How to remove ski?

[Leopard_2]

Ah, ah...

Originally posted by Dandelion:

If Steiners message is not clear to you, he finds the movie revisionist, denying the heroic sacrifice at Stalingrad and not mentioning the need to defend Europe by assaulting the USSR.

That's how you read it...

I'd actually agree with him that no war movie I know (including "Stalingrad", perhaps with the - partial - exclusion of "Das Boot") ever shows German soldiers believing in their fight, showing comradeship and heroism on their own just like the Allied troops do on the other side. They could do so because they're hard-core Nazis, or because they fell for their propaganda. In any case, it's a part of history that is always left out. Same goes for the fact that 6. Armee did bind major ressources.

I'd also agree with you that it's a touchy subject indeed, but by no means sufficient (in itself) to label Steiner as Nazi or hatemonger.

This is Steiner reacting on a suggestion from Mikey that communism might have had appeal on the German labor force.

Which is hard stuff indeed, and I'd agree with you on that point.

The NSDAP never reached more than 40% support in any category of the labor force...

...while there still were democratic elections. Support for the NSDAP skyrocketed once they were in power, because of their short-term "successes".

And the communist / left-wing powers in Germany had a large part in destabilizing the Weimar Republic to the point where the NSDAP could get to power.

These are typical Wiederbetätiger statements, they all sound the same and they all read the ten or fifteen books revealing the Real Truth about the Nazis and the war. Where the Nazis are made heroic victims, Germans are warheroes and the rest of Europe is one big aggressor, and Judaism the source of all evil.

The big problem is that any attempt to get an objective view on things is immediately smitten with the big hammer of "revisionism", "anti-Semitism" etc.

You are always allowed to err on the politically correct side - like, all Germans were Nazis, Germany was the sole nation at fault ever since 1914 - but never to the other side.

And even a differentiating view is frowned upon: That the Versailles treaty was never intended to create a peaceful neighbourhood of nations, that France and England missed a great many opportunities to stop Hitler early, that Europe of early 20th century was at large suspectible to "extreme" and/or instable forms of government (with even France having serious trouble stabilizing their democracy)... all this is true, all this is recorded history, and even then it makes me look like I'm sympathetic to the NSDAP, which I most assuredly am not.

I could ramble on, but I hope this was enough to show my point: Your view is probably just as flawed as Steiners, just more popular / politically correct.

[Leopard_2]

As an afterthought:

The reason why we - that includes me - do not accept Nazi lies propaganda in our midst is because we all agree that hate-mongering, deceiving of the masses and aggressive imperialism must never happen again.

Agreed so far?

Then it is important to realize that it wasn't necessarily something inbred in the German soul, or the Versailles treaty that led to this war and the holocaust. It wasn't something that happened because they were Nazis or believing in being Arisch or hating Jews or because they believed they were better than the Slavic people.

It was the combination of many factors, including being at the receiving end of a stiffling "treaty" keeping a nation from prospering, and a group of people successfully making a nation believe they are superior to others, and that there are "races" or "religions" so much inferior to them that they must be oppressed and deserved whatever they got.

And once you bring it over you to get to this abstract level - push the atrocities that happened in the past into the back of your mind for a second and look toward what happens today and might happen tomorrow - you will realize that the German soldier on the Eastern Front, the US soldier in Baghdad, and the Israeli soldier guarding settlers in the "autonomy zones" of Palestine might have more in common than you'd like.

And once you are at that point, perhaps that enables you to judge certain statements - of those you flame as revisionists, and of those you call your leaders today - in a bit of a different light.

No power to revisionists, no power to neo-Nazis. 100% ACK. No power to anyone who thinks he is so superior he has a right to tell another people how they have to live. And if any answer seems to be too obvious, too natural, question it.

[Dandelion]

I'd actually agree with him that no war movie I know (including "Stalingrad", perhaps with the - partial - exclusion of "Das Boot") ever shows German soldiers believing in their fight, showing comradeship and heroism on their own just like the Allied troops do on the other side.

But the men in "Stalingrad" as well as "Das Boot" are heroic and self sacrificing. Not to mention the men in "Cross of Iron".

In any standard Hollywood production you will see scores of anonymous Germans taking extreme risks and appearing to be totallly devoted, dying in hordes with no apparent remorse.

