orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (04/23/85)
As much as I disagree with Ronald Reagan on almost anything
and everything that he comes up with, I am not sure that
I think it is such a horrible idea to honor dead German soldiers.
But I think it is terrible that Reagan originally planned to
pay no respects to the Jews massacred by the Nazis.....OR
to the innocent German civilians fried in Dresden.
This is what galls me: the soldiers are lauded while the innocent
civilians slaughtered by both sides are forgotten.
In this way we blind ourselves to the true horrors of war in the
modern age.
While I feel we should remember the Nazi Holocaust the whole point
of Reagan's honoring of Nazi war dead is to smooth the path
for the next Holocaust: which will make no discriminations as to
race, creed, color, or sex and ,if the Nuclear Winter hypothesis is
correct, precious little to national origins.
I believe that part of the intensity of opposition among many of
the German people to the placement of Pershing and cruise missiles
is the remembrance of German complicity in the last Holocaust.
Many Germans do not want to be guilty of such complicity in
possibly bringing about the next Holocaust.
Knowing this, the last thing Ronnie RayGuns wants to do is remind the
Germans of their guilt in the last great War.
This might only serve to inspire their resolve not to be willing
puppets for preparations for the next Holocaust.
tim sevener whuxl!orb
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (04/26/85)
>/* cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) / 2:54 pm Apr 24, 1985 */ >Many German soldiers were drafted; many were mislead to believe they >were doing something noble. They gave their lives to defend Nazism; that >makes them "victims" to me. How were they "mislead." Some may not have known about atrocities, but they still knew about the nationalist goals of te Nazi gov't. One is not noble for giving one's life for an immoral cause even if one wholeheartedly believes that it is right. Nor, in such a case, is one a "victim," since one made the decision him/herself. Michael Sykora
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (04/27/85)
>/* gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) / 9:48 am Apr 25, 1985 */ >> By the way, can we all stop using that misleading abbreviation >> "Nazi"? It's short for "National Socialist" in German, and a >> lot of modern day socialists would like for people to forget what >> Hitler's economic policies were all about... >Don't reactionaries ever tire of this drivel? Capitalism prospered >under Hitler because capitalists, fearful of a revolution, put him >in power. Hitler's economic policies were "business as usual" for >the barons of German industry--some of whom are still doing quite well. >-- >ken perlow ***** ***** I suppose this would be news to those Jewish merchants whose businesses were destroyed or confiscated by the Nazis. Since the Nazis received such a large percentage of the popular vote in Germany, how did the "capitalists" put him in power. It is clear from your statements that you are ignorant of these matters. They were dealt with in the mainstream media (NY Times, etc.) - no friends of Laissez Faire - recently, and it was found that big businesses did not support the Nazis until it became apparent that they were going to be in charge. For those who are interested, relevant issues are discussed lucidly in Ludwig von Mises' Omnipotent Government. --------------------- Michael Sykora
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (04/27/85)
>/* gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) / 9:48 am Apr 25, 1985 */ >> By the way, can we all stop using that misleading abbreviation >> "Nazi"? It's short for "National Socialist" in German, and a >> lot of modern day socialists would like for people to forget what >> Hitler's economic policies were all about... >Don't reactionaries ever tire of this drivel? Capitalism prospered >under Hitler because capitalists, fearful of a revolution, put him >in power. Hitler's economic policies were "business as usual" for >the barons of German industry--some of whom are still doing quite well. >-- >ken perlow ***** ***** I suppose this would be news to those Jewish merchants whose businesses were destroyed or confiscated by the Nazis. Since the Nazis received such a large percentage of the popular vote in Germany, how did the "capitalists" put HITLER in power?! It is clear from your statements that you are ignorant of these matters. They were dealt with in the mainstream media (NY Times, etc.) - no friends of Laissez Faire - recently, and it was found that big businesses did not support the Nazis until it became apparent that they were going to be in charge. For those who are interested, relevant issues are discussed lucidly in Ludwig von Mises' Omnipotent Government. --------------------- Michael Sykora
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/01/85)
> >/* cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) / 2:54 pm Apr 24, 1985 */ > > >Many German soldiers were drafted; many were mislead to believe they > >were doing something noble. They gave their lives to defend Nazism; that > >makes them "victims" to me. > > How were they "mislead." Some may not have known about atrocities, > but they still knew about the nationalist goals of te Nazi gov't. > > One is not noble for giving one's life for an immoral cause even > if one wholeheartedly believes that it is right. Nor, in such a case, > is one a "victim," since one made the decision him/herself. > > Michael Sykora It's sure easy to say that when you are an adult growing up in a society that tolerates dissent; it's a lot harder if you have grown up in a totalitarian society where dissenting voices were never heard.
