/sci/ - Science & Math

no most of the real NAzis wanted to join the SS :) but ofc some of them was nazi but you are mainly right only 50% of so in german people even voted for hitler and you have to rmember many of them was hit by very hard propagada hope this helps -JDO (not a nazi) not that social hehe :P

wrong or not, your teacher is a dick, unless you acted like a dick. actually your teacher would be a dick anyhow.

>>5214165

you were absolutely correct that this was a case of Special Relativity. Was your Physics instructor perhaps just making a joke at your expense?

>>5214185

He was probably mad that a student was calling him/her out on that bullshit.

Most teachers feel superior to their students and hate being contradicted.

It depends on who you ask.

Daniel Goldhagen wrote a book entitled "Hitler's Willing Executioners", in which he details how systemic antismetism among Germans which went back to the middle ages was responsible for the Holocaust. In his theory, all Germans were directly responsible for the killings, and not just the Nazi elite. For evidence he gives first hand accounts taken from reports and diaries of members of the 'police squads', not the SS or SA, but general civilian reserves who went around committing systemic murder.

His book was horrendously popular in Germany during the 90s and early 00s. He went on their talk shows, gave public presentations, and was a national icon.

If you ask an actual historian, they will almost universally respond that allegiance to the Nazi party (pre 1934) came mostly from certain segments of the population who were dissatisfied with the government of the time, conservative country-folk, and young men desperate for something to believe in.

After Hitler had complete power, all Members of the Wehrmacht were technically politically affiliated, because they all had to swear a loyalty oath directly to Hitler, not to Germany or an office, or even a Party, but to Hitler himself.

In fact, Hitler had Erst Rohm, the head of the SA, assassinated for his continued pushing for a Nazi party military. The reason being that a Party based military could have competed with the office of the Fuhrer for absolute power, and Hitler wanted to avoid this at all costs.

So, you really need to be more specific. like most things historically, it isn't just black and white.

>>5214165
>blaming the whole german military for war crimes in WWII instead of the nazi party's special corps like the SS was an ignorant action.

And what about blaming Wehrmacht for its own war crimes?

>>5214231
What a redundant statement, war crimes is.
War is a crime, where do people get the self righteous ability to judge which section of war is better or worse?

>>5214234
>War is a crime

Really? So if I invade you, and you defend yourself, you're a criminal?

>>5214234

International treaties on what is and what is not allowed in a time of war.

Generally, killing enemy soldiers - A-ok
Killing civilians - Not cool.
Killing enemy soldiers in a needlessly painful manner - Ehh, kinda a dick move.
Killing civilians for kicks/ideology/to wipe them out - Seriously guys.

Clausewitz said that war "...is the continuation of politics by other means." The idea of Total War, of fighting an opponent only because you want to completely and utterly wipe him out, is a very recent development, coming with the First World War.

>>5214237
Fine, I guess I should talk less vague.
The act of violence in any manner is a harmful, destructive act in itself.
I don't mean to say that it's bad to defend yourself from harm, I'm just saying that the fact that war/violence is a reality is a damn shame, and sub-catagorizing it just seems silly to me.
It's not ACTUALLY silly, it's pretty important to punish criminals, but I think you know what I mean.

>>5214249
>sub-catagorizing it just seems silly to me.

But we sub-catagorize crime all the time, so why should war be different?

>>5214256
I'm not even sure I know what I'm saying anymore...

>>5214265

Sometimes, violence is the only possible response that leads to a net positive outcome.

Pacifism only works if everyone is a pacifist.

If you're in the military you're automatically part of the political party that loves war.

If you join the military anytime but when your country is being invaded you're a warmongering asshole

>>5214284
Look man, don't get all teacher/student on me here, I understand how this shit works very well.

I'm just trying to say how I find it funny how we deem some violence worse than others when in the end, all violence is bad. Yes, I understand why we categorize it, yes I understand why the need to fight is there, I'm just saying' it's kind of funny/silly/weird when you think about it.
That's all.

