Lare Kikkeli Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 I did not misunderstand Hurlshot, he said "Honestly most historians target the SS as the main perpetrators of war crimes, so I'm not sure where you are going to go with this argument." clearly implying the Wehrmacht was not significantly responsible for war crimes, which is simply not true. Well you sure don't seem to like to put your soldiers to trial in any situation, even when they rape and kill civilians in an illegal war. So nice going I guess? You have any evidence of that? http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/web/la...0,2956277.story http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm http://www.alternet.org/blogs/healthwellne...fend_gang_rape/ then there's the can of worms called Blackwater... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 But I take exception to attacking his disclaimer about being Jewish and having a familial connection to the tragedies of WW2. It's in bad taste to attack someone for sharing that information. Go after his opinion, sure, but attacking the validity of his personal experience to the issue? Weaksauce.You ARE being anal. Okay, let's assume I'm a Protestant. Does that give me a more informed perspective on French Catholics because they happened to murder a whole bunch of Huguenots? And so on and so forth with any number of massacres throughout history. Kotorguy has NO personal experience of the tragedies of WWII. I'm not even attacking the validity of the claims of his grampa or whatever. But those are, to us, secondary sources, and their value is not certified because they are being presented by a Jew - so his being a Jew has no bearing on this discussion. I'm not quite sure where I said he has a more "informed perspective" I just said his statements were valid and relevant to the issue at hand. I have no problem admitting I am being anal. I find it very bothersome to see folks attack a young poster for sharing personal information with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lare Kikkeli Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 (edited) We're not teachers like you Hurlshot, we don't think every damn thing that gets out of a kids mouth is a precious thing to be revered. The sooner he learns he's wrong the better Edited November 23, 2009 by Lare Kikkeli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 I have no problem admitting I am being anal. I find it very bothersome to see folks attack a young poster for sharing personal information with us. I can agree with the other posters to an extent. Kotor 3 dude went on a tirade about how he hates all WW2 German soldiers because of bad things they did to his family, and then said he justifies his opinion because he is a Jew. Stating that he was a Jew simply serves as a justification, but doesn't actually add to his initial assertions (that he feels German WW2 soldiers are incapable of being heroes because they killed Jews). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 I'm not quite sure where I said he has a more "informed perspective"My bad. But you said:I want teh kotor 3 also qualified his answer by explaining his family connection to the holocaust and why his opinion is not only relevant, but emotionally charged. I appreciate his perspective, it is entirely real and human, rather than just a simple regurgitation of a wikipedia article from an uninvolved forum poster. He added the Jewish part as a disclaimer, so we would understand where his opinion was coming from. (emphasis mine) So you're either claiming he has a deeper knowledge of the facts that allows him to make more accurate judgements, or you're just defending his bias. A doubly unjustified bias too, because his connection to WWII isn't direct. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrath of Dagon Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 I did not misunderstand Hurlshot, he said "Honestly most historians target the SS as the main perpetrators of war crimes, so I'm not sure where you are going to go with this argument." clearly implying the Wehrmacht was not significantly responsible for war crimes, which is simply not true. Well you sure don't seem to like to put your soldiers to trial in any situation, even when they rape and kill civilians in an illegal war. So nice going I guess? You have any evidence of that? http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/web/la...0,2956277.story http://www.aztlan.net/iraqi_women_raped.htm http://www.alternet.org/blogs/healthwellne...fend_gang_rape/ then there's the can of worms called Blackwater... Yes, I see you have some unbiased sources there. The LA times didn't say anything about not prosecuting rape, but I didn't read the entire article. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 I am defending his right to be biased on the subject. In fact I wish everyone would include little disclaimers about their personal biases, it would probably save a lot of time in these arguments. Again, I'm all for going after the opinion itself and demonstrating the problems with it, I think we've done that pretty well with Wrath of Dagon's posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lare Kikkeli Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Yes, I see you have some unbiased sources there. The LA times didn't say anything about not prosecuting rape, but I didn't read the entire article. Ah yes, the age old if it's against me, it must be liberal bias argument. I'm sure I could dig articles about those things from non-american sources as well (probably biased) but I don't think I'll bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aram Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 You know I don't have any personal beef with you Aram, but you're talking like an arse. What on earth makes you think he didn't value his own life? Duty being an obligation doesn't take that away. Basing it on nothing, really, except maybe what were apparently his last words. "Duty called and duty must be obeyed." If duty dictates that you should get blown up six different times in one of the dumbest wars ever fought, **** duty. That's not a good enough reason alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Yes, I see you have some unbiased sources there. The LA times didn't say anything about not prosecuting rape, but I didn't read the entire article. What would be an example of an unbiased news source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrath of Dagon Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Yes, I see you have some unbiased sources there. The LA times didn't say anything about not prosecuting rape, but I didn't read the entire article. What would be an example of an unbiased news source? Sources that don't say things like the first statement in the aztlan link. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Well, I'll give him at least some credit for not finding sources that go contrary to the point he was trying to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lare Kikkeli Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Those were the first 3 links I found from google. This stuff has been on the media a lot, I'm kind of surprised he even asked for proof. Then again he's probably censored all news sources except Fox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aram Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 As for German soldiers, there's obviously no way to say their cause was just, but there was not some inherent streak of villainy exclusively among German soldiers that made them different or less human than all the other soldiers on the battlefield. The German soldier would claim to be fighting for the same reason the Russian or British or American soldier would--that "duty" word again. If things like courage and sacrifice are commendable in the British soldier in the original post, they can't not be in a German soldier, and for that reason, maybe they aren't all that commendable at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrath of Dagon Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 (edited) Well, I'll give him at least some credit for not finding sources that go contrary to the point he was trying to make. The quote you produced from my link confirm my point exactly, Wehrmacht was responsible for countless war crimes throughout the war. The link also explains somewhere about how enthusiastic the German soldiers were about accepting and carrying out the nazi agenda. The fact that you failed to understand the meaning of Hurlshot's post in the context of his answering my post isn't my problem. Those were the first 3 links I found from google. This stuff has been on the media a lot, I'm kind of surprised he even asked for proof. Then again he's probably censored all news sources except Fox. Yes, anything you find on Google is irrefutable proof. May be you should try listening to a more objective media. Edited November 23, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Actually, alanschu seems to have understood my post completely. You, on the other hand, pretty much missed the whole point of my post and continue to dig deeper into your hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aram Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_war_crimes Notice the references to Wehrmacht, or follow specific links. I'll believe those when I see some unbiased sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrath of Dagon Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Actually, alanschu seems to have understood my post completely. You, on the other hand, pretty much missed the whole point of my post and continue to dig deeper into your hole.OK, why don't you state what your point was, but try to be intellectually honest. Are you claiming you were not defending the Wehrmacht? "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lare Kikkeli Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Heh, this guy is great. I'm starting to believe he's just a brilliant troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
213374U Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Yes, I see you have some unbiased sources there. The LA times didn't say anything about not prosecuting rape, but I didn't read the entire article. What would be an example of an unbiased news source? Sources that don't say things like the first statement in the aztlan link.Neat. One of the sources he posted is biased, so clearly all three are biased AND what they are reporting must be FALSE. Uncanny logic. But here, let me dig up a more "respectable" source for you: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/1...ape-claim-block 30 Republican members voted against it, including the former presidential candidate John McCain. Mythical myths and innuendo, no doubt. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purkake Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 This thread delivers. Keep it up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 (edited) The quote you produced from my link confirm my point exactly, Wehrmacht was responsible for countless war crimes throughout the war. The link also explains somewhere about how enthusiastic the German soldiers were about accepting and carrying out the nazi agenda. The fact that you failed to understand the meaning of Hurlshot's post in the context of his answering my post isn't my problem. The quote I posted from your links specifically supports Hurlshot, specifically with reference to the SS being the "principal perpetrators" (Wiki's words) of the war crimes. Given you decision to go contrary to Hurlshot's statement, through deductive reasoning your links do NOT support your view. Unfortunately, as Hurlshot already demonstrated, your accusations of me not understanding his post are as off the wall as the majority of nonsense you post. OK, why don't you state what your point was, but try to be intellectually honest. I find THIS request laughable. His point was clear as day. It's not my problem you failed to understand it. Read his post, it's not like he's been nefariously sneaky or anything. Given Walsingham's post about how he'd think that a German soldier could still be a hero, Hurlshot points out that people make a distinction between the Wehrmacht and the SS when they look back on them (to which you disagreed), only to follow it up by stating that the majority of soldiers in the Wehrmacht were simply soldiers fighting for their country, with a comment that historians tend to consider the SS to be the primary perpetrators of the war crimes (which your source agreed with). Edited November 23, 2009 by alanschu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Actually, alanschu seems to have understood my post completely. You, on the other hand, pretty much missed the whole point of my post and continue to dig deeper into your hole.OK, why don't you state what your point was, but try to be intellectually honest. Are you claiming you were not defending the Wehrmacht? Look, if you really want to make this argument, you could argue that the SS was a major arm of the Wehrmacht, and by the end of the war they were pretty much running the show. That might be a better way to go here. I'm not defending or attacking anything here, I'm just stating the difference between a front-line soldier engaged in combat with opposing military forces and the folks who ran death camps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirottu Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 Guys, Wrathie is just angry, because no one has nominated Carth for heroism in this thread. This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrath of Dagon Posted November 23, 2009 Share Posted November 23, 2009 (edited) The quote actually said SS was the primary perpetrators of the Holocaust, since this was a job specifically given to them. That does not absolve the Wehrmacht of their resposibility, as Hurlshot implied. Actually, alanschu seems to have understood my post completely. You, on the other hand, pretty much missed the whole point of my post and continue to dig deeper into your hole.OK, why don't you state what your point was, but try to be intellectually honest. Are you claiming you were not defending the Wehrmacht? Look, if you really want to make this argument, you could argue that the SS was a major arm of the Wehrmacht, and by the end of the war they were pretty much running the show. That might be a better way to go here. I'm not defending or attacking anything here, I'm just stating the difference between a front-line soldier engaged in combat with opposing military forces and the folks who ran death camps. My problem is with your implication that the front line soldier was somehow just an innocent bystander, instead of an active participant. Edited November 23, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now