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (05/01/85)
-- [The original statement] > >> By the way, can we all stop using that misleading abbreviation > >> "Nazi"? It's short for "National Socialist" in German, and a > >> lot of modern day socialists would like for people to forget what > >> Hitler's economic policies were all about... [My response] >>Don't reactionaries ever tire of this drivel? Capitalism prospered >>under Hitler because capitalists, fearful of a revolution, put him >>in power. Hitler's economic policies were "business as usual" for >>the barons of German industry--some of whom are still doing quite >>well. [Now Sykora says] > I suppose this would be news to those Jewish merchants whose > businesses were destroyed or confiscated by the Nazis. Read what I wrote--"the barons of German industry". You know, Fritz Thissen, I. G. Farben, Krupp, et al. > Since the Nazis received such a large percentage of the popular vote > in Germany, how did the "capitalists" put him in power. Easy--they bankrolled him. Or didn't you ever wonder how the Nazis were able to stage such grand and smartly uniformed rallies in the midst of a depression? They were also quite influential when it came time to nominate a new chancellor. > It is clear from your statements that you are ignorant of these > matters. They were dealt with in the mainstream media (NY Times, > etc.) - no friends of Laissez Faire - recently, and it was found > that big businesses did not > support the Nazis until it became apparent that they were going to be > in charge. > Michael Sykora Hitler had friends in high places from the beginning. Read Fritz Thissen's "I Paid Hitler". It was not clear Hitler was going to be in charge--the Nazis never had even close to majority support--but the country was in chaos, and the capitalists feared that the socialists--far more popular than the Nazis--would gain control. It is true that most capitalists were reluctant to back an obvious lunatic, and did so only when there seemed to be no other option. But they did it anyway--which was my point. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 01 May 85 [12 Floreal An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7188 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/03/85)
>/* gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) / 11:07 am May 1, 1985 */ >>>Don't reactionaries ever tire of this drivel? Capitalism prospered >>>under Hitler because capitalists, fearful of a revolution, put him >>>in power. Hitler's economic policies were "business as usual" for >>>the barons of German industry--some of whom are still doing quite >>>well. >> I suppose this would be news to those Jewish merchants whose >> businesses were destroyed or confiscated by the Nazis. >Read what I wrote--"the barons of German industry". You know, >Fritz Thissen, I. G. Farben, Krupp, et al. >> Since the Nazis received such a large percentage of the popular vote >> in Germany, how did the "capitalists" put him in power. >Easy--they bankrolled him. Or didn't you ever wonder how the Nazis >were able to stage such grand and smartly uniformed rallies in the >midst of a depression? They were also quite influential when it >came time to nominate a new chancellor. The question was not "how did they promote him?", but rather "how could they be considered responsible for his election, given that so man people voted for him?" Michael Sykora
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (05/08/85)
>One is not noble for giving one's life for an immoral cause even >if one wholeheartedly believes that it is right. Nor, in such a case, >is one a "victim," since one made the decision him/herself. > > Michael Sykora So who decides what is moral? I can easily see many situations where a person lives life by the standards that they believe to be correct - are even willing to give their life to preserve those standards - and therefore are, I feel, "good" people, deserving of my respect. Included in these situations is that the standards in question are those that I cannot respect - communism, fascism, infanticide, etc. I think it is pointless to describe how much cultures vary and change, it should be obvious that definition of "acceptable behavior" has changes mightily from culture to culture or from century to century. Do you propose that we judge every person (living of dead) by today's western standards? I do agree that there is a difference between being noble and being a victim. Noble implies (to me) suffering a loss as a result of having or keeping a principle, while victim implies suffering a loss without a choice. Peter Barbee
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/10/85)
>/* tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) / 4:30 pm May 8, 1985 */ >>One is not noble for giving one's life for an immoral cause even >>if one wholeheartedly believes that it is right. Nor, in such a case, >>is one a "victim," since one made the decision him/herself. >So who decides what is moral? I can easily see many situations where a person >lives life by the standards that they believe to be correct - are even willing >to give their life to preserve those standards - and therefore are, I feel, >"good" people, deserving of my respect. Included in these situations is that >the standards in question are those that I cannot respect - communism, fascism, >infanticide, etc. Why are they "good" people? Clearly they (communists, fascists, etc.) don't abide by any system of morals that you and I call good. If such a system has any significance, then these people are not good but bad. If the system has no significance, then they are neither bad nor good. >I think it is pointless to describe how much cultures vary and change, it >should be obvious that definition of "acceptable behavior" has changes mightily >from culture to culture or from century to century. Not everyone does, and certainly no one should, completely rely on the prevailing culture for their definition of good and bad. Furthermore, if morality is to have any meaning at all, it cannot merely consist of cultural norms. Otherwise, it isn't morality, but cultural norms (no need for a separate word if there's no separate concept). >Do you propose that we >judge every person (living of dead) by today's western standards? That depends what you mean by "today's western standards?" >I do agree that there is a difference between being noble and being a victim. >Noble implies (to me) suffering a loss as a result of having or keeping a >principle, while victim implies suffering a loss without a choice. > >Peter Barbee If that is how you choose to define noble, fine. I doubt tht this is what most people mena by nobility. If it is, then I don't see why one should accord any respect to the noble. Mike Sykora