>>5214165
Sounds like your teacher was feeling threatened by you. An indication that you were doing something right.
If you were plain wrong she wouldn't say things like this
>"maybe our smart anon wants too answer eh?"

>>5214284
2edgy4me

>>5214295

It depends on how you measure it really, the statement "all violence is bad" is a moralizing assumption, brought on by the culture you and I were brought up in. If you had said the same kind of thing to someone even 50 years ago, you would have been laughed at. Someone 50 years from now might be equally likely to laugh at it.

I look at things from a results-oriented standpoint. If the situation can be resolved better for all involved by using violence, I support the use of violence. If it cannot, I do not.

The taking of a human life is tragic, but failing to do so and in so doing allowing several other humans to die is worse.

>>5214313
Just because it's self defense doesn't justify it.
Sure, you may be saving yourself and others, but it's still violence.

Ghandi did pretty damn good by just sitting on his ass I would say.

>>5214291

>what is levy

>>5214320

You think that because the people Ghandi was resisting were willing to compromise.

Did you know that, during WW2 when the Nazis were planning to invade India, Ghandi tried to convince people to use non-violent resistance against them?

The Nazis would have just shot everyone.

>>5214320
>>5214320
>Ghandi did pretty damn good by just sitting on his ass I would say.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Assassination

>>5214328
You're not fucking listening to me man.
Yes, I agree that self defense is important, and a must in certain situations.
Yes, I understand that pacifism only goes so far, and it requires the cooperation of others for it to be fully effective.

I'm just fucking saying that violence is violence, and it's funny how we treat it when you look at it from the bigger picture.
That's all.

>>5214326
His assassination doesn't overshadow the accomplishments.

Are you really that surprised that he was killed?
I think what's really surprising, and inspiring, is the fact that he lasted that long, doing what he did.

>>5214165

Aren't teachers meant to encourage independent thinking and the courage to express yourself? Your teacher's a moron.

And yeah, you're basically correct. The SS and the Einsatzgruppen did most of the bad shit, the Heer were mostly all either conscripted or brainwashed. You could argue that they had a part in things like the sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad, and the theft of food from peasants, but again, it was hardly by choice.

>>5214348

But my argument is that violence ISN'T violence. Which I thought I had spelled out earlier. Your underlying assumption is false.

Using violence to stop another person's violent actions is not the same as using violence to harm or force someone else for your own gain.

>>5214352
>The SS and the Einsatzgruppen did most of the bad shit

And Wehrmacht often participated in it.

>>5214165

Your teacher was making broad generalizations and got caught in one. You called him/her out and they got butthurt because a student tried to "one up" them in their ego's.

Just using common sense here; if *every* solider in the Wehrmacht had political affiliation, and they're to be blamed for the whole of Nazi war crimes in the war, then did every Wehrmacht member commit a war-crime? Was being in the Wehrmacht at the time objectively wrong? Why are we assuming most Germans of the day were anti-Semitic, and if they were, why? I hate to get all /pol/ in here, but maybe there actually was a solid reason for them to not particularly like Jews. Maybe not to the point of genocide, and maybe that's not what they originally intended. Maybe they didn't intend to start going after everyone else as well, Gypsies, Gays, Communists, etc etc.

War is a very difficult thing to honestly morally critique. As far as I'm concerned, Serbia (And even then, I may have to limit that to members of the Black Hand.) was the only aggressor in WWI and it spiraled wildly out of control afterwards.

>>5214359

Of course they would, everyone aspired to be part of the SS, not because of what they did but because of their social standing and their pay.

>>5214363

No, they did it because they mostly believed the same things SS did.

>>5214320

>Ghandi
>Peaceful

Oh? What's that? You're British?
>Murder them by the hundreds.
Not British?
>Eeeveryone just beee cooool. So ignit to be hatin'

>>5214354
>violence ISN'T violence
No, it's still violence.
It may be necessary, but it's still violence, no matter how you justify it.

>>5214359

I would still argue that it's hard to vilify them. I mean, imagine being taken from your home and sent thousands of miles away to the wastelands of Russia with specific orders to kill as many people as you can before your own inevitable death. It's no surprise people went mental.

