orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (05/03/85)
> Mark Roddy: > > As these people were feeding my relatives into the chimneys, I take > > personal offense at the suggestion that the german people should > > EVER be forgiven for what they did. > > > Give me a break! Do you -- and your children, and grandchildren, > and ... - take personal responsibility for what happened at My Lai? > -- > Saumya Debray I think we *all* have a responsibility to see that such events or similar events *never occur again*. In that vein I believe that is precisely one of the reasons that Reagan chose Bitburg as his site to visit: besides having a Cemetery with German soldiers (both Nazis and others) it is also one of major deployment sites for Pershing II nuclear missiles. As Helmut Kohl's party has an important election in this region coming up and Kohl has been totally supportive of the deployment of new nuclear weapons in Germany despite widespread public opposition, Reagan wants to repay this favor. While remembering the last Holocaust we should be thinking about how to prevent the possibility of another Holocaust which would be even worse: a nuclear war which would result in the deaths not of 6 million but of hundreds of millions of people and possibly the destruction of the whole human race. Is this not genocide of an order of magnitude even beyond that of Hitler? And what is the purpose of "reconciliation with the Germans"? To insure that the missile deployments go as planned and also get German support for the Start Wars program. Reminders of the last Holocaust might not go over too well given this aim when many Germans with conscience are opposing new missile deployments in their country to prevent a new and far worse Holocaust. Many Germans who were blamed for their neglect to do anything to prevent the Nazi Holocaust are now determined to try to prevent a nuclear holocaust. They do not want to be held responsible for the massacre of millions of innocent human beings again. The question is: remembering the results of the last Holocaust are we going to do anything to prevent another Holocaust from nuclear war? tim sevener whuxl!orb
jj@alice.UUCP (05/03/85)
Of course, Tim. All of us who want better relations with the Germans, etc, just want them so that we can put newer and better deadly weapons in their countries. I think you are totally blind to ideas outside of your own ethos, and you automatically (I'm assuming it's automatic instead of malicious) assume the worst possible reason for anything you don't agree with. Frankly, that sort of behavior is offensive. You MUST assume the other guy has SOME smarts, Tim. While you, and others, have many times accused me of total idiocy, you also have accused me of manpulation, sophistry (although you never use the word, perhaps because it strikes too close to home), and the like. By defination, an idiot cannot either manipulate or use rhetoric, so your representation of me is flawed. You have also called Reagan (who I'm NOT, remember?) idiotic, and you have also accused HIM of the same. Ditto... Frankly, when you see something, why don't you try to see why it happened first, and THEN complain. (I'm sure that your first reaction is to say "that's why I complain", but your first reaction is clearly wrong, and I hope even to you.) If you MUST spread hate, please don't call it hating for peace. -- DO TEDDY BEARS HAVE OPINIONS? ASK YOURS TODAY! "My mind is clearer now, at last, all too well, I can see, where we all, soon will be.." (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (05/06/85)
> From jj: > Of course, Tim. All of us who want better relations with > the Germans, etc, just want them so that we can put newer > and better deadly weapons in their countries. It has been explicitly stated by the Reagan administration and also noted to a certain extent by the Press that *one* of the objectives Reagan wanted out of the Economic Summit was support for his "Start Wars" program. Indeed the Summit did come out with a lukewarm endorsement of the "Start Wars" concept except for Francois Mitterand who suggested that Europe would be better served by the "Eureka" program for *civilian* research rather than military research. > > I think you are totally blind to ideas outside of your own > ethos, and you automatically (I'm assuming it's automatic > instead of malicious) assume the worst possible reason for > anything you don't agree with. > You should look at my posting on this matter from a long time ago in which I stated that one *should* have sympathy for the soldiers killed on both sides but that one should also honor the innocent civilians who have been more the victims of modern warfare than any other group. Personally I think the Press has blown the whole matter out of proportion and focussed its attention on the wrong thing(as usual). Certainly I do not think there is anything wrong with reconciliation or even acknowledging that Adolph Hitler himself was human, even if he was deranged. I am tired however of the claim that the Holocaust was "due to one man". The Holocaust