EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

"Hero" Double Standard

< Return to subforum
Page: 12Most Recent
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jul 20 2015 1:09 PM
We consider a British soldier who went onto the field and risked death to fight German soldiers a hero. A German during WWII who does the same is considered a dirty Nazi who needed to be put down. A Union soldier who died at Gettysburg is considered a hero. A Confederate soldier who dies at Gettysburg is considered a traitor and a racist who got what he deserved.

People tend to consider only those who fought for worthy causes or the "right side" to be heroic. And I don't think that's fair. Most Wehrmacht personnel didn't kill Jews. Many were just soldiers who wanted to fight for their country. Most Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, and they wanted to protect the South from the coming Yankees.

Heroism and valor shouldn't be determined by your uniform. It should be decided by your deeds and character.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jul 20 2015 2:02 PM
Dassault Papillon: I think Heroes have a strong sense of moral fiber and integrity. I agree that a man shouldn't be judged by his uniform, just as I don't believe every man in a uniform is a hero.

I made a thread about Rommel that would of fit well with this post. Erwin Rommel was a brilliant German tactician, who was outside the Nazi party and ignored orders from German high command to kill Jewish POW's. Many Allied generals and leaders held great respect for Rommel.

Does all this absolve him from the fact that he fought knowingly for a dictator who was actively implementing diabolical plans? I believe that a hero would of actively worked against Hitler, even if it meant taking up arms for the other side, while a villain would of worked with Hitler to carry out his plans despite how evidently wrong they were. Erwin Rommel didn't do either of those two things. He believed that the Nazis were going to lose the war, and he was hopeful that Hitler would of been persecuted for war crimes, but he still continued to fight the allies.

Many Nazi generals were heroes over the course of the war, such as the one who turned over plans for the invasion of Czechoslovakia to the Nazi resistance. I don't need to say that the Nazi party produced a large amount of villains as well.

I don't know where the people outside the spectrum stand. It was evident that a lot of people in Rommel's shoes were tied up to the war, and it wasn't as simple as sending in a letter of resignation. Does standing by and doing nothing when horrible deeds are being committed to others make you a bad person?
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jul 20 2015 2:04 PM
In actuality, Rommel most likely helped the allies more than he hindered them, but that is for another time.
admin
By admin | Jul 22 2015 7:49 AM
Dassault Papillon: I agree. We should honor WW2 German anti-war movements, sure. People do. Why then can't we honor American anti-war movements? Nobody praises the pacifists on the winning side.

I feel like I don't fall for this double standard at least by not particularly honoring soldiers who fought on either side, in general, and praising anti-war movements on both sides.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jul 22 2015 8:22 AM
admin: You have a point. While many anti-war people are just wimps/cowards, many are standing up for what they believe in, and on occasion it is more heroic to refuse to fight than it is to fight.
Dassault Papillon
By Dassault Papillon | Jul 22 2015 8:26 AM
Perhaps "coward" is too strong a word, though. It's human nature to be at least somewhat cowardly, and there'd be something wrong with you if you actually wanted to go out onto a field and get your head blown off.
I've obviously had no experience with war, and as a result I don't know how I'd react to it. So I should use the coward label sparingly.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jul 22 2015 4:24 PM
admin: Hard to do. The crux of pacifist rallies were happening among high knowledge of the holocaust and Hitler's other extermination plans. The level of atrocities and war crimes being committed were astounding, and Hitler was in a position of shaping the entire realm of geopolitics for future generations almost completely unopposed by countries to self involved in personal cowardice to raise up arms until the allies were winning in 1944.

I can't praise people who willingly left others to do their fighting for them. It is the worst kind of cowardice, the sickening kind. They said it over and over again, if you let everyone fall in the fighting, there will be no one to fight on your behalf.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jul 22 2015 4:38 PM
Perhaps "coward" is too strong a word, though. It's human nature to be at least somewhat cowardly, and there'd be something wrong with you if you actually wanted to go out onto a field and get your head blown off.
WW2 killed tens of millions of soldiers. Think of it this way, if a general sent 100,000 men on an offensive during WW2, oftentimes only an extremely small fraction of those men would come back alive. So yeah, the people fighting in major battles on the front lines such as Kursk, Stalingrad, Rome, Kasserine Pass, and Paris, were fully aware that they were most likely going to be killed, but they held the line anyways.