Even in romantic dramas such as "The English Patient" you will see glimpses of ideological conviction, along with personal sadism or liberal ideas, among German soldiers.

Swastikas are usually hung everywhere - on cars, trains, buildings et cetera, so the source of their moitivation is made known.

In "Stalingrad" as such we see both anonymous men sacrificing their lives for their superior officers, and characters in the movie risking their lives for eachother. The motive is generally comradeship and personal loyalty.

Steiner reacts with disgust when the men force a doctor to heal a comrade. Steiner feels a coward is being saved. Well, that's what he wrote anyway. The same scene appears in "A Bridge Too Far". It is a very powerful display of love between friends - the very German camaraderie that Steiner express as slandered by the movie. Obviously, then, it is not the camaraderie but the comrades that do not suit Steiner.

Friendship appears to be the source of heroism in all involved armies in the war. The ideological convictions of men seem not to matter much in combat. Reading hardcore NSDAP members - who never "repented" - such as Meyer it does seem he confirms the picture of men driven by camaraderie rather than deliberate ideological conviction.

For people giving their lives for the ideals of National Socialism, see "Die Brücke".

In any case, it's a part of history that is always left out. Same goes for the fact that 6. Armee did bind major ressources.

In any combat, the guys butchering the other guys are busy for a while, I cannot really see why this is a point that needs to be made in order to create an manysided view on events. It can be presumed that the Soviet forces destroying the sixth army could not simultaneously destroy the rest of the German army, by any reasonable person.

Steiner use words such as heroic sacrifice - suggesting intent in sacrifice and willingness to perish. This is an attempt to describe history which contrast with scientific research, which is why we normally call it revisionist. There are no accounts or evidence corroborating that the men sacrificed themselves in order to save the remaining German armed forces. Evidence suggest they were shocked to be abandoned and that a major crisis of morale appeared as they slowly realised that they were.

By creating a vision of Thermopylae, a stoic and intentional self-sacrifice, revisionist attempt to re-write history into a version they like better. That even Hitler confessed it was all a horrible mistake is, for once then, ignored (You will note in the debate on Rommels solutions in the East that Steiner feels Rommel deceived Hitler in the Med, even persuading OKW to make disastrous decisions - another example of re-write of history, again typical of revisionism).

Steiner also mentions the need to defend Europe. He feels it is left unmentioned in the movie. And it is, since the movie is about an unprovoked assault on the Soviet Union. Describing it as a defence was common in Nazi rhetoric - in fact most agrressions in history are explained as defensive measures by the governments committing them. Why this rhetoric must be included in a movie portraying soldiers that never heard it, eludes me.

I'd also agree with you that it's a touchy subject indeed, but by no means sufficient (in itself) to label Steiner as Nazi or hatemonger.

It isn't. It is sufficient to label him as a revisionist. It is his messages on Jews that is sufficient to label him as a hatemonger.

...while there still were democratic elections. Support for the NSDAP skyrocketed once they were in power, because of their short-term "successes".

I am afraid we have no conclusive figures on political opinion in Germany after the NSDAP was invited to form a government. Notwithstanding, I feel we should be careful about buying government statements off hand. The NSDAP government proclaimed that their popular support was strong, because of the domestic policy of full-employment. The focal concern of any historian - wie es eigentlich gewesen ist - is unknown.

And the communist / left-wing powers in Germany had a large part in destabilizing the Weimar Republic to the point where the NSDAP could get to power.

I agree, though this is also a sensitive issue, as it is anarchist rhetoric that the face of capitalism will turn into fascism as soon as it is threatened by socialism. I am not a partisan of the Communist cause. I resent all totalitarian movements. Steiner is in his text denying they existed as a powerfactor at all. An attempt to rewrite history, portraying the German labour force as Nazi in ideology. Except the Jews, of course, who were all Bolsheviks.

The big problem is that any attempt to get an objective view on things is immediately smitten with the big hammer of "revisionism", "anti-Semitism" etc.

I do not believe in any "objective" reality at all. That word is always used by people preaching their personal beliefs. History is not objective science, you cannot repeat experiment or prove a thesis. Even the evidence at hand - documentation - is subjective and vulnerable to manipulation and personal interpretation. Lack of documentation - or lack of research - make all academic work on history incomplete and subject to future re-evaluation.

The possibility of debating a sensitive issue would depend on the environment of course, but most of all on yourself. You can argue and present your evidence, and your method of interpretation.

