Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
No one lives in a vaccuum, the Israelis have had more than enough invasions and attacks happen to them to be more than apprehensive about their neighbors. Not saying it's right, but it's far too easy to sit in judgement when you don't have rockets and bombs assailing your country everyday.

This is also true of Nazi Germany, should we not judge them either?

I agree with much of what you're saying dogma, but I take issue with this. Nazi Germany was not completely surrounded by hostile countries (at least until the end point of the war). Although France can be accused of inflaming the situation by occupying parts of Germany at points, but Nazi Germany was not at a constant threat of attacks from insurgents. This did change with the Allied bombing Campaign, but I don't think you can honestly claim that the situation of Israel now is equivalent to Nazi Germany then (barring the end days of the war, and Israel is not at war).

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I agree with much of what you're saying dogma, but I take issue with this. Nazi Germany was not completely surrounded by hostile countries (at least until the end point of the war). Although France can be accused of inflaming the situation by occupying parts of Germany at points, but Nazi Germany was not at a constant threat of attacks from insurgents. This did change with the Allied bombing Campaign, but I don't think you can honestly claim that the situation of Israel now is equivalent to Nazi Germany then (barring the end days of the war, and Israel is not at war).

Does WWI not count when determining enemies?

And, beyond that, the realism that was so popular in those days (and is becoming more popular now) basically dictated that all states are always surrounded by enemies; zero-sum power and all that.

dogma wrote:Does WWI not count when determining enemies?

You did say Nazi Germany, but even by World War 1 Germany is not very similar to the current state of Israel. In fact I don't see what similarities you are attempting to draw here in this case.

And, beyond that, the realism that was so popular in those days (and is becoming more popular now) basically dictated that all states are always surrounded by enemies; zero-sum power and all that.

I don't see evidence to support this, unless you mean that this is the mentality that people in Israel are increasingly taking, rather than it being a growing worldwide point of view.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
You did say Nazi Germany, but even by World War 1 Germany is not very similar to the current state of Israel. In fact I don't see what similarities you are attempting to draw here in this case.

Nazi Germany is still Germany. The people did not magically become Nazis over night.

In any case, Germany lost WWI while fighting enemies, those enemies persisted and imposed Versailles. The reason that we don't think on this is nothing more than the Western obsession with intermittence..

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I don't see evidence to support this, unless you mean that this is the mentality that people in Israel are increasingly taking, rather than it being a growing worldwide point of view.

I mean the former.

dogma wrote:This thread is terrible even by the low standards of our normal threads that regard the Middle East.

The letter that was issued is clearly racist, as it requests that Jewish people consider race when breeding.

The title of this thread is clearly meant to be inflammatory, as many, many other groups have concerned themselves with racial purity. It is not merely a "Nazi thing".

The OP has continued his nominal course of misconstruing arguments, by either inability to understand or unwillingness to do so. No one has argued that they support the letter's meaning, but that is the strawman he is arguing against. He had admitted to trolling in the past, and I suspect he is doing the same here.

That being said, defending the conduct of Israeli citizens on the basis that other people do similar things elsewhere is not a good argument. Other people having committed genocide does not make the commission of genocide acceptable. If it did, then there would be no outcry over comments about "driving Israel into the sea".

In conclusion:

I think that pretty much sums up this thread.

Yeah Dogma its basically common knowledge that WW1 caused WW2, but its clearly not really the same situation. I'm somewhat perplexed where you were going with that one as well.

I entirely understand the Israeli mentality. It's not a winning mentality, because hearts and minds is the only way to win these days, but I understand it.

mattyrm wrote:Yeah Dogma its basically common knowledge that WW1 caused WW2, but its clearly not really the same situation. I'm somewhat perplexed where you were going with that one as well.

The point wasn't that they're the same, but rather that they are similar.

The larger issue is that many people will reach to say that they understand Israel's choices based on their position, but no one (or at least very few people) will repeat such a sentiment with respect to Nazi Germany.

I will say that I understand both, but endorse neither. If that's the sense of "understand" that has been in use here, then the above argument has no weight.

dogma wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
You did say Nazi Germany, but even by World War 1 Germany is not very similar to the current state of Israel. In fact I don't see what similarities you are attempting to draw here in this case.