>>5214373

Again, you are assuming a moral stance which is not universal.

>>5214371

But it's true, SS were considered elites and were the only ones to have received the extensive nazi brainwashing.

>>5214372
What?

>>5214374

>following orders

But everyone was following orders. If we accept this argument, then the only person responsible for anything is Hitler.

>>5214390
>only ones to have received the extensive nazi brainwashing.

This is not true. Everyone was subject to Nazi propaganda. The Army had its own "leadership officers" responsible for political education.

>>5214388
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/violence >Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing:

>Again, you are assuming a moral stance which is not universal.
Lol I didn't know referencing the dictionary meant taking a moral stance.

>>5214396

Did you know that there were a lot of commanders that chose to ignore orders to kill the local jew population?

Rommel being the most famous, as I said, only the special corps affiliated with the party received extensive brainwashing, of course everyone was influenced to some extent.

Ever heard of Hitler Jugend?

>>5214325
When a levy breaks the national guard can handle it.

Why does the military need to get involved

>>5214295

>>I'm just trying to say how I find it funny how we deem some violence worse than others when in the end, all violence is bad.

>>when in the end, all violence is bad.

Do I need to quote you? The dictionary thing is a red herring and you know it. My arguments were made assuming and about the moral weight you put on violence, not its dictionary definition. You are grasping at straws.

This actually fits a bit with the OP. people these days are rarely able to admit when they are even slightly wrong, and when forced to they tend to become very angry at the people who force them to do so.

>>5214409
>
>Did you know that there were a lot of commanders that chose to ignore orders to kill the local jew population?

No, actually it's exactly the opposite. The Army was not directly ordered to exterminate the Jews (that was a job for the police, einsatzgruppen...)
but some commanders did it anyway, under the guise of fighting against partisans, etc.

>>5214409

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnungspolizei

Everyone was brainwashed to some degree or another. But many chose to participate in the holocaust of their own free will (brainwashed or not). Civilians especially. Without civilian support, the SS simply did not have enough men to carry out the Final Solution.

>>5214417
So you don't think killing someone is bad if it's in self defence?
There's a reason we call this a 'necessary evil', because all though you had to do it for your own good and everyone else's, it's still not morally right.

I'm not saying anyone should be penalized for self defense, but I sure as hell would not feel good about myself if I had to kill someone.
Why do you think war vets are so fucked up?

>people these days are rarely able to admit when they are even slightly wrong
Lol, look who's talking?! Your moral system is nothing more than a constructed set of opinions with no black or white definition and guidelines, so really it makes this whole argument that we are having moot.
And yet you have the audacity to call ME wrong when your whole argument itself has no basis on any concrete proof?
God damn.

Instead of trying to say "we didn't know any better!" can we stop being politically correct for a moment and remember why the holocaust fucking happened.

No, it wasn't because Hitler was buttman over art school. The jewish population had no fucking respect for the German government. During World War 1 they, in fucking masses, dogged the draft and refused to pay taxes. If you read Hitlers book he also describes jewish politicians during WW1 as liars, cheaters, and thieves.

Its not that the German people didn't fucking know. Its that they thought it was okay to kill them, and for semi-good reasons.

>>5214443

>/pol/ spricht

>Wehrmacht could have stopped the shit the SS were doing
>they didn't
>instead they looted and pillaged all of Europe along with the SS

Yeah, those Wehrmacht guys were just peachy keen. And this is the thing you have to understand: Even ignoring the particular inhumanities of the Holocaust, the nazi regime was still entirely a military whose sole purpose was to loot and subjugate Europe. None of them were good guys.

>>5214439
Are you sure you two are actually disagreeing?
You just seem to be saying violence is evil and he is saying violence is sometimes necessary. Not a contradiction.

Eitherway,
>>5214207
is a really good post and deserves recognition

>>5214443
>Its that they thought it was okay to kill them, and for semi-good reasons.

Quoted so it doesn't drown in all the /pol/ bs.

I sometimes wonder what would it be like to be a German today.

