Europe - Thy Name Is Cowardice (article)

[The Avon Lady]

The Jews were not a government nor did they run a national homeland of their own at the time.

While Jews were familiar with the rabidness of Hitler's and the Nazi's antisemitism, almost none of them could imagine Germany's building annihilation and extermination facilities.

My late great grandfather, donned his prayer shawl and phylacteries, kissed his surviving family members goodbye and tossed himself into the flames of the Warsaw Ghetto during its final days. Months earlier, he had managed to mail one of his sons elsewhere in Europe a cryptic letter - the only way to get it past the Nazi censors. He used biblical verses to describe what was going on and the attrocities the Nazi were commiting.

The response to the letter of his son and relatives was that the old man had gone completly senile. Most of the same family would later be rounded up themselves and reduced to ashes in the ovens of this or that extermination camp.

There are articles around on the psycology of the likes of Neville Chamberlain and how he could be so blind to reality - because contrary to his claims he wasn't a realist at all. He was a dreamer who dozed off on the job.

Appropriately, read my sig's bottom line quote.

[Takeda Shingen]

Warning #2

Stay on topic. Last chance. If you want to start a thread titled 'Politics of the Nazi State', go ahead. Just keep it off of this, or other threads.

Thanks,
The Management

[Penelope_Grey]

Warning? Why?

Hitler, Appeasement, and treatment of the jews are all mentioned in the original post.

[GlobalExplorer]

Avon Lady, believe me, I am really sorry and ashamed for that.

My grandfather was a truck driver in the Wehrmacht, and was writing cryptic letters himself, deliberately misspelling and questioning the war - my grandmother thought he was insane. Unfortunately that was as far as it went, at least in those cases I know of first hand.

Just wanted to say that I agree that history made Chamberlain a fool, but I still kind of respect people like him, and civilians will always be at a disadvantage against people using violence.

[GlobalExplorer]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Warning #2

Stay on topic. Last chance. If you want to start a thread titled 'Politics of the Nazi State', go ahead. Just keep it off of this, or other threads.

Thanks,
The Management

If you're going to close the thread, please give a reason, as i don't see any, otherwise I will have to talk to Neal.

P.S. I just posted before that warning.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

Warning? Why?

Hitler, Appeasement, and treatment of the jews are all mentioned in the original post.

Because this was coming:

(From Post 31)

The Jews were not a government nor did they run a national homeland of their own at the time.

While Jews were familiar with the rabidness of Hitler's and the Nazi's antisemitism, almost none of them could imagine Germany's building annihilation and extermination facilities.

My late great grandfather, donned his prayer shawl and phylacteries, kissed his surviving family members goodbye and tossed himself into the flames of the Warsaw Ghetto during its final days. Months earlier, he had managed to mail one of his sons elsewhere in Europe a cryptic letter - the only way to get it past the Nazi censors. He used biblical verses to describe what was going on and the attrocities the Nazi were commiting.

The response to the letter of his son and relatives was that the old man had gone completly senile. Most of the same family would later be rounded up themselves and reduced to ashes in the ovens of this or that extermination camp.

There are articles around on the psycology of the likes of Neville Chamberlain and how he could be so blind to reality - because contrary to his claims he wasn't a realist at all. He was a dreamer who dozed off on the job.

Appropriately, read my sig's bottom line quote.

This is the beginning of a side-discussion regarding the personal politics of genocide. I have seen it over and over again on this forum, and was, as such, keenly aware of the fact that this left turn was imminent. Accordingly, here it is. Anticipation of members' modus operandi is key to the job. Impressive, no?

Back to the [topical] discussion.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by GlobalExplorer

If you're going to close the thread, please give a reason, as i don't see any, otherwise I will have to talk to Neal.

Be my guest.

Link to Mr. Stevens' PM: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/priv...newpm&u=209959

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

This is the beginning of a side-discussion regarding the personal politics of genocide. I have seen it over and over again on this forum, and was, as such, keenly aware of the fact that this left turn was imminent. Accordingly, here it is. Anticipation of members' modus operandi is key to the job. Impressive, no?