Not everyone though. A lot of soldiers fled rather than fight, and during the early years of the war even surrended. Unfortunately for those who surrendered, they would of been better off killing themselves had they known what fate awaited them upon being captured by the Nazis. Also many of those who fled during the early years would not of done so had they known that the Nazis were already sending death squads to exterminate slavic peoples and communists.

Completely separate from the Holocaust on the Jews, Hitler sent SS into Russia that would exterminate entire towns and villages behind Axis lines. A couple million Russians died this way. In the Czechoslovakia, the Nazi governorship had executed 75% of the Czech and Slovak intellectual community. In France, the military government also ordered the execution of any socialists, communists, liberals, nationalists, intellectuals, ect.

By 1941 every nation was fully justified to declare war on Germany, having knowledge of Nazi atrocities and warcrimes and numerous extermination plans that were incredibly diabolical. The people who didn't fight and contribute to the war effort were definitely not heroes. The least they could of done was keep silent, instead of trying to invert nations into a backwards time of isolation.
admin
By admin | Jul 22 2015 8:22 PM
Blackflag: All that makes the assumption that a military solution is the best solution. A coward hides behind a machine gun or a giant bomb. It takes more bravery to stand up to something like that unarmed, with peace in place of war. That photograph of the one Chinese man who stood up to the tanks at Tiananmen Square is a simple example. I'm ashamed every time my country goes to war. Those soldiers can do as they please, but they are not fighting on my behalf. I don't want ANYONE fighting on my behalf.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
admin
By admin | Jul 22 2015 8:25 PM
Blackflag: In fairness, the rest of the world also gave Germany ample reasons to fight. Pretty much the only country who was really actively LOOKING for a war was Japan. I mean, if this is all about the treatment of prisoners, I'd argue Germany was not significantly worse than the US. Concentration camps weren't exactly unique to Germany.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jul 22 2015 10:33 PM
admin: No, but Germany was the only nation torturing, executing, and exterminating prisoners of war. Not defending the US internment camps, but the conditions were a lot better than in a German concentration camp. No forced labor, no gas chambers, no refocusing. You could walk around freely and were fed three meals a day, whereas in a German concentration camp you would get a tenth of a piece of bread every few days.

I also don't know how you can say Germany wasn't looking for war. They were aggressors. They invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland for reasons that were entirelyu blownh out of proportion and propagated by the Nazi Party. They actively used intelligence to frame France, the Soviets, Poland, and various other nations for an eventual declaration of war.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jul 22 2015 10:37 PM
German plans to bring oppressive national socialism to the rest of Europe, various extermination plans uncovered by British agents, death squads active in both Russia and Africa. I would say by 1941, the Allies had a LOT more justification for their side of the war than the Nazi's claims of ethnic purity and uniting all of Europe under a master race. Have you seen the pre-WW2 propaganda the Nazis published?
admin
By admin | Jul 22 2015 10:49 PM
Blackflag: Funnily enough I seem to remember Germany didn't launch a full Polish invasion until after the allies declared war. In fact most allied countries officially declared war before Germany did. Hitler was a strong nationalist. He had no intention of ruling peoples he deemed inferior, and much of his policy was about removing them from Germany. When unable to do so because of the war, he put them into camps. When losses in the war meant supplies were short, he fed them less and eventually decided to kill them.

A simple case in point would be the Jews, whom Hitler scapegoated for just about everything. "The Eternal Jew" makes this clear. Nonetheless the NAZIs were actually really, really strong Zionists. They were regularly shipping Jews to Israel before the war. Why? Because they were national socialists, with extra emphasis on the "national". NAZIs believed the Jewish domination over other races was abhorrent, and that mixed-racial identity (an idea the English had basically made up during the Victorian era) was ruining societies. Obviously it made sense then for the NAZIs to support shipping the Jews to some worthless patch of desert and allowing them to fend for themselves there, rather than bothering them in Europe. Other Jews were shipped to Madagascar for similar reasons.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jul 22 2015 11:40 PM
Funnily enough I seem to remember Germany didn't launch a full Polish invasion until after the allies declared war
Your memory escapes you. France and the United Kingdom signed a guarantee of Poland's independence after they were informed of the military buildup and preparations taking place along the border. This agreement didn't exist with Czechoslovakia. It was a clear warning that if Germany invaded Poland, they would be bound by treaty to declare war. Germany ended up invading.