Or you can present no basis or evidence at all, make general statements, produce ideological rhetoric and racist comment, such as those of Steiner.

Steiner has the same opportunity as everyone else to debate any topic however sensitive on this forum. I can prove that it is quite possible, starting a thread on any subject of your choice. Or of Steiners choice. It is all in your approach to evidence available, interpretation of truth and your respect for your fellow debaters.

You are always allowed to err on the politically correct side - like, all Germans were Nazis, Germany was the sole nation at fault ever since 1914 - but never to the other side.

Now you are contradicting yourself You said before that Germans portrayed as believing in the Nazi cause is never portrayed, and now you say it is generally accepted to portray all Germans as believing in that cause.

But, seriously, I meet this frustration often, more so before when lecturing than nowadays, and many feel "the lid is on" just like you do, particularly in Germany.

I am not denying the lid. My parent generation in Germany - just like yours I imagine - grew up with a very tight lid indeed, unable even to process their own sorrow for the loved lost, unable to debate events of the war that did not fit with the New Germany, such as the mass evictions and genocides of Germans in the East. There were a lot of hidden photographs, sudden silence at the dinner table and a lot of bitterness.

I suppose the New German state was not capable of meeting these emotions or events at the time, weak, unstable and unready in her own fragile state. Any sorrows of war would always threaten to sparkle revanchisme, hatred, resentment et cetera and instead of facing this pain, they just pressed down the lid, even censoring schoolbooks. "History" will show if this was necessary for the transfer to a democratic state, or mere oppression.

But you know, under the flag of being oppressed by that lid, come the entire Wiederbetätigung movement. Proclaiming to tell the Truth.

I find it essential to confront and expose them. While at the same time meeting face to face those who have questions - not answers - and want to debate and express their frustration.

As for "foreigners" , I find the climate of debate good nowadays. There will be people with simplified views, unwilling to accept that the world is complex, shouting revisionist at you even for debating the effects of allied strategic bombing. Not a lot one can do except argue with them, present ones thesis and evidence and prove ones point.

And even a differentiating view is frowned upon: That the Versailles treaty was never intended to create a peaceful neighbourhood of nations, that France and England missed a great many opportunities to stop Hitler early, that Europe of early 20th century was at large suspectible to "extreme" and/or instable forms of government (with even France having serious trouble stabilizing their democracy)... all this is true, all this is recorded history, and even then it makes me look like I'm sympathetic to the NSDAP, which I most assuredly am not.

I am not so sure it is so bad. I have often made these statements and not met with a lot of reaction. I think the Americans are a bit of a blessing here, as they can relate to changing times in terms of views upon "races" et cetera. That Europe was generally Darwinist (in the racist way) at the time and that France had concentration camps before Germany did - and the British before them - will not appear as shocking to a national who can himself remember segregated buses. I find this an asset.

Generally speaking distance to the war in time has made a lot of things easier. Including the passing of the participating generation.

I could ramble on, but I hope this was enough to show my point: Your view is probably just as flawed as Steiners, just more popular / politically correct.

It is good to know ones opinions are popular Though I feel less certainty than you about it. It is not what I meet in my ordinary life. Europe is changing in many ways, hard to tell general tendencies.

And remember that not a generaion ago, Steiner would be PC, and I would be in jail. I guess we must decide how we prefer things, when not compatible.

Cheerio

Dandelion

[ January 06, 2005, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Dandelion ]

[Dandelion]

The reason why we - that includes me - do not accept Nazi lies propaganda in our midst is because we all agree that hate-mongering, deceiving of the masses and aggressive imperialism must never happen again.

Agreed so far?

Certainly. By turning individuals into parts of a collective, robbing them of individual traits, you de-humanise them. The necessary stage before any Pogrom or civil war.

Nazis using lies are the smaller of evils. Nazis using truth is the bigger. Nazis will parasite upon the pain of others to provoke collective feelings of hatred. If I describe how people were ill treated only because they were Germans, Germans are liable to feel a part of them has been ill treated. Because it could have been them. We enter the debate of Sudeten Germans et cetera. The ancient cycle of collective revenge in the way of a Corsican bloodfeud is so easily preyed upon. Not so easy to stop.

Then it is important to realize that it wasn't necessarily something inbred in the German soul, or the Versailles treaty that led to this war and the holocaust.