was the product of social forces and not just one man. It was supported by right-wing anti-semitism and anti-communism that was endemic to German society. The question is: will we prevent another Holocaust which would destroy the whole human race? What are the nations of the world doing to stop the current bloodshed between Iran and Iraq? Since that war seems to play into the hands of both superpowers there is little concern to stop it. What are we doing to move away from a system which spends trillions on war while hundreds of millions of people are starving? > Frankly, that sort of behavior is offensive. You MUST assume > the other guy has SOME smarts, Tim. While you, and others, > have many times accused me of total idiocy, you also > have accused me of manpulation, sophistry (although you never > use the word, perhaps because it strikes too close to home), > and the like. By defination, an idiot cannot either manipulate > or use rhetoric, so your representation of me is flawed. I don't recall ever accusing you of being a "total idiot". What I have said is that your articles are long on emotion and short on facts. This article is yet another example. I cannot accuse you of manipulation or sophistry as such tactics require at least the attempt to present facts or seeming facts to buttress an argument. Since you very seldom present facts (other than your own opinions) I do not think you are manipulative. > You have also called Reagan (who I'm NOT, remember?) idiotic, > and you have also accused HIM of the same. Ditto... > Well, what *do* you say about somebody who says "Hardly anyone is alive to remember World War II" or "Trees pollute" or "There are more forests today than in George Washington's time" or "the advantage of missiles launched from submarines is that they can be recalled" or a person who admits to a Congressional delegation that he has just been made aware of the fact that the Soviets major strategic nuclear forces are landbased while ours is not (2 years after being President!)...... Do you call such a person a "genius" with magnificent command of the facts? > > If you MUST spread hate, please don't call it hating for peace. > I do not hate Ronald Reagan anymore than Adolph Hitler or Joseph Stalin or Richard Nixon. I do think that he is a liar and a hypocrite of the worst sort who is promoting policies which are very bad for our own country and the rest of the world. I am determined to oppose Reagan's policies and the lies which he uses repeatedly to support those policies. I do not want any "revenge" against Reagan, I would just like to see opposing policies to his put into effect. When Nixon was forced to resign due to Watergate, I said "I told you so" but I also did not agree with those who wished to lock him up and throw away the key. To be stripped of power was good enough as far as I was concerned. The same with Reagan: I wish he would just go back to his ranch and make Borax commercials and leave us in peace. Is it an expression of "hate" to point out that Reagan is spending more on War than any leader in history? ($1.6 trillion he plans to spend) That he has lied repeatedly? Or should one just say "oh. but he seems so nice on Television......" Mahatma Gandhi said that it is one's duty to oppose evil in every way possible consistent with truth and nonviolence. I personally think Reagan and his policies are evil and I will continue to oppose them. tim sevener whuxl!orb
debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (05/06/85)
Tim Sevener: > I think we *all* have a responsibility to see that such events [the > Holocaust] or similar events *never occur again*. I have no quarrel with that, Tim. If you'll look at my original posting, though, you'll notice that my quarrel is with those who would _perpetuate_ hatred, e.g. the person who would "take personal offense at the suggestion that the german people should EVER be forgiven for what they did". I don't think that's a very productive attitude as far as world peace is concerned. -- Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray arpa: debray%suny-sb.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa CSNet: debray@sbcs.csnet
cpk@telesis.UUCP (NANJIL NESAN) (05/08/85)
>.. The Holocaust was the product of social forces and not > just one man. It was supported by right-wing anti-semitism and anti-communism > that was endemic to German society. I think the above statement has to be stated and repeated again and again. There has been a delibirate and malicious propoganda to the contrary assigning it to some individual say Hitler. Hitler is nothing but the logical consequence of imperialist "civilization". To see what this "civilization" is all about one should see the documentry about the concentration camp which is being shown in Frontline in PBS this week(week of May 8). It can be stated that human history has NEVER witnessed this kind of barbarism in its entire past history. And this WILL be repeated if the superpowers have their way. Their record so far does not show in the least the peacenicks they proclaim themselves to be.