In fact most allied countries officially declared war before Germany did
Sure, and they were fully justified doing so. Especially after the numerous war-crimes that had occurred scaling up to 1943 and 1944, which is when much of the international community declared war.

He had no intention of ruling peoples he deemed inferior
No, he planned on exterminating them. Read his plans for General Government and the early drafts for a Slavic final solution. He was planning on recolonizing over Europe with ethnic Aryans after exterminating inferior races.

When unable to do so because of the war, he put them into camps. When losses in the war meant supplies were short, he fed them less and eventually decided to kill them.
History revisionism. They were never fed well, and they were always being tortured, and they were always being killed, although the killings weren't en masse until 1943 when Hitler enacted the final solution. Look up Daschau and the concentration camps that were created alongside it before the war, and even during the early years of the war. Hitler had always planned on mass extermination, he wrote two entire books on it.

Nonetheless the NAZIs were actually really, really strong Zionists. They were regularly shipping Jews to Israel before the war.
Oh my god, this is the stupidest thing you've ever said. It sounds mean when I say that, but its true, this is just retarded and made my day. I'm sorry, but its true, no offense.

Anyways, back to reality. No, Hitler never planned on "shipping" away the Jews. They were abused in society. Germans and eventually the Italians under Nazi party pressure, were taught that Jews were sub human, and evil. He had talked of the final solution in his books, it was a hot policy issue among many Nazi politicos, and was eventually carried out in 1943, but drafted as early as 1941.

Stop being a Nazi apologist. Befoe you react, an apologist isn't someone who defends the obvious evil, but defends them and tries to paint them to be less abhorrent than they actually were. News flash, the Nazis were actually abominable, and they did have plans to kill most of humanity. I'm sorry if that imposes on your 'No war ever!" ideals, but you can't change the facts.
admin
By admin | Jul 23 2015 12:41 AM
Blackflag: Germany didn't invade Poland, they occupied Polish territories. Subtle difference.

No, he planned on exterminating them
Source?

They were never fed well, and they were always being tortured, and they were always being killed, although the killings weren't en masse until 1943 when Hitler enacted the final solution.
Other POW were also not fed well. I'm not defending the NAZIs, I'm just saying war against them was unjustified. Ghettos would have been emptied far more readily had Hitler been able to send his undesirables away.

Hitler had always planned on mass extermination, he wrote two entire books on it.
Hitler only published two books. I've read both. Neither of them directly references mass extermination. The unpublished one hints at the idea, Mein Kampf doesn't at all. Both are primarily on a totally different topic.

No, Hitler never planned on "shipping" away the Jews.
Yes he did. And in fact he was in the process of doing so already when the war broke out. More details on that program if you're interested: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_Weber.html

I would gladly debate you on this, but by now I'm certain you'd forfeit in the light of overwhelming evidence that you're wrong.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jul 23 2015 5:48 AM
Germany didn't invade Poland, they occupied Polish territories. Subtle difference.
??? Him and the Boshleviks took the entire country from the Poles ???

I don't see any difference.

Source?
What, so you can blatantly deny my sources in your quest to revise history? I have about 300 sources which all discuss Generalplan Ost, you can't bullshit that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

Hitlers much talked about New World Order came in the form of erasing anyone who wasn't German. Generalplan_Ost had several draft plans that preceded it. This was the most diabolical and the one Hitler approved.

Also the Nazis killed 13.5 million Soviet citizens indiscriminately during and after Operation Barbarossa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_Russia

Hitler only published two books. I've read both. Neither of them directly references mass extermination. The unpublished one hints at the idea, Mein Kampf doesn't at all. Both are primarily on a totally different topic.
Why did you read Mein Kampf and Zweites Buch? Hitler actually wrote three books by the way, I am sure if you had ACTUALLY been so involved in Hitler to have read two of his books, you would of known he had wrote three.

Yes he did. And in fact he was in the process of doing so already when the war broke out. More details on that program if you're interested:
First of all, never use that source again. Seriously, that site drives me crazy because it is so partisan dominated.

Anyways, I am sure Hitler considered propoasals for forcible removal of Jews to different countries. Your article definitely makes clear that Hitler was proposed such offers from a National Socialist backed Zionist group.

