:-p
Youth tearing apart old games
Forum rules
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
Please read the Forum rules and policies before posting.
Cows: Short reply due to lack of time: No, I'm not offended, but the rise of the 3rd Reich is not as simplistic as it is described by you, it is not as simple as fooled people following a bad leader, it is indeed a far more complex theme. If you want to understand this even only partially you have to know a lot of the political and historical developement in Germany before the 3rd Reich. But it would be far beyond the scope of a forum thread to fully explore that theme.
Parting is all we know from Heaven, and all we need of hell.
-
cowsmanaut
- Moo Master
- Posts: 4378
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
- Location: canada
I do know they were very ripe at the time. They had been down tordden and were all quite eager to get back some respect and power. However, the two do not match up with killing off non pure races and torturing etc. Most people know the difference from gaining respect and genocide.
Either way who now is ripe for some respect? How do most teens feel? Adults still clamp down on them and they are ever to eager to be adults themselves to have the freedom to do what they wish. Takes less effort to convince them to "stick it to the man"..
However my point about them still being normal people and being influenced by one man with a mic.
Religion as I said is a perfect example of people doing something blindly. It's all based on faith. Pagans or organised religions makes no difference. They are told by someone who is "in communication with god" to do something and many don't question it. Blind faith..
The whole youth program I was talking about where Hitler had gone about spreading his ideas in the classroom of youth shows how children fed the wrong ideas can take hold and change how they think of the world.
It doesn't take much? Has anyone seen that documentary where they took a classroom of young kids and had the teacher say "everyone with blue eyes and blonde hair is smarter" They showed increase in grades of those children and the noted teasing starting of those without blue eyes or blonde hair. and then a few weeks later the teacher said" we were wrong the study said it was brown eyes and brown hair is smarter" The noticed then it wenth the other way around. This is only over the course of a month... this large change.. based on one persons word...
Pavlovs dog anyone?
too much evidence.. Brainwashing is a common term thrown around over the years.. it's and advanced example of what I'm talking about.. Something proven to work.
Strengh of will.. strength of morals... who has them who does not? how will your own words influence others? Gullibility.. on and on I go.. each language has words to describe it.. and has had for years. How can anyone person really deny a past rife with examples. In order to warrent a word of its own.. it has to be something that exists. To have words to describe it's varied degrees and states shows something common place.
think about it...
moo
Either way who now is ripe for some respect? How do most teens feel? Adults still clamp down on them and they are ever to eager to be adults themselves to have the freedom to do what they wish. Takes less effort to convince them to "stick it to the man"..
However my point about them still being normal people and being influenced by one man with a mic.
Religion as I said is a perfect example of people doing something blindly. It's all based on faith. Pagans or organised religions makes no difference. They are told by someone who is "in communication with god" to do something and many don't question it. Blind faith..
The whole youth program I was talking about where Hitler had gone about spreading his ideas in the classroom of youth shows how children fed the wrong ideas can take hold and change how they think of the world.
It doesn't take much? Has anyone seen that documentary where they took a classroom of young kids and had the teacher say "everyone with blue eyes and blonde hair is smarter" They showed increase in grades of those children and the noted teasing starting of those without blue eyes or blonde hair. and then a few weeks later the teacher said" we were wrong the study said it was brown eyes and brown hair is smarter" The noticed then it wenth the other way around. This is only over the course of a month... this large change.. based on one persons word...
Pavlovs dog anyone?
too much evidence.. Brainwashing is a common term thrown around over the years.. it's and advanced example of what I'm talking about.. Something proven to work.
Strengh of will.. strength of morals... who has them who does not? how will your own words influence others? Gullibility.. on and on I go.. each language has words to describe it.. and has had for years. How can anyone person really deny a past rife with examples. In order to warrent a word of its own.. it has to be something that exists. To have words to describe it's varied degrees and states shows something common place.
think about it...
moo
-
cowsmanaut
- Moo Master
- Posts: 4378
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
- Location: canada
I didn't say anything that wasn't based on history classes. The thing with the blue eyes brown eyes thing was done in the states in the 70's I think. I just re-read my post and thought it might have been confused.