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/10/85)
>/* cpk@telesis.UUCP (NANJIL NESAN) / 9:10 am May 8, 1985 */ >>.. The Holocaust was the product of social forces and not >>just one man. It was supported by right-wing anti-semitism and >>anti-communism that was endemic to German society. > I think the above statement has to be stated and repeated again and >again. There has been a delibirate and malicious propoganda to the >contrary assigning it to some individual say Hitler. Hitler is nothing >but the logical consequence of imperialist "civilization". To see what >this "civilization" is all about one should see the documentry about the >concentration camp which is being shown in Frontline in PBS this >week(week of May 8). It can be stated that human history has NEVER >witnessed this kind of barbarism in its entire past history. And this >WILL be repeated if the superpowers have their way. Their record >so far does not show in the least the peacenicks they proclaim >themselves to be. What are you talking about?!?!?
hsu@cvl.UUCP (Dave Hsu) (05/11/85)
>>.. The Holocaust was the product of social forces and not >> just one man. It was supported by right-wing anti-semitism and anti-communism >> that was endemic to German society. > > I think the above statement has to be stated and repeated again and > again. There has been a delibirate and malicious propoganda to the > contrary assigning it to some individual say Hitler. Hitler is nothing > but the logical consequence of imperialist "civilization"... > ... It can be stated that human history has NEVER > witnessed this kind of barbarism in its entire past history. And this > WILL be repeated if the superpowers have their way. Their record > so far does not show in the least the peacenicks they proclaim > themselves to be. It would be more reasonable to say that the Holocaust was unprecedented primarily because of its mechanization and the relative lack of publicity concerning the slaughter. One could argue that the average German was responsible because he or she placed the blame for world problems on Jews. However, it seems that the average German, while aware of the mass interrment, did not know of the mass killings. Many Germans were appalled after being shown the internal workings of the camps; the invading troops had no idea they exited until they overran the camps. Calling the basic underpinnings 'never before witnessed' ignores the periodic persecution throughout history of many (most?) ethnic groups at some time. And don't call the concentration camps unprecedented either...note the camps instituted by Mussolini in North Africa years before Hitler. -dave hsu David T Hsu Computer Vision Lab, University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (05/13/85)
In article <180@telesis.UUCP> cpk@telesis.UUCP (NANJIL NESAN) writes: > It can be stated that human history has NEVER >witnessed this kind of barbarism in its entire past history. And this >WILL be repeated if the superpowers have their way. Their record >so far does not show in the least the peacenicks they proclaim >themselves to be. Now, just a minute. Obviously this person has never read the Bible, just for starters. And how about the Punic wars? Genocide was, if the historical record is to believed, at least condoned in most civilizations. Then we have this comment that "Hitler is nothing but the logical consequence of imperialist 'civilization'". If the author meant "imperialist" in the usual communist sense, I would remind him of Pol Pot, in comparison to whom Hitler was a rank amateur. I would also remind him of what, before Islam, was normal conduct in Afgahnistan. What is most unfortunate about Hitler and the Holocaust as history is that the focus upon this evil has caused people to forget how prevalent the same acts are in the world today, and how often they appear in history. It is no political, economic, or religious system which is to blame; they are merely channels, perverted to serve the evil. It is human nature which brought this to pass. What should frighten people most about Nazism is that it was brought into existence and perpetuated by ordinary, "good" people. It could happen again anywhere, even in Israel; even in the USA. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
chu@lasspvax.UUCP (Clare Chu) (05/23/85)
In article <425@cvl.UUCP> hsu@cvl.UUCP (Dave Hsu) writes: > >Calling the basic underpinnings 'never before witnessed' ignores the periodic >persecution throughout history of many (most?) ethnic groups at some time. >And don't call the concentration camps unprecedented either...note the camps >instituted by Mussolini in North Africa years before Hitler. > >-dave hsu > >David T Hsu Computer Vision Lab, University of Maryland > College Park, MD 20742 or the concentration camps we had in California for Americans of Japanese descent. Of course they were only interned not killed, but still, it was a violation of their civil rights, they lost their properties and businesses and a couple of years of their lives...it was still a concentration camp right here in our U.S.A.
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/24/85)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 1:06 pm May 3, 1985 */ >The question is: remembering the results of the last Holocaust are >we going to do anything to prevent another Holocaust from nuclear war? > > tim sevener whuxl!orb What do you suggest?
tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) (05/28/85)
A ecreaction to the Wingate response to S. Debray:
The general thrust and conclusions of the Wingate argument, one
can quibble, but -- in my view -- not take much exception to. However,
Wingate's historical analogies (which he happens to use to arrive at
those conclusions) are pretty hard to swallow.