I think the real question is whether the Jewish race would be allowed to exist in a Nazi dominated world. I doubt it.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jul 23 2015 5:55 AM
You almost imply that Hitlers hand was forced when he organized the Holocaust which killed 12 million people in your other post.

I really don't like to hear you say that. Accounts vary, but it is believed that Hitler ordered the deaths of over 30 million people in his cleanse for a New World Order DURING WW2. Think of all the other killings separate of Hitler that National Socialist party generals had carried out.

I just don't get how you can be a Nazi apologist, blatantly denying the proofs of his diabolical plans, while giving the ones which can't be denied a PR blitz.
admin
By admin | Jul 23 2015 7:13 AM
Blackflag: ??? Him and the Boshleviks took the entire country from the Poles ???
No. At that stage war had already been declared by the allies AND the Germans. You've got your timeline mixed up.

What, so you can blatantly deny my sources in your quest to revise history?
You have cited a grand total of zero so far. Your very first source is in the sentence directly after this one.

I have about 300 sources which all discuss Generalplan Ost
Oh right, good going ... the nazi plan for what to do with the russians once russia was conquered. Something which Germany only saw as necessary because there was a giant war going on, and frankly, Russia hated Germany almost as much as Germany hated Russia. Planned atrocities during a war are hardly an argument for fighting a war. If there had been no fighting, Russia would never have been conquered. The original Nazi Lebensraum ideal was far from anywhere covered by Generalplan Ost.

Hitlers much talked about New World Order came in the form of erasing anyone who wasn't German.
Four problems with this:
1) Generalplan Ost specifically dealt with Soviet lands (hence the OST part of the name), not all other races
2) The plan did not call for the deaths of everyone who wasn't German even in those locations
3) The plan was a consequence of a war that you're defending here - I don't think the war should have started at all
4) The plan wasn't designed for population control at all, but rather Germanic colonization, deaths being a necessary consequence of this

Also the Nazis killed 13.5 million Soviet citizens indiscriminately during and after Operation Barbarossa.
Pretty sure that's the total civilian deaths from Soviet territories. I seem to remember it was more like 7 or 8 million killed indiscriminately... the rest were from the rather large famine/disease outbreak (which plagued the rest of Russia as well and was thus a consequence of the war), or discriminate killing. Either way, I'm not defending Nazi actions at all. There were some real psychos among them. I'm just saying that war was not the best way to deal with them. If anything, I think the war made the nazi psycho-ism more prominent.

Why did you read Mein Kampf and Zweites Buch?
I actually read Zweites Buch first, I saw it in a bookshop in 2011 during my second year of uni and decided to pick it up out of curiosity. Did not regret. Hitler managed to get me interested about 40s politics quite well. My brother, who studies international relations, leant me a copy of Mein Kampf after a dinner table discussion about all this kind of thing one time (can't remember when I actually read it).

if you had ACTUALLY been so involved in Hitler to have read two of his books, you would of known he had wrote three.
I don't care much about Hitler. I care more about political management theory.

I believe Hitler's "third book" was a set of unpublished manuscripts he never really completed. Correct me if I'm wrong.

First of all, never use that source again.
Says the person whose only source is wikipedia. I mean, I could probably have cited Mahmoud Abbas' thesis, but given some of your other comments in here you'd probably consider that a general anti-zionist view rather than the specific and well-researched paper that it was (besides, I couldn't find it online).

Anyways, I am sure Hitler considered propoasals for forcible removal of Jews to different countries.
Not just considered. Actively enacted. Again, Hitler was a nationalist. Hence why he felt that, for example, if Russia had to become part of Germany, it had to be settled by Germans. Each country should have their own race in the nazi philosophy. It's the same as the age-old Victorian notion. Heck, that's why "She: A History of Adventure" became one of the most widely published books in world history.

I think the real question is whether the Jewish race would be allowed to exist in a Nazi dominated world.
I think the real question is whether there should be a war at all. And if not, why people should fight in it. I would never risk my life for something unless I know there cannot possibly be another way. And in this particular case, I think fighting a war is precisely one of the best ways to bring about Nazi domination.

I don't think the Nazis were, in general, considering world domination until the war started.