The stuff about hitler having an influence on the class room was from the documentary they handed out to troops in the US to teach them that they should expect animosity from even the youngest child and that it wouldn't be their fault. It's not easy to get a hold of these days. However, since this is animated (yes disney did short films for war efforts at the time) we happen to have a copy of it at the college.
So really I'm talking about the history of both canada and the US too.. it was a world war after all and thus effected the whole world. To me.. any war reflects badly on it's participants. So don't take it as I'm picking on Germany here. In fact the focus is not even on Germany per se, it's simply me using examples of large groups of people being influenced by one person.
Here in canada and over in the states too.. we choose people to lead us and then sit there and watch them screw us over time and time again. I'm well aware that at anypoint it could be anyone.. and really that is my point.
So what I'm saying here is that I'm no talking about speculation or things I've imagined.. I'm repeating what I've seen. I'm sorry you take offence to it.. however, I've already deleted the post once and was asked to return it..
I think at this point I'm talking in circles though repeating the same basic points over and over.. so I won't be posting anything further in this thread..
moo
The stuff about hitler having an influence on the class room was from the documentary they handed out to troops in the US to teach them that they should expect animosity from even the youngest child and that it wouldn't be their fault. It's not easy to get a hold of these days. However, since this is animated (yes disney did short films for war efforts at the time) we happen to have a copy of it at the college.
So really I'm talking about the history of both canada and the US too.. it was a world war after all and thus effected the whole world. To me.. any war reflects badly on it's participants. So don't take it as I'm picking on Germany here. In fact the focus is not even on Germany per se, it's simply me using examples of large groups of people being influenced by one person.
Here in canada and over in the states too.. we choose people to lead us and then sit there and watch them screw us over time and time again. I'm well aware that at anypoint it could be anyone.. and really that is my point.
So what I'm saying here is that I'm no talking about speculation or things I've imagined.. I'm repeating what I've seen. I'm sorry you take offence to it.. however, I've already deleted the post once and was asked to return it..
I think at this point I'm talking in circles though repeating the same basic points over and over.. so I won't be posting anything further in this thread..
moo
Well then I'll step in... I understand you feel uneasy when people talk about the history of your country, Amber (not because your country is Germany, but because it is about foreigners judging with easy criteria, not from within). I understand but I am sorry that you react this way, because it is also interesting to know about the foreign opinions, even if they are more superficial. They may teach you some truth (at least about their way of thinking if not about the history of your country).
I agree with the general spirit of your arguing, Cows, thought not with its fundaments. (I disagree with Hitler being a supervillain and the nazis killing for a respect matter -> this is the overall impression I had reading your post. I know you think the matter is deeper, but then you dared summarize this way, didn't you?).
I am always shocked about the few information we are taught about WWII. To give an example, french people are told that France was a highly resistant country. France was among the victorious countries. France decided of the fate of Germany after the liberation.
In other countries, France was an ally of Germany. France was highly collaborative. France was among the losers of the war. France was only conceded autonomy in order to create a buffer and balance against the sovietic countries.
Also the general situation in Europe was weak, non working democracies with only two strong exits: communism or fascism. Most of the intellectual people chose a side. History (and the victors who write it afterwards) gave the reason to the communism (at least for a while), so all of the opposite side could finally be judged as villains.
Of course I am not talking about the slaughter, which is horrible by all points of view. I'm talking about the reasons of the people accepting or participating, by their own free will or not, knowingly or not, and to which degree, to those events. I know not of any country exempt of massacres. I know very few persons who actively struggle against them. The exemple of Hitler should be useful to draw lessons... The recent international events (I wonder how everyone will interprete this one...) show clearly that the lessons are forgotten, or that we did not draw the correct lessons.