Firstly, YES, people have always killed other people, and yes,
sometimes so indiscriminately, that it amounted to killing whole
peoples (that's supposed to be the meaning of the term "genocide");
however this generally occurred in the context of wars. There doesn't
seem to be any precedent for a ruler to decide that a particular race
or "people" with which his people has never been at war and was not at
war at the time, doesn't deserve to live. Second, the Nazis then
meshed modern industrial capacity -- railroads, potent gas, specially
designed incinerators, modern bureaucracy (which is what caused Hannah
Arendt to refer to Eichmann's deeds as "Banality of Evil"!) witht that
desire to eliminate the existence of the Jews, and to calmly go about
accomplishing this. To the tune of about four million of them. To be
sure, it occurred in the context and partly under the cover of WWII,
but had no really direct connection with the war as such, except that
there would have been no access to the Jews of Russia, and other parts
of eastern Europe, had they not been conquered first.
Thirdly, the comparison with PolPot is absurd. Sure he was a mad
killer, but he never conquered a continent, and if he had killed all
the people of Cambodia, which he fortunately didn't quite manage, then
the statement that next to him Hitler was a lesser killer, is still a
gross distortion.
Finally, the implied comparison with the threat and the
possibility of nuclear catastrophy is utterly unhelpful to any better
understanding of either problem. The commonality there amounts to
something like original sin... yes, man is capable of all sorts of
horrow, much of it onto fellow man. So what else is new, and what do
we learn from that. Unfortunately there is a certain relative -- and
very awesome -- uniqueness to the Holocaust. And surely no one I know
will deny that an even more gruesome possibility looms over all of our
heads in the form of nuclear war. To fudge them into one, and lump
that "one" in with the Punic Wars and Pot Pol amounts to little more
than "tsk, tsk... aren't we humans baddies anyway."
The latter is true, of course -- I'm a real baddie, for one -- but
when discussing history and politics, I believe one can learn more by
careful distinctions rather than broad generalizations. For one thing,
it seems that the gents rattling missiles at one another are awfully
prone to those broad categories, and would in my view help all of us
more if they thought and acted more in terms of specific countries and
peoples and problems, rather than imperialists and communists,
totalitarians and free enterprisers, etc etc.
Tom Schlesinger
Plymouth State College
Plymouth, New Hampshire
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
horror, most of it perpetrated onto fellow man.mat@mtx5b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (05/31/85)
> or the concentration camps we had in California for Americans of > Japanese descent. Of course they were only interned not killed, > but still, it was a violation of their civil rights, they lost > their properties and businesses and a couple of years of their > lives...it was still a concentration camp right here in our > U.S.A. Yes. But for what it is worth, part of the motivation for moving the people of Japanese ancestry out of the general population was to protect them, and prevent killings and riots. The wartime fervor against ``the Japs'' (which was necessary to support the superhuman effort and sacrifice that won the war) was a great hazard to the public safety, especially on the West Coast, where invasion paranoia reigned supreme. I'm not saying that the action was right --- only that it was well intentioned. Further, a number of people around Roosevelt argued against it. Had anyone among Hitler's advisors argued against Hitler's ``struggle'', he would have been removed from his post and executed. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/09/85)
>/* mat@mtx5b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) / 4:12 am May 31, 1985 */ >Yes. But for what it is worth, part of the motivation for moving the people >of Japanese ancestry out of the general population was to protect them, and >prevent killings and riots. The wartime fervor against ``the Japs'' (which >was necessary to support the superhuman effort and sacrifice that won the war) >was a great hazard to the public safety, especially on the West Coast, where >invasion paranoia reigned supreme. It is the job of the police to protect citizens of Japanese or other descents. If the gov't. could muster up the manpower necessary to move the Japanese to internment camps, it would seem likely that it could muster up the strength to protect them from mobs. How do you know that "fervor against 'the Japs'" was necessary and was directed (by most Americans) towards Americans of Japanese descent as well as those living in Japan? Why do you suppose such fervor might have been necessary? Is it not possible that most Americans wer chiefly motivated by the desire to defend their home (country) rather than by hatred of Japanese? Why do you construe such self defense as "sacrifice?" >I'm not saying that the action was right --- only that it was well >intentioned. Hitler also thught what he did was for the good. >Further, a number of people around Roosevelt argued against it. Had anyone >among Hitler's advisors argued against Hitler's ``struggle'', he would have >been removed from his post and executed. You can't excuse Roosevelt by showing that Hitler was worse. > from Mole End Mark Terribile Mike Sykora
robg@mmintl.UUCP (Robert Goldman) (06/11/85)
in the referenced article Mark Terribile writes:
Yes. But for what it is worth, part of the motivation for moving the people
of Japanese ancestry out of the general population was to protect them, and
prevent killings and riots. The wartime fervor against ``the Japs'' (which
was necessary to support the superhuman effort and sacrifice that won the war)
was a great hazard to the public safety, especially on the West Coast, where
invasion paranoia reigned supreme.