I do not believe in a German soul, or the soul at all, nor original sin. Nor very much in revenge (I try to better myself here). People are individuals and responsible for their own actions. I resent as much the proclamation of German national guilt as I do the surprise equally often displayed that the German people was capable of such acts. They weren't. Guilty or capable. A lot of individuals were. One cannot always help how one feels, but always help what one does, and says. Conversely, though weaker, there is a responsibility for what one does not say, and not do. Belief in the individual is a trademark of democratic ideals, reflected in the individual right to vote.

The Versailles Treaty was old Europe, powers preying upon eachother. The war between nations starting in 1939 was in my humble opinion merely a continuation of what had always been. I find it uninteresting to debate guilt or blame when statesmen make decisions in closed halls, triggering wars as their game of cards gets out of their inept control. This will be a controversial opinion I guess, as Germans were sentenced for planning a war of aggression. But I don't mind that they were. It has to start somewhere, to change. In my view, 1945 was the start of many things wonderful, not just the end of yet another war.

Germany was an infant at the time, most people had lived most of their lives in feudal states, they had experience a few years of trial democracy, years that were no more impressive than present day Iraq, easy to lose faith prematurely, easy to grasp for any alternative providing "order". "Order" followed, in Italy, Greece, Germany, Poland, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and on it goes. It was the tide of the times. From homes to workplaces and the armies hierarchy was rigid an unquestioned. Messages from authority were by and large accepted - which is not the same as sharing views with the government, just accepting the legitimacy of power. Regarded as a collective, Germans were "servile" in the sense of easily led into war. And once in...

It wasn't something that happened because they were Nazis or believing in being Arisch or hating Jews or because they believed they were better than the Slavic people.

The Germans did not execute the holocaust. A very small group of individuals of many nationalities - German, Austrian, Ukranian, Polish etc - carried out the Endlösung program. It was decided by representatives the government, and condoned by the head of state.

The ideological struggle of the war did not follow state borders. In the final battle for Berlin, "Germany" was defended by a lot of people born in other states. Beevor calls it the funeral pyre of rightwing extremism in Europe, a phrase I much like, even though it was not to be their funeral.

And once you bring it over you to get to this abstract level - push the atrocities that happened in the past into the back of your mind for a second and look toward what happens today and might happen tomorrow - you will realize that the German soldier on the Eastern Front, the US soldier in Baghdad, and the Israeli soldier guarding settlers in the "autonomy zones" of Palestine might have more in common than you'd like.

Most certainly. Though I do not see why you presume I do not feel they are the same men under other colours. People are people. Everywhere.

And once you are at that point, perhaps that enables you to judge certain statements - of those you flame as revisionists, and of those you call your leaders today - in a bit of a different light.

I have no leaders Leo, I have elected representatives. The age of the Leader has passed.

I have no faith in my elected representatives, thus I appreciate democratic control of all public institutions, including the armed forces. But I do have faith in my fellow man. And so I believe in democracy.

Like I write above - I do not believe in anything inherently German. The colour of a flag - random as it is - protects nobody from any affliction. Thus Abu Greib comes as anything but a surprise to me. Patriotism, chauvinism, fundamentalism and intolerance are as revolting to me in our time as they are when we find it in the past. It's all just a continuation of pre-industrail frame of mind, where people all belong to a collective - family, clan, village, whatever - and are defined by it. As an alibi.

That does not change anything concerning Steiners tag. Steiners posts are no problem. He posted those above in threads discussing the very matters he discussed. I merely wished to illustrate his use of Nazi rhetoric phrases in this thread, as people seemed unfamiliar with it. It is his tag, that is a problem here.

National Socialism is an ideology. It is not merely preying upon the everywhere commonplace patriotism, chauvinism, populism. There is an agenda, to rewrite history, to defame the scientific study of the past, to "correct" the description of the past so that it may fit another future than the one we are pursuing. Steiner is just another bookburner, pointing fingers at academic studies and branding them as "censored" whenever not confirming his views.

Perhaps the light of the "flame" exposed him then? I see him nowhere. It would appear he left you and the Holländer here to cover his flight, making much of this debate on values useless, since he is not part of it.

Sincerely

Dandelion

[bboyle]

The big problem is that any attempt to get an objective view on things is immediately smitten with the big hammer of "revisionism", "anti-Semitism" etc.