As a sidenote, personnally, I am not afraid of disagreeing with somebody, and I never get angry from counteropinions, on the contrary. But I don't want to offense anybody. It is a good time now for people who wouldn't want to see this thread going any further to state it. There is still a point of return and nothing extreme has been said... yet! (I hope nothing like that will happen!)
I agree with the general spirit of your arguing, Cows, thought not with its fundaments. (I disagree with Hitler being a supervillain and the nazis killing for a respect matter -> this is the overall impression I had reading your post. I know you think the matter is deeper, but then you dared summarize this way, didn't you?).
I am always shocked about the few information we are taught about WWII. To give an example, french people are told that France was a highly resistant country. France was among the victorious countries. France decided of the fate of Germany after the liberation.
In other countries, France was an ally of Germany. France was highly collaborative. France was among the losers of the war. France was only conceded autonomy in order to create a buffer and balance against the sovietic countries.
Also the general situation in Europe was weak, non working democracies with only two strong exits: communism or fascism. Most of the intellectual people chose a side. History (and the victors who write it afterwards) gave the reason to the communism (at least for a while), so all of the opposite side could finally be judged as villains.
Of course I am not talking about the slaughter, which is horrible by all points of view. I'm talking about the reasons of the people accepting or participating, by their own free will or not, knowingly or not, and to which degree, to those events. I know not of any country exempt of massacres. I know very few persons who actively struggle against them. The exemple of Hitler should be useful to draw lessons... The recent international events (I wonder how everyone will interprete this one...) show clearly that the lessons are forgotten, or that we did not draw the correct lessons.
As a sidenote, personnally, I am not afraid of disagreeing with somebody, and I never get angry from counteropinions, on the contrary. But I don't want to offense anybody. It is a good time now for people who wouldn't want to see this thread going any further to state it. There is still a point of return and nothing extreme has been said... yet! (I hope nothing like that will happen!)
-
cowsmanaut
- Moo Master
- Posts: 4378
- Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:53 am
- Location: canada
posting under durress
Gah.. Again I'm tempted to delete the post. The focus has been drawn away from the point. You are right I did summerise, however the reason being that they had little to do with the point I was making.. the content was not the relevant focus. It was nothing more than an illustraive example. One that is quickly and easily recognisable. Nothing more, nothing less. I could have drawn upon less known events or even upon legends.. however, what kind of value do those hold? Very little. So I went with something very well known and didn't dwell on the details. Now thinking back on it I should not have bothered.
However, my summarizing was based directly on what I saw and heard and read. Your summary is not... either that or you did not really read my posts.
I said they were eager to get back some power and respect not that they would kill for it. I don't think that was their initial desire(killing). In fact I stated that getting power and respect is very different than going around and killing and torturing people. So fight for it.. sure.. however the killing came later. Is this true or false? My info tells me before this uprising they were in a state where they had little of anything. Lacking in solid economy and support. If it's false then I do not understand the drive. If it is true then it's very easy to understand. War is good for economy, it creates jobs. Victories increase moral. It puts food on the table, brings resources into the country and that's all I was suggesting.
Also I did not say that hitler was a super villain. I simply said he spread his media to inspire the crimes commited during the war and that he spread that media to the classrooms to be taught to young children and teens. Is it true or false?
I don't mind you summerizing me.. however, at the very least you could quote me rather than exaggerate my words.
So it seems I've posted again in this thread despite my desire not to. I wonder.. am I posting the right response.. or digging myself further? I would not be surprised if it were the latter. I will not lock this thread and allow it to go on.. however, I would eagerly suggest people let it simply bury itself slowly, lest more offence take place. :/
However, my summarizing was based directly on what I saw and heard and read. Your summary is not... either that or you did not really read my posts.
