cooperate, but went above and beyond the Nazi requests! But, just as I don't hate the German people for their role, I don't hate the collaborators.

I don't hate them because they are people, and I love all people. Their actions are regrettable not only because it is evil, but because they really bear most the responsibility. If they just said "no", things would have been different.

How am I so confident about that? Well, what countries said "no" to Nazi deportation demands, in whole or in part? How much of their populations survived the war?

Denmark said no. The vast majority of their people, Jewish and otherwise, survived the war.

Sweden said no to the Nazis. They had only a few thousand deaths in WW2, and saved many lives through taking people in and reaching out diplomatically.

Japan said no. Tens of thousands of Jews found refuge under the Japanese.

Bulgaria said no - partially. They sent occupied Jews to die and domestic Jews to work, but they refused to kill their own population, which saved many lives. They had only a few thousand civilian deaths in the war.

Italy said no - partially. They had some anti-semitic laws to please Hitler (how fucked up is that?), but it faced resistance and Mussolini said no to the death camps while in power over the country.

Hungary said no, until occupied by the Germans, at which point it turned around.... until diplomatic pressure turned it back. Diplomatic pressure. Alas, in those months where they said yes, hundreds of thousands of people were massacred.

Greece said no in the most strident tones possible. They were the first to actually resist the fascists, both in militaristic and pacifistic manners. Archbishop Damaskinos issued baptismal certificates for all the Jews in Greece who made the request; the people of Greece spent 2.5 billion drachmas on a ransom for their fellow Greek citizens who happened to be Jews; the Greek Orthodox Church and other prominent Greek organizational leaders issued a proclamation stating that:

The Greek Orthodox Church and the Academic World of Greek People Protest against the Persecution… The Greek people were… deeply grieved to learn that the German Occupation Authorities have already started to put into effect a program of gradual deportation of the Greek Jewish community… and that the first groups of deportees are already on their way to Poland…

According to the terms of the armistice, all Greek citizens, without distinction of race or religion, were to be treated equally by the Occupation Authorities. The Greek Jews have proven themselves… valuable contributors to the economic growth of the country [and] law-abiding citizens who fully understand their duties as Greeks. They have made sacrifices for the Greek country, and were always on the front lines of the struggle of the Greek nation to defend its inalienable historical rights…

In our national consciousness, all the children of Mother Greece are an inseparable unity: they are equal members of the national body irrespective of religion… Our holy religion does not recognize superior or inferior qualities based on race or religion, as it is stated: ‘There is neither Jew nor Greek’ and thus condemns any attempt to discriminate or create racial or religious differences. Our common fate both in days of glory and in periods of national misfortune forged inseparable bonds between all Greek citizens, without exemption, irrespective of race…

Today we are… deeply concerned with the fate of 60,000 of our fellow citizens who are Jews… we have lived together in both slavery and freedom, and we have come to appreciate their feelings, their brotherly attitude, their economic activity, and most important, their indefectible patriotism…

(source)

They were among the first and only nations in Europe to state that the Jews were equal and undifferentiated to their own ethnic citizens and they did everything in their power to save their Jewish population.

And, yet, over 80% of their Jews were exterminated. The nation was starved as the Nazis deprived them of food and famine set in with its hungry jaws, which claimed over 300,000. Over 70,000 Greeks (not including the Jews, whom the Greeks considered to be full citizens who they did not differentiate from regular Greeks) were outright murdered by Germans, Bulgarians, and Italians. The Nazi war machine chewed up Greece and Greece is still dealing with the consequences of being conquered.

And yet what would be your response to the Greeks under Axis occupation? Say "oxi" some more while being starved and shot and seeing one's friends and countrymen sent to death? Most of the Greeks were already refusing to help the Axis war machine, seeing as they had just won their last territory from foreign hegemony only 20 years prior. What more could they possibly do?

Pretty interesting how for all the "Nazis must be stopped" and "force is the only way", these countries didn't use force. They just stood up and said "no". Individual countries saying no could save their own people. Groups of countries could influence other individuals do to the right thing (just as group pressure is likely to blame for so many collaborators).

The Greeks said no and they defeated Italy before being crushed by Nazi Germany. Then the Greeks said no again when the Germans demanded their Jews, but they were forced by the Axis.

So, no, it doesn't come down to your simplistic "no = survival!" dogma. The Greeks said no and they saw the ravages of warfare much more thoroughly than any of the peripheral nations that the Nazis either didn't care about or couldn't affect.

They used noncooperation - one form of nonviolent resistance - and this saved a lot of lives.

The Hellenes used it and still saw massive loss of life.

When people stood up and did the right thing, it made a difference. When people spoke out and tried to help, it made a difference. 99% of Jews in Denmark survived.

80% of Jews in Greece were consigned to fire, despite the nonviolent and pacifistic means used to try and save them.

Evil must be opposed. But, and this is important, opposition and violence are not synonomous.

And what did that accomplish for Greece? Had the damnable French and British governments killed a few Nazis in 1938 after the Anschluss, the German war machine never would have gotten off the ground to swallow up Europe in the first place.

[HMS Conqueror]

Japanese aren't children, though. That's rather racist.

That's not the point (the point is an illustration of the false dilemma fallacy, with a secondary point about how violence is worthless). You're rather stupid.

The reason people think it's wrong to hit children is that they are weak and defenceless and (presumably) don't realise that what they are doing is wrong. None of that applies to Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany.

And nonetheless I would still hit a child if it were the only way to stop him killing someone. Wouldn't you?

So I bite your bullet Sir.

[Zinegata]

Conqueror, seriously, don't bother. Equating Nazi Germany (a nation-state) with innocent children (not a nation-state) was very much just an outright act of intellectual dishonesty; not to mention that it's just being used to fire off loaded questions.

It's quite obviously nothing more than a tool used by DXIII to accuse anyone who disagrees with him (regarding the realities of the Second World War) with child abuse; because he's too cowardly to actually start name-calling here instead of NT.