You almost imply that Hitlers hand was forced when he organized the Holocaust which killed 12 million people in your other post.
Pretty sure the Holocaust is only about 6 million. Still, really huge mind-boggling number.

Hitler's hand wasn't forced. Difference between being forced into something because of circumstance and choosing something because of circumstance. Either way, best not to be in that circumstance if that something is undesirable. Holocaust was awful, there's no denying that. But to me the WAR is a bigger tragedy than the Holocaust. Not just because I don't think the Holocaust would have happened if the war had not started, but also because war always brings about terrible cost of human life. As the quote goes, any scourge is preferable to it.
I'm the main developer for the site. If you have any problems, ideas, questions or concerns please send me a message.
Let's revive the forums!
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jul 23 2015 9:09 AM
No. At that stage war had already been declared by the allies AND the Germans. You've got your timeline mixed up.
You have your timeline mixed up. Germany invaded than the allies declared war.

Oh right, good going ... the nazi plan for what to do with the russians once russia was conquered.
What? Do you read anything I give you?

General Plan East was the first stage in the final solution for the Poles, Russians, Czechs, Slovakians, Ukrainians, Litgurians, ect.
It was approved by Hitler. Had it been carried out it would of resulted in the deaths of close to 50 million people. God knows how many would of died under step two.

1) Generalplan Ost specifically dealt with Soviet lands (hence the OST part of the name), not all other races
That is absolutely untrue. General Plan East dealt with all areas currently under German occupation.

2) The plan did not call for the deaths of everyone who wasn't German even in those locations
No, it was step one in the Slavic final solution. It called for the deaths of 50% of Czechs, 75% of Russians, 75% of Poles, and 80% of Ukrainians.

3) The plan was a consequence of a war that you're defending here - I don't think the war should have started at all
1) Hitler was not forced to enact a Slavic final solution

2) This was brought up because you denied my evidence that the the majority of allies who entered the war in 1943-1944 had ample war justification.

The plan wasn't designed for population control at all, but rather Germanic colonization, deaths being a necessary consequence of this
Yes, Hitler wanted to kill 50 million people not out of hate, but out of necessity.

Pretty sure that's the total civilian deaths from Soviet territories. I seem to remember it was more like 7 or 8 million killed indiscriminately
No, it is 13.5 million. They were killed by the SS and Nazi death squads. Captured settlements were either put to work or killed, just as they did in the labor camps.

I believe Hitler's "third book" was a set of unpublished manuscripts he never really completed. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I think you are thinking of Zweites Buch. It was never officially published by Hitler, and was a series of manuscripts he wrote in prison.

Says the person whose only source is wikipedia.
As I said, there are hundreds of sources on General Plan East and the holocaust.

Not just considered. Actively enacted. Again, Hitler was a nationalist. Hence why he felt that, for example, if Russia had to become part of Germany, it had to be settled by Germans. Each country should have their own race in the nazi philosophy.
Dude, you really didn't read Hitlers books. He talks of gaining revenge on all the gentile races, most of all being the Slavics. He wanted extermination.
Either way, Hitlers nationalist philosophy does not justify the killings of Soviet citizens.

I think the real question is whether there should be a war at all. And if not, why people should fight in it. I would never risk my life for something unless I know there cannot possibly be another way. And in this particular case, I think fighting a war is precisely one of the best ways to bring about Nazi domination.
I would agree had Hitler not started the war. He talked in Mein Kampf about conquering Europe and establishing a new world order. You said you had read his book, but it is clear that you did not.

Pretty sure the Holocaust is only about 6 million. Still, really huge mind-boggling number.
It is 12 million. 6 million people killed in the holocaust were jews. The other 6 million were Gypsies, Homosexuals, Poles, ect.

But to me the WAR is a bigger tragedy than the Holocaust. Not just because I don't think the Holocaust would have happened if the war had not started, but also because war always brings about terrible cost of human life. As the quote goes, any scourge is preferable to it.
Going to war and fighting were conscious personal decision. People choose to subject themselves to the horrors of war and bloodshed in order to combat greater evils that take place during peacetime. Don't pity the people who sacrificed their lives, whether they left the war alive or dead. I guarantee you they don't want their pity, and none of the people subjected to Nazi fascism want your pity either.
Blackflag
By Blackflag | Jul 23 2015 3:20 PM
bump
Page: 12Most Recent