"World War II myths fuel Western crimes" Topic

This sounds a little controvertial… (smile)

"Freshman US Senator Tom Cotton already has two claims to fame. First he wrote a letter to Iran in an effort to sabotage his own President's diplomatic efforts and start a war. And then he set an all-time record by invoking Hitler in less than one minute during his first Senate speech.

Sen. Cotton thus stands condemned under Godwin's Law, which states that whoever mentions Hitler first automatically loses the debate. "Playing the Hitler card" is widely reviled. Yet people like Cotton cannot resist the temptation.

Why has the demonization of Hitler—and of anybody one wants to demonize through comparisons to Hitler—become such a massively overused, utterly shopworn cliché?

In Western culture, Hitler is everybody's favorite villain. And while the German dictator's transformation from historical figure to avatar of ultimate evil is partially based on fact, it is primarily the product of a mythological process. Scholars who study the creation of myths, legends and folktales can easily see the distortions in mainstream Western accounts of World War II, "the Good War," enshrined in the collective imagination as a struggle of pure goodness against diabolical evil…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Wow.

Looks like a right wing revisionist site. The text has many facts wrong, for example the rhine camps of Eisenhower.

I am not against discussing the demonization of WW2, but is your opponent has a political agenda and thereby knows already everything (wrong), the discussion is worthless.

I shall stay away from this topic (other than this). I don't think you can get any closer to the flame of modern political discussion without a flame thrower.

I've read that book by james Bacq(sp?)"other loses", and while much was mis interpreted, many facts are quite correct. And the book "hellstorm" has Not been refuted.

Hmm, says the British "orchestrated WW I" and since WW II is just a "continuation of the first war" they are responsible for WW II as well, NOT Germany. Yeah, that makes (no) sense. Revisionist Nazi lovers make me sick. This shouldn't even be on this TMP.

C'mon, Armand, quit trying to cause problems!

The "demonization" of Hitler?

Hitler was an Austrian

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

and they orchestrated World War I in an effort to pre-empt the rise of the number two power, Germany.

This is not controversial. It is bad history, pure and simple. WWI was as the site claims a war between empires, indeed. However to conclude from there that UK "orchestrated" the war is wrong in so many levels that I wouldn't know where to start. Simply put: part of the UK's military and political establishment thought the conflict inevitable, but didn't wanted it; they concocted an rapprochement to UK traditional adversary, France, but rather under the assumption that it was better to be ready than as a way to provoke Germany. Alas, some people read a couple of papers and think that they are experts! Particularly, conspiranoics.

Other imperial potentates, including leaders in the US, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Japan and China, also played self-serving, power-seeking roles.

Wow! The guy is trying to win the nomination to Master of the Obvious!

Churchill and Roosevelt were responsible for firebombing German and Japanese cities and roasting alive their civilian populations.

Firebombing was a terrible weapon of war. Nobody questions it. But how it compares with the deliberate genocide of whole populations, as the Nazis did, is something that I can't begin to fathom. Revisionism at its worst, and a bad attempt at moral equivalence to booth.

Even worse were the American, British and Russian rapes and massacres of Germans after the war. Tom Goodrich's book Hellstorm offers bone-chilling, nausea-inducing descriptions of the shameful holocaust the occupiers perpetrated against a defeated and helpless German population. Millions of German women were raped—not just by Russians on the Eastern front, but also by Americans on the Western front. (The de facto US official policy of mass-raping the women of defeated and helpless populations is probably the single biggest reason why most American World War II veterans would maintain shame-faced silence when asked by family members about their experiences in the war—a phenomenon well known to all Americans who have had fathers, uncles or grandfathers who fought.)

Ok. I'm done. This guy is just a ing crypto-nazi. I won't lose more time with his article.

Raul, usually I don't critizice your chosing links but this article is such amount of garbage mixed with crap that it is nausea-inducing.

The conditions in the "Rheinwiesen" POW camps were very inhuman and tens of thousands german prisoners died of starvation or illness. But the number of 1 million victims is nonsense.

"World War II myths fuel Western crimes"

So true. After I watched Saving Private Ryan I robbed a convenience store.

Right wing???

The poll calling for Trump to be arrested for -

Should TRUMP be arrested for making veiled assassination threat against former U.S. First Lady, Senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton?/q>

That might be #nevertrump but sure isn't right wing.

The author of the piece is described as an Arabist-Islamologist and there is a Holocaust denial article listed.

And another topic –

Islamic Human Rights the most superior pattern of human dignity

At any rate the Allies had their sins but this article is out in the wild blue.

Typical blind revi-no, it's not revisionist, just BS-too tired of this garbage historical 'reasoning.

The story of the winner is certainly the truth. If you disagree you are a revisionist, if you talk of WW2 even some neo-Nazi. The Germans are all bad in nature, in fact unleashed all wars. The allies are all good, but those of Britain are a bit 'more, because they are more balanced and objective.

The story of the winner is certainly the truth. If you disagree you are a revisionist, if you talk of WW2 even some neo-Nazi. The Germans are all bad in nature, in fact unleashed all wars. The allies are all good, but those of Britain are a bit 'more, because they are more balanced and objective

No, that's not what the article is arguing. The author is not trying to balance the historical record. He is trying to create a moral equivalence between a genocidical regime and the United States and Britain. That's far from saying that Britain or the US were without fault or their soldiers unblemished sisters of charity. I've read books about the firebombing, the rape epidemic in Germany and about the looting of German households by Allied soldiers. Books written by Western, British, American or French scholars.

All of them, though, characterized by their analysis, thoughtful insights and deep knowledge of the subject. This article, in the other hand, it isn't trying to set the record straight. It is doing what neo-Nazis like most: trying to banalize the undeniable crimes of their preferred political nightmare.

I do not mean that the article in particular, but the way of thinking that emerges from some reaction. I will not convince those who are fixed to the dogmas (zippyfusenet and nazrat for example) but ask what is their function in these discussions. Basileus- responsibilities of Great Britain, Russia and France in the outbreak of WW1 are hard to ignore.