No.

What are you yammering about?

GlobalExplorer, while the shame and apology are greatly appreciated, I was in no way relating what happened decades ago to anyone here on the forum and I hope you weren't thinking otherwise.

[GlobalExplorer]

I think you are out of your mind.

This woman is telling the story of how her grandfather and family was killed by Nazis, and why shouldn't that be acceptable on this board?

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by GlobalExplorer

This woman is telling the story of how her grandfather and family was killed by Nazis, and why shouldn't that be acceptable on this board?

It is acceptable, but in it's own thread. This is forum policy. We have problems when threads wander. This is the last that I intend to state here in this format.

[baggygreen]

I see that history should not be forgotten, and indeed it cannot be forgotten when ones family has died. My own family have horrific stories, as im sure many millions do.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and while now it is obvious that action was needed, that was dubious at the time.. I can see a link between AL's post and the original post, tedious perhaps to some, but still a link. Appeasement resulted in atrocities and death on a vast vast scale, and AL's post provides an example of that. Appeasement today will result in similarities between past and present.

I believe there is a phrase which goes something like this..
"those who forget history, are doomed to repeat it"

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

When I looked up the word atheist, it said it was a word to describe a person who denies or does not believe in the existence of supreme or godly beings. So how can you be an atheist and religious?

To reject to simply, arbitrarily "believe" in a given idol is prerequisite for me for true religion (religion cannot be defined to be religion only when it is a theistic religion, a view that is especially popular with religious fundamentaliosts from all camps), that always means: mystical experience. A god that is thought or believed only, will die the moment the believer that thinks of him will die. The immediate experience of the present, and believing some hear-say, some old scriptures, some old sages - both are totally different things. Theism is about idols whose fundament is stuff that has been thiught out by people who are long since dead. God, Jawhe, Allah, the thousand gods in hinduism, Vayrajana, etc etc: words in old books only, dust and sound.

Well, you say without conflict the Nazis would still be here, the german people voted in an extreme right wing party with strong military tendancies and then they were surprised when Hitler went to war? No disrespects for any German past or present, but had they not voted in Hitler and his Nazi buddies in the first place, then quite possibly things would have been fine. We will never know for sure.

That election was accompanied by massive intimidation and manipulation, and soemtimes it is even argued by historians that Hitler repeatedly violated the constitution. And no, many Germans were not unaware of the evil that Hitler was to set loose. but in 1939, Germany already was ruled by fear and intimidation. If there would have been no war, there also would have been no truly free elections, only alibi elections like in the GDR. The Nazis would have stayed in power, for violance was the only thing that was able to make them go. You only need five guys taking on their black gloves - to make a parade of hundreds turn around.

I understand full well that sometimes conflict is unavoidable and often people are forced into it. But the crux of the matter is Chamberlain did his best to prevent an outbreak of hostilities, Avon Lady snarls at him for that, but I personally think at the time he was doing the right thing. Nobody wanted another all out war especially after the Great War, he was trying to find a peaceful solution. Not only that Britain was not in a position to fight the Third Reich, lots say had Hitler waited a while longer before the war started it would have turned out better for him, my real question is why didn't America do something? Or better still, Germany's next door neighbour, the French? America was not interested in the least, and France had their own agenda with the Germans. It was left in the British Lap. To sort out, and despite the Empire and such forth, the British were just not ready. That appeasement bought the UK valuable time to prepare.

that argument of buying time that was needed, and premature attack on Germany would have caused defeat in war, is interesting. However, after the attack on Poland, Britain did declare war due to earlier treaty obligations - and did not attack. Which is somehow contradicting to the wish of buying more time. that declaration of war was not needed for that purpose.

As Antony Hopkins in Mask of Zorro said, "you would have fought very bravely, and died very quickly" Had Germany beaten the UK, then what? They would have been unstoppable.

Do not understimate hitler's obsession with mysticism, and national thanatos. He was driven by an obession to destroy - even himself, finally. A sick pervertion of last-man-standing-heroism.

