Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Kind of chiming in late on this conversation, but I think that an examination of history will show that the “Final Solution” evolved over time and the course of the war. As stated by others above, elimination of the Jewish race was not an initial goal of Hitler and the Social Democrats. As late as 1939-1940 he was still toying (unrealistically) with shipping all the Jews in Europe off to Madagascar.When the Nazi's conquered Poland they began relocating Jews from Germany to "the General Government" with the goal of relocating them out of Germany to Poland (or some other land) but the Gauleiters (local German officials in the occuppied territories) had no viable means of handling them. As this situation grew worse, they were herded into ghettos and camps - some camps where they were used as labor. As time passed, and it became obvious that there was no viable way to "relocate" the Jews, they started on the idea of working them to death. Sometime between when they first started transferring Jews to the General Government in the newly conquered territories and the launch of Barbarossa views changed and it became much more expedient for the Nazis to simply eliminate new populations of Jews that they came across rather than further relocating them. Of course relocation continued -as did wholesale slaughter of "Soviet" Jews. Remember - Hitler sold the invasion of the Soviet Union as a stike against "Jewish-Bolshevism" and against "Asiatics" and it was, from the very start, a war of anihilation instead of simply a war of conquest.Never a stable individual, I think that from a distance we can see how Hitler's mental state and faculties declined (decayed?) over the last 10 to 15 years of his life (was it the syphalis?). Never a paragon of rationality or morality, he became increasingly irrational and amoral (and obsessed) as the war progressed.
Interesting discussion.A couple of thoughts...Given the titanic disaster that was the Soviet Army for most of 1941 under Barbarossa's advance, Stalin really didn't make a (positive) difference until Moscow was under direct threat. Having confirmed through his spy network that Japan was eyeing war with the Western Powers in late 1941 he was able to shift Siberian and far Eastern troops to the Moscow front - we all know how that story went. I contend that this is the point where Stalin started to make a positive difference in the war effort. Yes, he - or his office - had arranged for the evacuation of the essential factories to the east, away from the Germans, but it was, in my opinion, the battle of Moscow where Staling not only gained confidence as a wartime leader, it is also where he started the process of not trying to run the war as a general, and instead started giving more autonomy to his generals. It wasn't an "all at once" thing, but progressed throughout the course of the war (just the opposite of Hitler who tried took a more active role as a strategist as the war progressed).Having read a fair amount about the war on the Eastern Front, and a fair number of memoirs, many Red Army soldiers fought as much out of fear of Stalin and his regime as they did out of hatred of the Nazis.I recently studied Kruschev's "Secret Speech" to the 20th Soviet Congress - the one where he denounced Stalin and laid the groundwork for "de-Stalinization" of the Soviet Union. I was fascinated to learn how Kruschev had moved from being one of Stalin's henchmen during the war to demonizing him later. One of the things that struck me in my studies was the varying feelings about Stalin in Russia in "current" times (since the end of the Cold War). Some who were intereviewed saw him as a monster, while others viewed him with nostalgia.No doubt he was a monster, and every bit as evil as Hitler - but maybe he was precisely the type of leader that was necessary to ultimately and completely defeat Nazism at the time.
I figured that the punchline was that the congressman was going to say “Oh yeah, I have another 100 hours of community service to do myself or my parole officer is going to be pissed!”
I don't watch them for much the same reason I have heard that Drs don't watch shows like ER. They are completely divorced from reality. If you have never been shot at it is impossible to have it explained to you no matter how many movies you watch.
Brother, I understand where you are coming from. In time, you may go back to watching war movies, but probably never ones about Iraq or Afghanistan. I watched "Hurt Locker" and thought it well done (if you forgive the Hollywood injected John Wayne / Lone Ranger element), but to this day, I won't watch "Blackhawk Down" or any of the documentaries about it -- too personal. Had a commrade who was portrayed (in a non-speaking role) in the movie - he went to see it and it really "f"ed him up. Lost his job, his wife, and he crawled inside a bottle and shut out everyone for about two years. That was damn near 10 years ago and he's still not fully back. Hollywood BS is one thing, PTSD is another one entirely - it can get anyone even years later. PM me if you want.
The HBO series is based primarily upon two books: E.B. Sledge's “With the Old Breed at Peleliu and Okinawa” and Robert Leckie's “Helmet for My Pillow” — by far and without a doubt two of the most gripping memoirs about the Pacific War — I'd rate both slightly ahead of Richard Wheeler's “Iwo” and yards ahead of Manchester's “Goodbye Darkness”. I'd put them in the same league as the European theater's memoirs of George Wilson “If You Survive” and Charles MacDonald's “Company Commander”.In my humble opinion, the books above by Sledge and Wilson are amongst the best combat memoirs written about any war.