You are always allowed to err on the politically correct side - like, all Germans were Nazis, Germany was the sole nation at fault ever since 1914 - but never to the other side.

And even a differentiating view is frowned upon: That the Versailles treaty was never intended to create a peaceful neighbourhood of nations, that France and England missed a great many opportunities to stop Hitler early, that Europe of early 20th century was at large suspectible to "extreme" and/or instable forms of government (with even France having serious trouble stabilizing their democracy)... all this is true, all this is recorded history, and even then it makes me look like I'm sympathetic to the NSDAP, which I most assuredly am

Where do you live? I mean no disrespect but all of those views are pretty run-of-the-mill in the US (in the latter paragraph).

Where this intersects with Steiner is that his sig restates a clearly provocative quote that is demonstrably not true and meant to decieve the casual reader. As you can see below, I am not averse to provocative sigs but I believe that a deceptive, untruthful and clearly biased sig should be challenged. And when the poster has demonstrated his sympathetic opinions regarding the Nazi's and his post has anti-semitic overtones haven't we gone beyond the realm of a minor erring from one side or the other?

[painfbat]

Oke Guys, here we go, but for me it's the last time I spend some energy on Steiner.

In every democratic country I know freedom of speech is the most important thing people have. All those countries have their laws, and most are the same: You can say anything you want to say except......

Dandelion, I've haven't been reading al the stuff Steiner wrote, some of them I did, like what he wrote about the movies. He also wrote something about German language like the word SCHWEIN not being used by the german soldiers blabla. He probably has forgotten a picture with a woman:" Ich bin am Ort dass grosste Schwein...." You know what I mean.

I must say most of the things you and leopard 2 wrote I agree with very much. But ..... it doesn't change my way of thinking. As long as somebody talks between the lines of laws, they do have the freedom of speech everybody else has. So as long as Steiner doesn't say that we should kill, hurt or do whatever with Jews, negros, Indians etc. he has the right to say what he wants to say. And to use the tag he's using. Even if we know what he really means. If he really hate's Jews, but doesn't say it in the open, that means he's NOT behaving according to our democratic standards BUT IS behaving according to our laws.

And that gives him the right to speak out, protected by the laws that also protect us.

To me it's the same as people walking around with a communist flag. We all know what Stalin did with millions of Russians with a certain background, like muslims and mongols. We all know what Mao did to millions in China. Still people are marching around with communist flags. To me that flag or a Nazi-swastika is the same(I call it Nazi-swastika as the swastika-symbol is a normal symbol in my religion). Yet I don't fool around with their right of free speech. I don't agree with them, I don't believe them if they say they only want the "good" things from communisme, but in OUR world THEY have a right WE won't have in their world. It's the best sign to prove we believe in out ideals and are not scared losing our freedom to them.

On the other hand we should be glad, knowing what Steiner probably is all about. If we didn't have freedom of speech, we could have some very bad suprises meeting each other somewhere, say in an Indian restaurant.

I have a quote for Steiner, maybe he's willing to react on this one:

"Der National-sozialismus hat nicht nur die menschen sondern auch die Sprache vergewaltigt. Die Unsitte, Worte zu skalpieren und die verbliebenen Fetzen zu meist unverstandlichen Kunstausdrucken zu verknupfen, ist zwar fruher aufgekommen und durchaus keine deutsche Spezialitat... Daruber hinaus haben die Nationalsozialisten aber ein wahres Kauderwelsch militar-zackigen Klanges geschaffen.... Bei allen in diesem System ublich gewesen offiziellen Bezeichnungen konnte ich das Pidgin-Gestammel selbstverstandlich nicht in richtiges Deutsch ubersetzen."(dr. Eugen Kogon - " Der SS-Staat".

Maybe he's willing to read "Inside Hitler's Germany, Life under the Third Reich(Matthew Highes & Chris Mann).

As for my grandfather, he didn't get very old due to some heavy beating by Nazi's. However he's the one who told my father the importance of free speech. They told me. And I'll tell my little coloured girl.

Junk2Drive

I've been busy lately gathering some information about Fall Gelb in the Netherlands. Got some great help from a Dutch museum and the Army. I made an OP but it doesn't work like I want to. So I'm going to make the scenario's as battle's.

I been playing with your 1940 stuff. GREAT!!!

But.... Holiday first.