I don't agree with postive discrimination any more than I do negative discrimination. In the UK Sikhs are exempt from wearing a crash helment due to their religious requirements to wear a turban. That kind of thing is unfair. I don't agree with it, EVERYBODY should wear a helmet. I can't say I hate the muslim religion or anything, I do understand they have a war doctrine and such, but I remember that its only a handful that use their religion as a shield to carry out criminal acts. Therefore I avoid trying to tar them all with the same brush.

You simplify it, I think, and there is more to islam than like you see it, but okay, I have been there in so many words before, I will not repeat all what I wrote over the last couple of years - that would fill a whole book, probably. Please understand. If you are fluid in German language, eventually, I recommend the writings by Hans Peter Raddatz for a start. Difficult reading, though.

The simple truth of it all is, I am a coward. I admit that. Freely. I am afraid of my own shadow. Which is why I approve fully of non-violent solutions to problems in as many areas as is possible. I don't criticise them that fight, they do what I am afraid to do, simple as that.

.

Fear often is a reasonable and logic reaction. It can save your life. There is nothing bad in that fear exists. Also, civilization has changed man's psyche, most normal people need to learn to overcome natural inhibitions to use physical force (psychological preparation for that is what separates good from bad security and self defense-trainers, and much military drill is only about this).
However, only few people are born with high levels of courage. But: courage can be learned. I would even say most people need to learn it, are not given it in form of a free gift.
One only needs to wish to learn it - then first parts of fear have already gone.

I wouldn't know. I would hope that people wouldn't want to do such things to me. Maybe its wrong for me to hope. But it really makes me sad to think that so many people would just walk all over me with no regard for me to get what they want. I cannot be aggressive and nasty, its just not who I am.

Hope is not a strategy.

When I was a young schoolboy, I was shy, and weak, and lonely. After having got a pretty beating one afternoon, I felt so ashamed that I wished never to be weak again, so I started in martial arts and sword fighting, and I had a wonderful private master, and later, another very good one. My former interest in meditation and buddhism helped me in that decision, and to bring up the needed endurance. Shyness turned into natural restraint that simply is part of my character, I can'T escape it, and why should i want anyway. Physical weakness became strength, but I still hate to fight and avoid it if possible - what is not always the case, I learned. But I know that I CAN fight, if I see a reason that is worth it. Weakness is not a virtue, but weakness. Strength must not be a virtue, but it can be - when you learn the responsebility it comes with. Weakness leaves you with no option. Strength opens you additonal options. If you are strong enough, you win even without needing to fight, if the others are only clever enough.

That shy and weak little boy that I once were - later started to travel the oriental world by feet for almost one and a half year and kind of all by himself, came through several dangerous situations and fights and did two adventurous jobs in the middle east for which he got a pretty payment Some scars, yes, but I am still there. Most people seeing me today nevertheless describe me as a shy, unobtrusive guy. Which leaves me the tactical advantage of surprise, if needed.

So you see: courage can be learned, and it's worth it. And when you have understood that you are fearsome right now - this excuse no longer is available to you from thnat time on. Mean!

So, do you see me as a parrot and not knwoing what I am on about or are you saying that generally?

Hell, generally, of course. Although, as I said, I think your view of Islam tells your good intentions, but is flawed. Unfortunetyl, this wetsern well-meaning is what Isdlam makes maximum use of to push it's agenda. That's why I said you should study it more carefully. Good intentions are one thing. Reality is something different, sometimes.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Hope is not a strategy.

Hey!

:p

[Penelope_Grey]

That election was accompanied by massive intimidation and manipulation, and soemtimes it is even argued by historians that Hitler repeatedly violated the constitution. And no, many Germans were not unaware of the evil that Hitler was to set loose. but in 1939, Germany already was ruled by fear and intimidation. If there would have been no war, there also would have been no truly free elections, only alibi elections like in the GDR. The Nazis would have stayed in power, for violance was the only thing that was able to make them go. You only need five guys taking on their black gloves - to make a parade of hundreds turn around.