Having to deal with all the shit their country did in the past, and not being able to say a word to defend it without being labeled as a nazi, shit must suck.

>>5214480

>not being able to say a word to defend it

Why would they defend it?

Sounds like your teacher is a cocsucking fegget that thinks s/he is better than anyone else in the world when it comes to history. Probably self-denial caused by the fact hers/his life is a fucking failure and s/he's noting more than a waste of space.

Goddamn I hate shitty teachers.

>>5214439
>Your moral system is nothing more than a constructed set of opinions with no black or white definition and guidelines, so really it makes this whole argument that we are having moot.
>And yet you have the audacity to call ME wrong when your whole argument itself has no basis on any concrete proof?

Wow, you're speaking to him like that when you're the retard pretending his subjective view of morality is an objective black and white fact. What you just described describes your set of morals too, you just pretend you're better than him. Any guidelines you have outside biological evolved traits are arbitrary. They may be useful and perfectly justifiable, but they sure as fuck aren't an intrinsic black and white.

>There's a reason we call this a 'necessary evil', because all though you had to do it for your own good and everyone else's, it's still not morally right.

No, there's a reason YOU call it that. I would never call a case of self-defense a "Necessary evil". The phrase isn't even used in my language. It is a good act to do what is "necessary" for self-defense. The violence itself is morally neutral.

>>5214487
>Why would they defend it?
Take a fucking history course?

Look at what the jews did in WW1.

Look at what the communists did in Russia.

Look at what the gypsies did EVERYWHERE.

Everyone the Nazis hated has been historically hated. The ONLY reason the holocaust was bad was because it failed. If they won, to this day we would celebrate Hitlers work for a better future. Now the jews own the educational system and try to hide history

>>5214439

Notice how when I mention my own beliefs on I subject I use the language "I look at", "From my viewpoint", or "I support" and you speak in absolutes.

That really should indicate to you who is actually making assumptions here.

>>5214492

/pol/ pls

>>5214494
*the subject

>>5214467

Thanks. I have a history/political science degree. This kind of debate is where I am right at home.

>>5214499
I'm not saying I agree with the holocaust. I'm saying there was a reason for it.

Historically, the jews have ALWAYS been hated. Look up the history of antisemitism. The jews are a religious people who walk around talking about how they're the chosen people so bow before us. Its not fucking surprise people wanted to knock their ass down a peg.

>>5214360

Whoa what the fuck are you talking about ? Serbia stood ground to imperialistic monarchy which took one assassination by non-state-approved organization..

People got ready for invasion in Serbia long before assassination and Monarchy was trying to provoke any reaction from Serbia just to attack it (July ultimatum).They got one by ultra nationalistic retards and then Monarchy invaded while ''friendly'' Bulgaria jumped right in and back stabbed Serbia.

Almost 1 million Serbian people died, which is 16.11% percent of population incomparable with any other nation .. mostly young males..It was unseen massacre..

Yet, Serbia is bad..Why is it cool to hate Serbia when there are far worse countries in that region ?

>>5214505

pls

>>5214508
/sci/ pls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism

Germany was bankrupt and falling apart. It restored its former glory and economic power simply by taking a shit load of loans, and then intended to pay them by invading other countries and using their economies to pay the German debt.

In order to justify the militarization of society that would require, Jews were utilized as a national enemy by propaganda. Uniting the people under strict leadership by using hatred and fear to whip them up into a siege mentality.

It's basically the War on Terror in the 1940's, except replace the for profit military-industrial complex with a seemingly necessary economic system based on militarism.

The US government may be responsible for invading countries, but torture and war crimes are still committed by the troops.

>>5214505

Antisemetism, especially in the Nazi context, usually refers to the semetic Race regardless of actual religious beliefs, not the Jewish faith.

You couldn't convert to escape a trip to Auchwitz. It was about what you were, not what you believed.

>>5214512

Why are you linking to wikipedia, I thought it was owned by the Jews?

>>5214516
>It was about what you were, not what you believed.
Have you ever heard of someone converting to Judaism?