Behemoth, you hungry man,

The problem the 2 of us face at this moment is that I don't know the food your talking about.

I think 1 of the problems is that India has a few hundred's of diverent culture's with their own name for the same food. (Also the Roti my wife makes I couldn't find while on holiday in GOA.)

I don't know in which country you live, but the second problem is that, like with chinese restaurants, the names for food used in example Holland are diverent like the names in Spain.

Another example is: the Dutch-Indonesian people who came to Holland during the '50's had a nice vegetable dish called GADO-GADO. The first people from Indonesia who went to Surinam to work (after slavery stopped) took that same dish with them, but called it(like they still call it in Surinam)PITJEL.

So, if you tell my what's in the food you asked about, I can help you out. But we shouldn't be talking about food here. My e-mail adress is at my profile.

My wife tries to kill me, my daughter needs new dipers: I'm off.

Cheers

[K.A. Miles]

Just a little typo, but it appears that bboyle's quote above is missing the last word of Leopard's statement- "not" I'm not trying to nit-pick here, just didn't want anyone to be confused...

What is a revisionist? That may seem like a stupid question, but I have never run into this term before. I would assume that it defines someone who "revises" history.

Thanks for the help.

[Dandelion]

Your first impression is actually the correct one. Revisionist was a term among historians for a person providing an alternative interpretation of available evidence. This was a positive thing in historical research, or at least interesting.

However, travelling from that narrow sense into a wider audience in public debate, the term has come to mean a person providing an alternative interpretation of historical events in defiance of available evidence. Meaning there is no evidence at all, or evidence that cannot withstand critical examination. The first to be called revisionists in medias and such as I recall it, were people denying the holocaust. I seem to recall they called themselves this, initially.

The defiance, and lack of own evidence, is defended by a theory of a omnipotent power censoring and adjusting all existing evidence and influencing/coercing historians and other authors.

To Nazis (who are not the only guys doing this), this power is often referred to as ZOG, but many other terms are frequently used, and Nazis need not always be very familiar with Neo Nazi theory.

For a person with this belief (that public history is all lies), evading the lies of the omnipotent power and finding the Real Truth becomes critical. People not initiated in this hunt are either active or passive vessels of ZOG (or the traitorious German government, or the Victor Powers, etc). The passive ones are uninsightful and uninteresting, not realising the full extent of the conspiracy anyway. The active are Jews, a definition that has nothing to do with religion or ethniticity (which is how Stalin became a Jew to these people).

Books by authors denying the holocaust (or the defeat at Stalingrad, or that Hitler made mistakes etc), especially authors with academic degrees, are regarded as rare and precious artefacts that the ZOG is trying to eliminate. Existing books of other authors are read notwithstanding, but primarily in order to find clues of the actual events that took place, penetrating the lies. Maybe the authors have made mistakes, or left clues in the text. If I read that Hitler made a bad decision, I can create a theory that either it is a lie - say by finding a conflicting date somewhere and seeing in it a hole in the web of lies - or the mistake was actually made but then there must have been someone else appearing in the book who deceived him into doing it. Like Rommel, a faithless traitor.

The struggle to rewrite history recognises the power of history, and the idea is to control it. You know the way they do it in Orwells "1984", erasing recorded history in order to write new history, in which Big Brother was made eternal and so on. The Nazis are aware that as long as they are associated with the things they are associated with today, there is no road back to power. As a counter-image, they have developed a picture of themselves as victims of aggression, oppression and persecution. Responsible are of course the Jews.

This all probably sounds lunatic to you. And it is of course. But while the notion of public information being all lies and a huge conspiracy may sound bizarre it is not so alien to the German citizens who joined us just a decade or so ago, having spent half a century in a totalitarian state not at all unlike Nazi Germany in structure. With falsified history books and suppressed domestic debate. And Zero years in a democratic state. Our domestic problems with revisionism and right wing extremism has seen a sharp rise after the reunion. You might have noted that Steiner, Leo and I, like Andreas and Schörner who clashed over the same issues, have something in common. Though an issue in all countries, it is perhaps an issue of some intensity in ours.

Cheerio

Dandelion

[Europa]

Why isn't this thread locked?

[Dandelion]

Why would it be?