Nazi Germany is still Germany. The people did not magically become Nazis over night.

That's right they didn't. The Nazi Party come to power. Hence Nazi germany.

whatwhat wrote:
That's right they didn't. The Nazi Party come to power. Hence Nazi germany.

So, all those people involved in the Nazi Party and its ascent to power weren't also German? And the Nazi Party didn't ascend to power in Germany by popular election?

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
That's right they didn't. The Nazi Party come to power. Hence Nazi germany.

So, all those people involved in the Nazi Party and its ascent to power weren't also German? And the Nazi Party didn't ascend to power in Germany by popular election?

Erm, you do understand that when people usually say "Nazi Germany" they are talking about germany under Nazi Rule. The Nazi Party didn't even exist untill after world war one.

But then this is just you trying to redifine the term nazi germany in order to uphold your wanning integrity. Nice try but sory you fail.

whatwhat wrote:
Erm, you do understand that when people usually say "Nazi Germany" they are talking about germany under Nazi Rule.

Yes, but again you're focusing on the "Nazi" and ignoring the "Germany". Nazi Germany didn't cease being Germany, it was a different state but not a different country.

whatwhat wrote:
The Nazi Party didn't even exist untill after world war one.

That has nothing to do with my argument. Again, its not like the Nazi Party somehow appeared from nowhere. It was largely composed of German citizens, and affected by German perspective.

whatwhat wrote:
But then this is just you trying to redifine the term nazi germany in order to uphold your wanning integrity. Nice try but sory you fail.

No, I'm basically just explaining that the Nazi Party didn't descend from a spaceship piloted by Adolf Hitler. It was the manifestation of a general discontent with respect to state of Germany following World War I in which the nation had lost what was once its pride; the whole "November Traitors" thing and all that.

The Nazi Party proper may not have existed but it's antecedents did. It didn't just magically appear whole one day, it had it's roots in other movements. He isn't refining redefining it as much as being historically accurate as opposed to going by communal history. The Treaty just gave these groups a bigger voice.

Erm lets just take a step backward here. You were talking about Nazi Germany and used world war one to back up one your points. Then when brought up on it you've come up with the genius logic that the politics of any country can be defined by the government in power twenty years in the future. Nice one Mr. Genius. Well on your way to your nobel prize I see.

When you're in a hole, stop digging.

whatwhat wrote:You were talking about Nazi Germany and used world war one to back up one your points.

Yes, my point was that World War I defined the set that might be called "The enemies of Germany".

This was a large part of the zeitgeist that brought the Nazis to power.

Things that occur before a given event often have an effect on that event. That's the essence of causality.

whatwhat wrote:
Then when brought up on it you've come up with the genius logic that the politics of any country can be defined by the government in power twenty years in the future.

That isn't what I said at all. I understand that you have difficulty communicating, but please make at least a base attempt to understand what has been written.

World War I and World War II, are in essence, the same war. One cannot exist without the other. They are two acts of the same play.

I understand exactly what you have written don't squirm out of this one with that drivel.

Just because things occring before an event have an effect on it doesn't mean those things are defined by said event. That's dumb. It could quite have easily been another radical party which took the Nazis place in history because of the effects of world war one. With differing politics.

Germany was a country looking out for a party which spoke to them, it just so happens it was the Nazis who assumed that position. They werent a nation of fascists crying out for an expansionist government to give them world domination.

whatwhat wrote:I understand exactly what you have written don't squirm out of this one with that drivel.

You clearly don't.

I said, obliquely, that World War I defined the enemies of Nazi Germany. You can dispute that if you want to, but what you're doing here is attempting to claim that I said Nazi Germany defined World War I.

Perhaps that's not what you intended, but its clearly what yo wrote just 2 posts ago.

whatwhat wrote:
Just because things occring before an event have an effect on it doesn't mean those things are defined by said event. That's dumb.

Again, that's not what I said. I'm not making an argument from necessity. I'm making the argument that World War I influenced Nazi Germany, and Germany in general, by determining what states it considered to be its enemies.