Herodotus was a story teller as a historian. He wrote his history of the Persian invasion based upon interviews of survivors many years after the war. His “digressions” were intended to illuminate the history of other areas and peoples. This information largely came from his own travels and some believe that he was driven to include this info so that the knowledge the he had accumulated didn't perish with him at the end of his life.Thucydides on the other hand, was attempting to record an event that he not only lived through, but also participated in. He had witnessed the defeat and destruction of Athens and wanted to record the reasons why. He didn't call on the gods because he knew that the Peloponnesian War was the fault of man and politics and he wanted to identify the causes of the war in order to allow future generations to understand what had happened and perhaps how to avoid it themselves. He claimed that his purpose for writing was "...that there should be no doubt in anyone's mind about what led to this great war falling upon the Hellenes." (Book I : 23)
Hesiod was / is believed to be a contemporary of Homer. I believe that his Theogony is also considered a transcript of epic poety.
I walked through Mauthausen a couple of years ago and the impact on me was significant. I've seen the films, looked at the photos, been to the Holocaust Museum in DC, met and talked with survivors and nothing has brought it home like walking the actual ground, seeing the gallows, the gas chambers, the ovens and the quarry. A picture is worth a thousand words, walking the ground is, well incalculable.
Imagine how the uproar might have been different if the President had substituted “Atlantic City” for “Las Vegas”!
I taught 8th grade and it is sometimes tough to get those kids to realize that the Holocaust happened...
When I was in junior high school (that's what we called it then, not "middle school") I remember our "World History" course - the pastor of my church (Dr. Arie "Captain Harry" Bestebreutje) came in to speak to the class on World War II. He was a member of the Dutch resistance and jumped in Operation Market Garden as well as jumped in for the liberation of the Westerbork concentration camp. Everyone loved his presentation because it was so different from his persona in the pulpit. Many parents came to stand in the back of the classroom when Dr. B came to speak. This lecture was followed up the next day with a local Holocaust survivor who came in an lectured, showing the tattoo on his forearm. The 35mm slides that he showed the class required us to have a signed form from our parents (and many kids did not participate - nor did many parents show up), and they made a lasting impression.
Although not a member of either organized political party, I tend to lean much more to the conservative side. That being said… I didn't see these as “anti-Vegas” comments as much as “anti-irresponsibility” commetns. And nothing upsets Congress more than words, actions, and campaigns against irresponsibility!The President is telling people to be responsible with their money decisions and choices - and I think Congress is insulted and threatened. Congress (either party for that matter) being held responsible for how they handle money! No wonder they're upset. ;D
Taking faith out of the discussion and looking at it all from a historian's view, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all have the same roots – that is, all three can be traced back to one common point in the personage of Abraham (or Abram) who was born in the city of Ur sometime around 1800 BCE. The story of Abraham (Abram) is told in the book of Genesis. Basically, God promised Abram that if he left his home and family in Babylonia and worshiped Him, God would bless Abraham and his descendants, making his descendants a great nation. As the story goes, Abram and his wife Sarai were unable to have children and were childless well beyond Sarais child bearing years. Since Sarai was unable to bear Abraham's children, she offered her maid servant Hagar (a daughter of the Egyptian Pharoah) to Abram, and Hagar bore him a son, Ishmael. Later, with God's blessing, Sarai bore Abram a son, Isaac. (It is when Isaac is born that Abram's name is changed to Abraham - "father of many" - and Sarai's name is changed to Sarah - "princess").According to both Jewish and Muslim tradition, Ishmael became the ancestor of the Arab people. Isaac on the other hand, became the ancestor of the Jewish people. Islam traces it's roots back to Ishmael and Abram while Judaism and Christianity trace their roots back to Isaac and Abraham.So, from a historian's position, all three of these major religions trace their roots back to the blood of the same man - Abraham/Abram and the covenant that he formed with God. By this measure, yes, the three faiths recognize the same God - but all three faiths took divergent and different paths in the last 3500 years. Two of the faiths recognize Jesus of Nazareth as a prophet of God, and one recognizes him as the promised Messiah or Son of God.That is not to say that modern religions recognize this kindred relationship, but that is a different history from the original question asked.