No, I didn't think so. The jewish race and religion go hand in hand. Yeah, some may walk away from the faith but they still carry the ideals that they're superior to goys

>>5214521

It happens fairly often with inter-faith marriages among orthodox Jews, one or the other converts.

>>5214521
>Have you ever heard of someone converting to Judaism?

Are you serious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Judaism

>>5214521
Ruth?

>>5214492

>Everyone the Nazis hated has been historically hated.

Everyone has been historically hated at some point in time.

>The ONLY reason the holocaust was bad was because it failed. If they won, to this day we would celebrate Hitlers work for a better future.

Except even had it won people would still feel remorse for it.

>Now the jews own the educational system and try to hide history

...sigh

>>5214540

>actually responding

In WWII the USA justified bombing civilians by pointing out that those civilians made the crimes of the dictators they were supporting possible.

Of course they had no choice but to obey their dictators, and could not voice their opinions or excert political influence if they disagreed with what was happening. The education system and the media were controlled by the government, so even if they believed in the actions of their government they couldn't really be blamed, since they were indoctrinated to think this way.

Bombing them was justified simply because it was necessary.

But when the US was attacked on 9/11, Americans treated it as unprovoked and unjustified. Just because the US had been using military force against the Middle East for decades didn't give them the right to retaliate or try to defend themselves, if it involved killing innocent civilians (like the US had done in WWII)

Even though Americans can vote to replace their leaders, can voice their opinions against what their leaders are doing, can take various forms of legal political action against their government, and have freedom of the press, they CHOSE to allow their government to bomb the Middle East and supported US foreign policy.

So how can you say US citizens don't deserve to be bombed? It's a pretty obvious double standard if you ask me.

>>5214563

take this ridiculous thread to /int/ or /pol/, or even better, to /b/.

>>5214563
Basically it goes like this: the USA is the good guys so everything it does is good. Anyone who opposes the USA is evil and therefore deserves to be bombed.

>>5214563

>So how can you say US citizens don't deserve to be bombed?

We did it's called "debt".

>>5214563
The difference is that flying planes into buildings doesn't do anything to stop any U.S. attack.

>>5214591
What does fire bombing Dresden do?

>>5214591
But you can't expect a people to be oppressed and bombed and not try to fight back, do you?

If America was in the same situation as the Arabs were, do you think they would accept the situation and not use any violent means within their limited abilities to resist?

>>5214506

>Whoa what the fuck are you talking about ? Serbia stood ground to imperialistic monarchy which took one assassination by non-state-approved organization

Austria-Hungry wasn't doing anything other than unifying themselves under the same banner. Serbia started getting paranoid that they, for God knows what reason, would try to force or absolve them into their union as well.

>People got ready for invasion in Serbia long before assassination and Monarchy was trying to provoke any reaction from Serbia just to attack it (July ultimatum).
>Kill heir to throne
>It was the heir's fault
Not to mention Serbia refused to cooperate with the *Extremely* generous ultimatum later. It just boiled down to "Calm the fucking nationalists down, stop encouraging them with propaganda, stop giving them weapons to attempt another assassination, arrest the people that did it.". Instead of, rushing Serbia immediately.

>Almost 1 million Serbian people died, which is 16.11% percent of population incomparable with any other nation .. mostly young males..It was unseen massacre..
725,000 of which (300,000) have been attributed to "Famine, Disease & Accidents"
Being that Serbia was comparatively a small country at the time it's not surprising the percentage seems so high, but to say it is incomparable to any other nation is a little false:
>Ottoman Empire
>population: 21.3 million
>Total deaths: 2,921,844 13.72% of pop.
>The United Kingdom
>population: 45.4 million
>Total deaths: 995,939 2.19% of pop.

Everyone lost tremendously in that war, don't act like Serbia is a special case in that.

>>5214656

>Field too long

>Yet, Serbia is bad..Why is it cool to hate Serbia when there are far worse countries in that region ?

Only ones I could think of would be the Muslim nations, but then again they didn't kill a Archduke, refuse to do anything to persecute the assassins much less get the nationalist group they belonged to ousted, and then go running to the Russians for protection :v