Things that occur before other things frequently have no significant bearing on the later things. However, I'm arguing that the thing in question (WWI) did have a significant bearing on the second thing in question (Nazi Germany). As such, it doesn't make much sense to argue against that by stating that it might have been the case. Its basically just stating that we cannot be certain, which is always true of the consideration of history.

whatwhat wrote:
It could quite have easily been another radical party which took the Nazis place in history because of the effects of world war one. With differing politics.

No, that's not true at all. That theory requires that radical political parties descend from spaceships. The sentiment that defined the Nazi Party had been around for about 75 years before Hitler came to power.

I know that its difficult to accept for many people, but Nazism was not an unheard of political ideology. Its simply that it didn't really take off in the sense of achieving overt, contiguous political power until just before WWII.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:
Germany was a country looking out for a party which spoke to them, it just so happens it was the Nazis who assumed that position. They werent a nation of fascists crying out for an expansionist government to give them world domination.

So you're claiming that the Fluffy Bunny Party would have been equally as successful?

Or, for that matter, that there was no reason for the Social Democrats to lose majority?

Sorry, I prefer to think that people put more into their political choices than casting votes by closing their eyes and playing eeny, meeny, miny, moe.

Maybe you should read back what you said yourself. Someone made the point that Israel is surrounded by hostile nations then you compared that to Nazi Germany and when brought up on it's falacy referenced wrold war one to uphold your integrity. And now this all hangs on some thread your clutching on to that Nazi Germany = Pre Nazi Germany because of causality.

Alltogether it's fairly dumb.

Most people, not you, who know a thing or two about World War 2 know most of Nazi Germanies enemies were made after the Nazi Party came to power, in their consequent actions in becoming a totalitarian expansionist regime: The Third Reich.

whatwhat wrote:Maybe you should read back what you said yourself. Someone made the point that Israel is surrounded by hostile nations then you compared that to Nazi Germany and when brought up on it's falacy referenced wrold war one to uphold your integrity.

The only real point of contention that could arise from that is the bit about having rockets lobbed into one's nation. I'll admit that my phrase might have been better honed in the initial comment, but the basic point that we are comparing fundamentally similar (though not identical) events remains. I already clarified this point an earlier response to you, so it seems odd that I should have to do it again.

whatwhat wrote:
And now this all hangs on some thread your clutching on to that Nazi Germany = Pre Nazi Germany because of causality.

No, that's wrong as well. The point about causality was made only because you misunderstood the order of impact that I was claiming.

In essence, you thought that I was claiming that Nazi Germany defined WWI, when I really made the opposite claim.

What my argument hangs on hasn't actually been brought up here, in part because I'm not in an essay writing mood, but also because its fairly common knowledge that WWI significantly impacted the rise of the Nazi Party; so it shouldn't be a huge stretch to say that it also largely determined what the average German citizen saw as an enemy of Germany.

whatwhat wrote:
Alltogether it's fairly dumb.

It seems perfectly sensible to me.

Perhaps it only appears unintelligible because you have an axe to grind?

My Axe is already ground up. It's the consistency of sawdust. This is about you making dumb statements. I guess this is what happens when you are "not in an essay writing mood"

whatwhat wrote:
Most people, not you, who know a thing or two about World War 2 know Nazi Germanies enemies were made after the Nazi Party came to power, in their consequent actions in becoming a totalitarian expansionist regime: The Third Reich.

I'm not arguing about the perceptions of foreign nations. I'm arguing about the perceptions of German citizens, the people that tended to regard the Treaty of Versailles as a significant imposition on their sovereignty.

Additionally, argumentum ad populum is fallacious.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:This is about you making dumb statements.

That's not a very good argument.

You haven't actually explained why my statement was "dumb", you've really only said that you find it so.

You're free to do so of course, but if you want to carry on a productive conversation its best not to turn yourself on that idea.

dogma wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
Most people, not you, who know a thing or two about World War 2 know Nazi Germanies enemies were made after the Nazi Party came to power, in their consequent actions in becoming a totalitarian expansionist regime: The Third Reich.

