Explosion near the German Embassy in Afghanistan.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Their empire spanned the globe through conquest and committed horrible atrocities.

As do all empires, including the Mughal Empire that controlled most of Indian before the British, the Russian Empire that brutally subjugated vast tracts of Asia, and the Ottoman Empire () that controlled most of the Middle East for 400 years. The brief-lived Japanese Empire far surpassed the British Empire in number of people killed under its rule, with the Japanese responsible for the lion's share of the 20 million Chinese killed in the Second Sino-Japanese War and WWII alone.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

We are arguing 2 different things. I was just pointing out that Germany didn't declare war the world. Germany was doing something abhorrent and the most of the world went to war against Germany and their allies.

Britain on the other hand, over the course of about 200 years, did more to literally declare war all over the world. Their empire spanned the globe through conquest and committed horrible atrocities.

They invaded Poland and then France.

The fact that the Allied countries actually 'declared war' on them is entirely a point of semantics.

Comparing English imperialism with unbridled military conquest and genocide is probably an argument you should stop attempting to make.

[Enoch Root]

By the way... I heard rumours of a terrorist bombing in Afghanistan. Is that true?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

They invaded Poland and then France.

The fact that the Allied countries actually 'declared war' on them is entirely a point of semantics.

Comparing English imperialism with unbridled military conquest and genocide is probably an argument you should stop attempting to make.

It's not semantics when my reply was to this:

Germans decided to go to war. And who did they go to war with? The world.

That simply isn't true. Germany was expansionist within Europe and purchased a couple of African colonies that they didn't really do much with.

And again, you probably shouldn't sanitize British Imperialism history. They had the same white man superiority syndrome that the Germans had.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's not semantics when my reply was to this:



That simply isn't true. Germany was a expansionist within Europe and purchased a couple of African colonies that they didn't really do much with.

And again, you probably shouldn't sanitize British Imperialism history. They had the same white man superiority syndrome that the Germans had.

But Germany DID decide to go to war. That is kind of implied when you keep blitzkrieging all your neighbouring countries.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's not semantics when my reply was to this:



That simply isn't true. Germany was a expansionist within Europe and purchased a couple of African colonies that they didn't really do much with.

And again, you probably shouldn't sanitize British Imperialism history. They had the same white man superiority syndrome that the Germans had.

I just won't stand for someone saying we can't learn our history from Norm MacDonald. A comedian.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

But Germany DID decide to go to war. That is kind of implied when you keep blitzkrieging all your neighbouring countries.

True. And Iraq decided to invade Kuwait, which sparked an international coalition against him. That is not the same as declaring war on the world. It's not a matter of semantics at all, it's a matter of being historically accurate.

History is just a spinning wheel of people killing other people. The Germans aren't pathologically worse than any other group. Their turn with the stick just happened to be at a point in history where technology and politics were at a crossroads.

Originally Posted by nik-

I just won't stand for someone saying we can't learn our history from Norm MacDonald. A comedian.

That was only part of the argument though. It was being suggested that Germany in general is a bad example when it comes to leadership. Like any group of people in the world are. I just find it ironic and sad that most of the Anglo world forgets their checkered past.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

True. And Iraq decided to invade Kuwait, which sparked an international coalition against him. That is not the same as declaring war on the world. It's not a matter of semantics at all, it's a matter of being historically accurate.

History is just a spinning wheel of people killing other people. The Germans aren't pathologically worse than any other group. Their turn with the stick just happened to be at a point in history where technology and politics were at a crossroads.



That was only part of the argument though. It was being suggested that Germany in general is a bad example when it comes to leadership. Like any group of people in the world are. I just find it ironic and sad that most of the Anglo world forgets their checkered past.

It's a bit of a different thing though when you invade a country like France and know that, their neighbor, England is backing them, and like 1/2 of the world is technically a part of France and England. Then you invade the USSR. And your ally invades China and the USA.

Also, the Iraq war didn't have front all over the world, so it was not a world war despite involvement from many nations.

[peter12]

Is this madness still going on?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by blankall

It's a bit of a different thing though when you invade a country like France and know that, their neighbor, England is backing them, and like 1/2 of the world is technically a part of France and England. Then you invade the USSR. And your ally invades China and the USA.

Also, the Iraq war didn't have front all over the world, so it was not a world war despite involvement from many nations.