I'm not saying that the action was right --- only that it was well intentioned.
Further, a number of people around Roosevelt argued against it.
that`s a new one to me. as i understood it, the motivation for
interning the Japanese was a mixture of xenophobic fear, desire to
expropriate their property (something the Germans indulged in vis a vis the
Jews as well. . .) and a desire to use them as cheap farm labor. As I
recall, the latter was suggested to Stimson, who was opposed to it, and
opposed to the internment in general, but my recollection of the history is
a little hazy.
Robert Goldmancramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/12/85)
> > or the concentration camps we had in California for Americans of > > Japanese descent. Of course they were only interned not killed, > > but still, it was a violation of their civil rights, they lost > > their properties and businesses and a couple of years of their > > lives...it was still a concentration camp right here in our > > U.S.A. > > Yes. But for what it is worth, part of the motivation for moving the people > of Japanese ancestry out of the general population was to protect them, and > prevent killings and riots. The wartime fervor against ``the Japs'' (which > was necessary to support the superhuman effort and sacrifice that won the war) > was a great hazard to the public safety, especially on the West Coast, where > invasion paranoia reigned supreme. > I recall reading some years ago that in the nine months between Pearl Harbor and the start of the relocation, there were only a few incidents of the type being described above --- something like 28 extra-legal actions, and seven deaths of Japanese-Americans. (From Bill Hosokawa's book, _Nisei_, which was a history of Japanese-Americans, and not just about the camps.) It seems clear at this point in time that the motivation was more related to the desire of non-Japanese to reduce economic competition. While the grand tradition of warfare is to whip up nationalistic hatred of the enemy so as to persuade the population to sacrifice and fight (for example, anti-German feelings in World War I), World War II was somewhat different. While anti-German feelings were definitely present, much of the material I have read from that time clearly distinguishs the *Germans* from the *Nazis*. Bill Mauldin's book _Up_ _Front_ has a portion where he discusses how silly the distinction seemed to the soldiers fighting in Europe. Similar relocations were not done on the East Coast for ethnic Germans and Italians --- and there was at least as much provocation for concern about ethnic German sympathy for "the motherland". (See Eric Severeid's autobiography _Not_ _So_ _Wild_ _A_ _Dream_ for a disturbing portrait of the Silver Shirts in Minnesota. Why is not surprising that Walter Mondale, Hubert Humphrey, and stack of other collectivists came from there?) By contrast, racial hatred *was* whipped up towards the Japanese as a race --- although it didn't take much work. > I'm not saying that the action was right --- only that it was well intentioned. I would strongly dispute this claim --- especially in light of the suit being fought this month in Seattle. It appears that the decision to relocate the Japanese as a military decision may have been based on purposeful suppression of the facts. > Further, a number of people around Roosevelt argued against it. Had anyone > among Hitler's advisors argued against Hitler's ``struggle'', he would have > been removed from his post and executed. > -- > > from Mole End Mark Terribile > (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat > ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*. In medieval times, the peasants held the king in so much awe, that they assumed when some new evil was foisted upon them, that "if the king only knew!" In modern times, I have seen this reaction from partisans of both Presidents Carter and Reagan, who find it hard to believe that their hero could really approve such a thing. President Roosevelt told his aides, when he signed the Executive Order for the relocation ("be reasonable"). This is rather akin to handing a criminal an automatic weapon during a blackout and saying "be reasonable". I can't imagine any way to justify the relocation, except based on complete and total ignorance of what happened.