So it took conflict to get rid of Nazis, by this logic, standing up to them could have stopped them in the first place before they even came to power. What happened in getting rid of the Nazis was the cure. When in fact prevention is better than cure.

I was once picked on in Primary School when I was 8 years old, the bully was in the same year as my brother they were both 11 years of age. This bully fancied himself as the schoolyard hardman. He used to make us hand over our snack money or else. EVERYBODY complied because they were all afraid of him, except me. I refused and he tipped a bucket of water over me for it, soaked me to the skin, I got off lightly really. When my brother found out he came and gave this bully the beating the fight culminated and ended decisively when Mike broke the bully's nose.

Now, if all the others had have rallied round me, when I refused to pay, what could he have done? He couldn't have hurt all of us there was too many. That single even taught me its not smart to be a hero. And you usually get hurt for doing the right thing. I choose now to be a coward and to stay out of harms way because it is a lot better than the alternative. Of course the bully left me alone then after he got a taste of his own blood, but, had the others supported me, just as if the majority of Germans had supported the opponents of the Nazis then there would have been no need for a fight.

Am I wrong? Possibly. Am I living on a fairy tale world? Perhaps. But I still believe and always will do, striving for non-violent solutions to problems is the greatest courage of all. Look at Gandhi! Now there is a man who was truly inspirational. That man would never have dreamt of picking up a gun to make change no matter how he suffered. Yet it was a gun that killed him. Gandi had more guts than the SOB that pulled the trigger did.

People can bash Neville Chamberlain all they want and they can blame him for whatver they see fit, he was in an awkward positon and so was the Country. The mouthpiece that wrote that article says about appeasing hitler, why didn't the French do something? they had a bigger army than the Germans did! Why did the Russians side with Hitler, their ideological opposite no less! There are plenty of people to blame besides Chamberlain.

that argument of buying time that was needed, and premature attack on Germany would have caused defeat in war, is interesting. However, after the attack on Poland, Britain did declare war due to earlier treaty obligations - and did not attack. Which is somehow contradicting to the wish of buying more time. that declaration of war was not needed for that purpose.

This has confused me now. I don't understand completely what you mean here. How was not attacking immediately after the declaration of war contradictory to the wish of buying more time? Declaration of war not needed for what purpose?

Since the UK had a guarantee with Poland to ensure their sovreignty in the event of an attack the UK was obliged to declare war.

courage can be learned.

I am courageous. It takes more guts to not fight and to walk away and be seen by other people who do be violent as a coward, than it does to fight and brawl. I say I am a coward because people have called me one over my lifetime. I am a jumpy person, and I am not brave or strong, or an aspiring hero. I am just somebody trying to do waht I think is right. I express my own courage in my way.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Penelope_Grey

So it took conflict to get rid of Nazis, by this logic, standing up to them could have stopped them in the first place before they even came to power. What happened in getting rid of the Nazis was the cure. When in fact prevention is better than cure.

Yes indeed. If only people would have dared to step up as long as there was time. but they didn't.

I was once picked on in Primary School when I was 8 years old, the bully was in the same year as my brother they were both 11 years of age.
(...)
Now, if all the others had have rallied round me, when I refused to pay, what could he have done? He couldn't have hurt all of us there was too many.

Yes indeed. If only people would have dared to rally around you. But they didn't.

That single even taught me its not smart to be a hero. And you usually get hurt for doing the right thing. I choose now to be a coward and to stay out of harms way because it is a lot better than the alternative.

You don't try to contradict yourself now, do you? first you tell us that conflict cannot replace reason, then you tell us to shy away from conflict that might be needed to fight evil is more about not egtting hurt yourself. Leave me with the question: is there anything left you would be willing to take a rsik for? Nothing worth in your life to be defended? Running away is safe. It secures survival beyond the immediate moment. But what about longterm conseqeunces? The survival of others tht you love? Is it all centred just around your own immediate interest? If so, you leave me unimpressed. There is no glory in headlessly sacrificing oneself. But there is also no glory in not caring a bit for others. It is egoism, which leads directly to anarchism. In anarchism, the strongest rules. Sooner or later you will find someone who is strong enough to deny you the option to run away. Then you are left with your own statement: "So it took conflict to get rid of Nazis, by this logic, standing up to them could have stopped them in the first place before they even came to power. What happened in getting rid of the Nazis was the cure. When in fact prevention is better than cure."