Fair enough, if you are saying that Germany drew the world to war and ought to have known. Just sayin', when Britain occupied and diverted food from India to feed their army and directly cause a famine which claimed at least 4 million lives, and their leader (Churchill) says it was deserved/justified because; "They are beastly people who breed like rabbits...", the lack of a systematic plan doesn't make it less inhumane or more righteous.

[Flash Walken]

I think we can all agree, Holocaust or no, the Nazis were the best dressed of WW2.

Talk about meticulous

The M36 tunic still retained the traditional Imperial and Reichswehr uniform color of grey-green "field gray" (feldgrau)[1] wool, but incorporated four front patch pockets with scalloped flaps and pleats (on Reichswehr tunics the lower pockets were internal and angled). The front was closed with five buttons rather than the previous eight, and the collar and shoulder straps were of a dark bottle-green instead of the Reichswehr grey. Compared to the Weimar-era uniforms the skirt of the feldbluse was shorter and the tailoring was more form-fitting due to Germany's adoption of mechanized warfare: soldiers now spent much time in the confined space of a vehicle and a shorter jacket was less likely to pick up dirt from the seats.[2] It also included an internal suspension system, whereby a soldier could hang an equipment belt on a series of hooks outside of the tunic. These hooks were connected to two straps inside the lining, which spread the weight of equipment without having to use external equipment suspenders. The M36 was produced and issued until the very end of the war, though successive patterns became predominant.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Fair enough, if you are saying that Germany drew the world to war and ought to have known. Just sayin', when Britain occupied and diverted food from India to feed their army and directly cause a famine which claimed at least 4 million lives, and their leader (Churchill) says it was deserved/justified because; "They are beastly people who breed like rabbits...", the lack of a systematic plan doesn't make it less inhumane or more righteous.

I don't want to get in trouble in the other thread for talking about history too much, but "ought to have known"?

Not only did Germany know they were dragging the world into war, it was their intention for some time. This is not simply my opinion, there is all kinds of documentation on this.

WW2 is one of the most studied and documented events in human history - if not the most documented. And you just keep making things up on the subject - in order to try and paint the English as worse, I presume.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by blankall

This is a dumb thing to argue about....

Agreed, and it wasn't really even an argument, I was just trying to explain it to Locke since he seemed to be struggling. My point was that saying it was the "meticulous" nature that made the Holocaust rise above Japan/Rwanda/etc etc was incorrect, considering the planning was no more meticulous than countless other genocides. Mel's point was a good one, and nik's interpretation of Peter's point was a bad one (or Peter's point was a bad one and nik nailed it).

Essentially all genocides and mass killings take planning. Deciding 1/3 way through killing millions of people that you're going to have a meeting and decide to just take them from the camps, ship them to other camps, and use your chemical weapons on them to speed up the process hardly makes the nazis some modern marvel. If there's any argument there, it's that people give the nazis too much intellectual credit to add to their fantasy of the horror.

Either way I guess any "argument" is bound to be dumb when people scoff at the idea of reading a book by the top scholar on the subject who was also actually there. I assume they just watched Schindler's List and were satisfied. Nik's response of "ok," was probably the most sufficient response to my statement.

EDIT: I posted this before I saw the whole WRGMG thing. Sorry jayswin!

[nik-]

the salt

[PepsiFree]

I'm as salty as the old man and the sea

(A bad reference to another of those "book" things, btw.)

[nik-]

Too bad the Nazis didn't put all that documenting of their processes in exterminating people in a book. Maybe then it would be relevant.

Alas.

[PepsiFree]

Yeah, and can you imagine if someone found that book in WW2, interpreted it, and spent his whole life studying and teaching the contents of it? Maybe even put it in his own book meant to spread that authoritative knowledge to anyone who can read?

What a snoozer that would be. Yawn!

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah, and can you imagine if someone found that book in WW2, interpreted it, and spent his whole life studying and teaching the contents of it? Maybe even put it in his own book meant to spread that authoritative knowledge to anyone who can read?

What a snoozer that would be. Yawn!

We get it. But PepsiFree, it's not like this is the only book ever written on the subject. It might even be the case that some other books, and scholars on the subject, have differing views and interpretations.

[nik-]

It's legitimately hilarious how you're missing the forest for the trees.

The fact that he had all these documents to go through pretty much proves the point here.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nik-

It's legitimately hilarious how you're missing the forest for the trees.

The fact that he had all these documents to go through pretty much proves the point here.

What point? I honestly didn't think you had one.

Ze Germans wrote stuff down, thus was born the evil invention of: government record keeping