I said they were eager to get back some power and respect not that they would kill for it. I don't think that was their initial desire(killing). In fact I stated that getting power and respect is very different than going around and killing and torturing people. So fight for it.. sure.. however the killing came later. Is this true or false? My info tells me before this uprising they were in a state where they had little of anything. Lacking in solid economy and support. If it's false then I do not understand the drive. If it is true then it's very easy to understand. War is good for economy, it creates jobs. Victories increase moral. It puts food on the table, brings resources into the country and that's all I was suggesting.
Also I did not say that hitler was a super villain. I simply said he spread his media to inspire the crimes commited during the war and that he spread that media to the classrooms to be taught to young children and teens. Is it true or false?
I don't mind you summerizing me.. however, at the very least you could quote me rather than exaggerate my words.
So it seems I've posted again in this thread despite my desire not to. I wonder.. am I posting the right response.. or digging myself further? I would not be surprised if it were the latter. I will not lock this thread and allow it to go on.. however, I would eagerly suggest people let it simply bury itself slowly, lest more offence take place. :/
Just some quick answers and then I will leave this thread as you suggested...
You're right about the focus shifted. I understood perfectly the meaning of your example: just illustrating the main argument. That's why I said I agreed with the spirit.
The root of the problem is that you gave a sensitive example with your own interpretation that didn't gather a consensus of opinions. It is difficult from that point to keep the focus on the main argument. That's why I tried to show by an exagerated summary which aspects of your interpretations caused an intellectual rejection (at least for me). I didn't try to reduce your opinion to a caricature; I tried to highlight a aspect leading to disagreement. I probably was clumsy or even tactless, of which I beg you perdon!
Do not think I don't read you by the way. I find your opinions very interesting, even if I disagree.
Well, our common wisdoms suggest to say no more... So be it!
You're right about the focus shifted. I understood perfectly the meaning of your example: just illustrating the main argument. That's why I said I agreed with the spirit.
The root of the problem is that you gave a sensitive example with your own interpretation that didn't gather a consensus of opinions. It is difficult from that point to keep the focus on the main argument. That's why I tried to show by an exagerated summary which aspects of your interpretations caused an intellectual rejection (at least for me). I didn't try to reduce your opinion to a caricature; I tried to highlight a aspect leading to disagreement. I probably was clumsy or even tactless, of which I beg you perdon!
Do not think I don't read you by the way. I find your opinions very interesting, even if I disagree.
Well, our common wisdoms suggest to say no more... So be it!
A complex theme just isn't a good choice for a simple example, and the simplifications made here are beyond being correctable by any length of thread.
Yet despite those simplifications being not the main theme of this thread I can't leave them entirely uncommented after not having been here for a few days.
I can't stand the idea that there was a bunch of poor misleaded Germans that innocently "just followed their orders" which were the faults of Hitler alone, for that is how all those nazi war criminals who got away with the horrible atrocities the have commited would have us seeing it.
The rise of the 3rd Reich is neither the doing of one man nor explainable by general poverty. It is the result of the breakdown of a malfunctioning democracy and a violent conspiration that disabled step by step any opposition, and this is still a gross simplification. So please, if you are not one of those few non-europeans who are knowledgeable in european history beyond standard school-&-cable-tv-documentaries, please just don't use it for casual examples, for it is by far more probable that you'll offend not those who have an ill-tempered nationalistic pride but those who oppose fascism or are even among it's victims.
Yet despite those simplifications being not the main theme of this thread I can't leave them entirely uncommented after not having been here for a few days.
I can't stand the idea that there was a bunch of poor misleaded Germans that innocently "just followed their orders" which were the faults of Hitler alone, for that is how all those nazi war criminals who got away with the horrible atrocities the have commited would have us seeing it.
The rise of the 3rd Reich is neither the doing of one man nor explainable by general poverty. It is the result of the breakdown of a malfunctioning democracy and a violent conspiration that disabled step by step any opposition, and this is still a gross simplification. So please, if you are not one of those few non-europeans who are knowledgeable in european history beyond standard school-&-cable-tv-documentaries, please just don't use it for casual examples, for it is by far more probable that you'll offend not those who have an ill-tempered nationalistic pride but those who oppose fascism or are even among it's victims.
