This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
They killed British and American soldiers too. You know, because there was a war.
West-Poles, according to Nazi racial law, were aryans.
Seems like we have gone very far away from Germans considering all Poles subhumans very fast.
Are you claiming that killings in Poland were limited to soldiers? If no, how this is relevant?
There were few exceptions, which does not change things much.
No major participant in the war limited their killings to soldiers.
West-Poland was roughly half of the population. Considering how flexible the Germans were with their racial policies towards allies, like making the Japanese honorary Aryans, there's no reason to look at anti-slav rhetoric, most of which existing as war propaganda against the Soviets, as anything other than a placeholder for whatever would suit German necessity. Considering the idealism Hitler displayed towards Europe as a collection of nations, especially with regards to Britain, and to a further extent his respect towards Polish anti-communists like Pilsudski, there's no reason to assume any hardline ideological animus towards Poles from the Germans if Poland had aligned themselves with Germany rather than Britain, France and the US.
There is major difference between some incidental deaths, or killings due to disregarding civilian casualties and deliberate murder of millions - and doing it as a goal, also when it hurt war effort.
The allies deliberately bombed civilian areas. Often times using targeted munitions like incendiary bombs on civilian infrastructure with a lot of wooden houses. Most notably in Dresden and Tokyo, though the strategy was widely employed. There was nothing incidental about it, there were no military targets. It was deliberate murder of mostly the elderly, women and children. Incinerated alive in fires that burned so hot and spread so fast that every nerve in those peoples bodies would be torturously burnt until it was physically impossible to feel more pain long before they could receive the grace of suffocating to death.
By the same token 3 million German civilians died in the post war years due to forced relocations, systematic starvation and all other manner of mistreatment. Even after that destabilized period the Soviets would use the forced starvation of German civilians as a tool to coerce the western powers to do their bidding. That's on top of every other inhumane act, like the mass rapes.
You impugned my morals previously. I'll return the favor and say I don't care one bit for moralizing from the likes of you. For what are now demonstrably valid reasons. Maybe if I only cared about jews I could understand your perspective. But even then, the Germans were working towards relocating jews out of Europe prior to the war. Which further validates my point that your premonitions and assumed knowledge of what would have happened if things went differently are simply not applicable.
I am not going to defend Soviets at all, and would happily complain about them all day long. I am well aware as fucked up they are, and would consider hammer and sickle in the same way as swastika and consider shocking its open use in many places, including use by some political parties in Western Europe.
I know. Still, it was (generally poor) attempt to wage war by murdering civilians. Nazi Germany waged war to be able to mass murder people, including cases where they continued mass murder to detriment of war (usage of scarce resources like railway transportation capacity).
And the Germans were waging war against the jews. By your own morals, presented here, and excuses given for allied bombings of civilian targets taken as valid, there is no issue with Germans murdering jews. As it was just a poor attempt at waging war when they should have focused the effort elsewhere.
Yes, waging war against ethic group with plan to exterminate them is evil and bad. And relatively unusual (not that doing it with plans to enslave everyone, popular in past, was much better).
You've done this a few times now. Said something false or incongruent, then when called out on it, just ran away to a brand new line of reasoning.
The goal of the war from the German side, if it can be called such, was not to kill all jews. But there certainly were jews in Europe and they certainly did not ally themselves with Hitler. Were they more innocent than a 3 year old girl living in Dresden just before the bombs fell?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link