I'm not arguing about the perceptions of foreign nations. I'm arguing about the perceptions of German citizens, the people that tended to regard the Treaty of Versailles as a significant imposition on their sovereignty.

No that's a completely different thing. You were stating Nazi Germany was a paralel to israel because it was sorounded by hostile nations. That really doesn't have any weight when your considering Nazi Germany's and the german populations preception of them as aposed to the other way around.

whatwhat wrote:
No that's a completely different thing. You were stating Nazi Germany was a paralel to israel because it was sorounded by hostile nations. That really doesn't have any weight when your considering Nazi Germany's and the german populations preception of them as aposed to the other way around.

No, that's not what was said.

The initial poster made a claim about Israel having a legitimate reason to be apprehensive about their neighbors.

I then said that Nazi Germany existed in similar conditions.

The perception of the people of a given nation are far more relevant to their conduct than whatever the actual state of affairs may be. People act in accordance with what they perceive to be true, not with what is actually true. My argument is that said perception (that is, the perception of German citizens) with respect to what nations are hostile to Germany was deeply affected by World War I; primarily through the Treaty of Versailles.

This isn't a difficult argument. Why are you continually misrepresenting it?

Well that's convient. You were talking about something completely different to what the people you were responding to were, EF's post in particular.

dogma wrote:The argument that would actually lack any force is the one that you're making, in which the perceptions of German people are not relevant at all to what the German people actually do.

This isn't a difficult argument. Why are you continually misrepresenting it?

I'm not making any such argument.

Oh but look you edited that one out, so I guess you know that to. Your just trying to make any ground you possibly can right now aren't you?

I don't think the point Dogma was trying to make is particularly complicated. The outcome & aftermath of WWI led to a lot of Germans seeing a number of other countries as enemies. There is obviously a lot of (possibly complete) overlap in this list of enemy countries in the ones Germany considered enemies in WW2. So the perception of many Germans in the years leading up to WW2 bears similarities to the perception of many Israelis- of being surrounded by enemy nations.

whatwhat wrote:Well that's convient. You were talking about something completely different to what the people you were responding to were, EF's post in particular.

Perhaps there was a breakdown in communication, though I doubt it given that EF clearly referenced the French occupation of Germany prior to the outbreak of WWII.

whatwhat wrote:

dogma wrote:The argument that would actually lack any force is the one that you're making, in which the perceptions of German people are not relevant at all to what the German people actually do.

This isn't a difficult argument. Why are you continually misrepresenting it?

I'm not making any such argument.

Oh but look you edited that one out, so I guess you know that to. Your just trying to make any ground you possibly can right now aren't you?

No, I edited it out because, after hitting "submit" I realized that you hadn't said any such thing.

Though, in my defense, it is often difficult to work out what you're saying through all the misspellings and poor punctuation.

Mannahnin wrote:Exactly. Not particularly complicated. The outcome & aftermath of WWI led to a lot of Germans seeing a number of other countries as enemies. There is obviously a lot of (possibly complete) overlap in this list of enemy countries in the ones Germany considered enemies in WW2. So the perception of many Germans in the years leading up to WW2 bears similarities to the perception of many Israelis- of being surrounded by enemy nations.

Which has nothing to do with the original comparsion, which wasn't that Israeli perceptions paralel Nazi Germany's perceptions.

dogma wrote:Though, in my defense, it is often difficult to work out what you're saying through all the misspellings and poor punctuation.

Grammar Nazi in a thread about Nazis. Excellent. It's fairly clear what I was saying, you'll use anything and everything in order to make yourself look right though. Saying you can't understand me is a prime example.

whatwhat wrote:Your just trying to make any ground you possibly can right now aren't you?

Your: showing possesion
You're: contraction for 'you are'

Ahtman wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Your just trying to make any ground you possibly can right now aren't you?

Your: showing possesion
You're: contraction for 'you are'

I do know. I just don't care.

whatwhat wrote:I do know. I just don't care.

If you can't be arsed to care about something as simple as language, why would any one care about your ideas about the intricacies of history? If someone can't care about something simple, they probably won't care about something complicated.