Parting is all we know from Heaven, and all we need of hell.
-
PicturesInTheDark
- Arch Master
- Posts: 1154
- Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 4:47 pm
- Location: Vienna, Austria
Hmm. All right, let's make some statements to this before arguing: I'm from Austria (Hitler's birth country) and have found history a very fascinating subject during my life. I may not know much about when which battle was but I know some things about the Second World War and it's cruelties.
My main point for now is that I absolutely do not agree that it was the work of one (sick, twisted, call it what you like) person and his media. This is both a belittlement and a sanction for many things that happened during this time.
Let me lay on my reasons on an example: A few weeks ago I saw a documentary movie during the yearly Viennese film festival on the subject of conducting a series of interviews with one survivor of the annihilation camp Sobibor in Poland. (For those who don't know this, around 250.000 people were killed in Sobibor during the war) During the interview Toivi Blatt brought one example of the people's reaction while Jews were being brought to the trainstation and being deported to one of the concentration camps.
According to him, they were all lining the streets while SS-officers made sure the Jews moving towards the station. A little boy broke out of the group and tried to run into the crowd, but the people standing there pushed him back into the row. (We're coming to my main point now).
From many examples like this one I have heard/seen in movies/read in books I have come to the conclusion that although Hitler was (please fill in your favourite word like mad/cruel/abnormal) and his media machinery and organisation was (perfect/well trained/leaving no place for resistance) that civil opposition was possible. The sad part is, only very few people ever did it, although it could have been so easy sometimes.
Take the example above: to let the little boy pass through would have been no problem: even armed SS officers could not have identified a single guilty person, because there was a crowd and the boy might still have lived instead of being killed a few days later. It would have been that simple. My conclusion is: the people I'd really fear if I was in that or a similar situation would be my neighbours, the one's that live across the street and lead a nice life, never harming a cat or cursing or drinking or whatever. Because however perfect the organisation, however allmighty an opponent, sometimes you can act and if you don't do it then there's no excuse.
This was probably far away from the main line, but I still felt I had to say that.
Regards, PitD
My main point for now is that I absolutely do not agree that it was the work of one (sick, twisted, call it what you like) person and his media. This is both a belittlement and a sanction for many things that happened during this time.
Let me lay on my reasons on an example: A few weeks ago I saw a documentary movie during the yearly Viennese film festival on the subject of conducting a series of interviews with one survivor of the annihilation camp Sobibor in Poland. (For those who don't know this, around 250.000 people were killed in Sobibor during the war) During the interview Toivi Blatt brought one example of the people's reaction while Jews were being brought to the trainstation and being deported to one of the concentration camps.
According to him, they were all lining the streets while SS-officers made sure the Jews moving towards the station. A little boy broke out of the group and tried to run into the crowd, but the people standing there pushed him back into the row. (We're coming to my main point now).
From many examples like this one I have heard/seen in movies/read in books I have come to the conclusion that although Hitler was (please fill in your favourite word like mad/cruel/abnormal) and his media machinery and organisation was (perfect/well trained/leaving no place for resistance) that civil opposition was possible. The sad part is, only very few people ever did it, although it could have been so easy sometimes.
Take the example above: to let the little boy pass through would have been no problem: even armed SS officers could not have identified a single guilty person, because there was a crowd and the boy might still have lived instead of being killed a few days later. It would have been that simple. My conclusion is: the people I'd really fear if I was in that or a similar situation would be my neighbours, the one's that live across the street and lead a nice life, never harming a cat or cursing or drinking or whatever. Because however perfect the organisation, however allmighty an opponent, sometimes you can act and if you don't do it then there's no excuse.
This was probably far away from the main line, but I still felt I had to say that.
Regards, PitD