[K.A. Miles]

Thanks for your detailed response, Dandelion. It is obvious that your knowledge and understanding far exceeds my own. Your English is so good, you are almost hard to understand. LOL

To me, it is interesting to note the opinions of present-day German citizens. We hear our own "Allied" version over here in the US, but it tends to be somewhat- well, "Allied". I have no German ancestors that I know of, and I'm definitely no Nazi- but it is nice to hear both sides of the story.

We have similiar issues over here in the US, emotionally charged issues, involving our civil war 1861-1865. I don't want to confuse the issue more (fellow Americans, don't get me going... LOL)

[Dandelion]

Ah. I just found the other Steiner-sig debate in CMAK - and the Steiner-sig thread locked by Admin in CMAK. See what you mean.

[junk2drive]

KA

You mean the War of Northern Aggression?

To remove States rights?

With slavery as an excuse.

Does history repeat itself?

BTW I was born and raised in the North.

[K.A. Miles]

Yes, forgive me, War of Northern Aggression. I wasn't quite sure the international community would understand that term.

That's funny, I lived in Illinois for seven years! It doesn't matter where you live or who you are, the truth can be found.

Not quite sure I understand the repetitive history remark, but I think I agree.

Esse Quam Videri!

Deo Vindice!

[junk2drive]

My wife is from Glen Ellen.

"Not quite sure I understand the repetitive history remark, but I think I agree."

Some people (not me) think Bush made up an excuse to invade Iraq.

The next states rights battle will be over medical cannibus. Alaska wants to totally legalise it.

[Leopard_2]

Europa wrote:

Why isn't this thread locked?

Because, just for once, the mods decided that initial disagreement and flame-festing could actually turn into better understanding of each other, removing of misconceptions, and agreement.

At least, I hope they did this intentionally (instead of just missing it), because it would be a nice change from the usual, rather oppressive MO that leaves far too many threads locked before the involved parties could even get to the point.

Dandelions later posts, for example, changed how I perceived his point of view significantly. If it weren't for junk2drive's really off-the-mark last two posts, this could be a point of putting this discussion to rest without having a mod interfere, and with something the casual reader could think about.

@ Dandelion:

Very good posts there, and something to think about. I was very much afraid this thread would fall for the usual "hijacked thread" and "close it!" cries before the good and sound arguments come on the table.

That even Hitler confessed it was all a horrible mistake is, for once then, ignored.

He later confessed that his order was a mistake... but that "binding of forces" was what made him give it in the first place IIRC.

Steiner also mentions the need to defend Europe. He feels it is left unmentioned in the movie. And it is, since the movie is about an unprovoked assault on the Soviet Union.

That's what we know today it was. Do you think the soldiers on the Eastern Front had their knowledge from today's history books? Or rather from the propaganda they were fed? They (or, most of them) surely did believe in their "epic" struggle to "defend" their homeland now that the war was on.

I am afraid we have no conclusive figures on political opinion in Germany after the NSDAP was invited to form a government.

There have been several votes taken e.g. after Austria or Czechia (sp?), which showed overwhelming support for the Nazis. Granted, those weren't exactly democratic votes as we understand the term today, and heavily influenced by a state-controlled media, but nevertheless.

I do not believe in any "objective" reality at all. That word is always used by people preaching their personal beliefs. History is not objective science, you cannot repeat experiment or prove a thesis. Even the evidence at hand - documentation - is subjective and vulnerable to manipulation and personal interpretation. Lack of documentation - or lack of research - make all academic work on history incomplete and subject to future re-evaluation.

What I intended to point out that any such re-evaluation that even just tries to explain e.g. motives of German soldiers very quickly becomes subject of revisionism blames. (Like any criticism on today's Israeli government gets smitten as "anti-Semitic" even when it has nothing to do with race or religion or whatever.)

You'll probably not face any such blames if trying to explain that General Harris and 8th bomber fleet didn't intend to hit civilians, or that the Germans as a people were especially warlike. A case of double-standards, in my eyes - which doesn't excuse Steiner's more extreme utterings.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

You are always allowed to err on the politically correct side - like, all Germans were Nazis, Germany was the sole nation at fault ever since 1914 - but never to the other side.

Now you are contradicting yourself You said before that Germans portrayed as believing in the Nazi cause is never portrayed, and now you say it is generally accepted to portray all Germans as believing in that cause.

</font>

[Moon]

OK, locking this as it went *slightly* off-topic. As stated before, the issue with Steiner's sig will be solved by us, the admins. Locking this.

Martin