Of course the bully left me alone then after he got a taste of his own blood, but, had the others supported me, just as if the majority of Germans had supported the opponents of the Nazis then there would have been no need for a fight.

Yes indeed. If only the others would have supported you. But they didn't. There are plenty of "if only"s in your reply, Penelope. You knwo what I told people over and over again when they came for meditation? that much of it is about learning to realize the difference between what we wish things to be, and what they really are.

Am I wrong? Possibly. Am I living on a fairy tale world? Perhaps. But I still believe and always will do, striving for non-violent solutions to problems is the greatest courage of all.

More contradicting yourself. first you admit you are probably wring. then you say you live in a fairy tale world. And finally you say that you still believe it. I do not judge the quality in it, I only point out the contradiction in your argumentation.

Look at Gandhi! Now there is a man who was truly inspirational. That man would never have dreamt of picking up a gun to make change no matter how he suffered. Yet it was a gun that killed him. Gandi had more guts than the SOB that pulled the trigger did.

I am sure there have been many Ghandis in the world, and most of them you never hear of, because they get killed early on. It was a question of probability that sooner or later one of them would make a slioghtly longer stand. Look at India today and tell me if you see much of ghandi's heritage still alive. Also, he was against the British empire, which beside many negative side-effects was an extremely civilised example amonst all history's empires. It caused some terrible violence, and betrayel, but it also helped some substantial dveelopement, and also prevented much local excesses of violance - that flamed up again after the British left. Don't get me wrong, I do not declare it as holy, but there have been worse empires than the British has been. Also, they got over it. If Ghandi would have been up agai8nst Hitler, stalin, MaoTsetung, Hussein, Tamerlan or one other of this callibre, we wpould not remeber him today, for history would naver have taken note of him. He would have been dead from very early on. Maybe an symbolic act of his that we remember, but no substantial changes. Take the White rose, for example. A resitance group in Germany, by very young people, led by a brother and a sister. That me still remember them, today is because of their courage, and integrity. But it was a symboli act of theirs only - it did not really hinder the Nazis in any way.

I also wonder why Ghandi apparently seems to be an idol of yours. You admire his altruistic deeds, his courage to challenge an empire in the face of brutal violence. You also wrote: "That single even taught me its not smart to be a hero. And you usually get hurt for doing the right thing. I choose now to be a coward and to stay out of harms way because it is a lot better than the alternative."

People can bash Neville Chamberlain all they want and they can blame him for whatver they see fit, he was in an awkward positon and so was the Country. The mouthpiece that wrote that article says about appeasing hitler, why didn't the French do something? they had a bigger army than the Germans did! Why did the Russians side with Hitler, their ideological opposite no less! There are plenty of people to blame besides Chamberlain.

Yes. But the failure of others does not make the failure of chamberlain less obvious. Too many failed - that is the point.

This has confused me now. I don't understand completely what you mean here. How was not attacking immediately after the declaration of war contradictory to the wish of buying more time? Declaration of war not needed for what purpose?

A declaration of war is a provocation. If you want to buy time, you better do not provoke a hostile reaction before you are finished with your preparation. You would prefer to leave the future enemy unknowing.

I am courageous. It takes more guts to not fight and to walk away and be seen by other people who do be violent as a coward, than it does to fight and brawl. I say I am a coward because people have called me one over my lifetime. I am a jumpy person, and I am not brave or strong, or an aspiring hero. I am just somebody trying to do waht I think is right. I express my own courage in my way.

Okay, you cleared that one, then. I was wondering anyway. that you show up here and defend your opinions against some alraedy harsh opposition shows that you are not really a coward at all.