euphemism,
When WWII started, Britain and France were both full-scale democracies, with universal suffrage and full civil rights. They were also both colonial powers, albeit greatly reduced from fifty years earlier. Conditions in the colonies were definitely inferior to the mainland, but nowhere near totalitarianism, either. The United States was a full democracy in two thirds of the country, although with less social equality than we have now. A third of the country was a democracy for Caucasians only, with blacks deprived of political and economic rights. The US also held some colonies, such as the Philippines and Puerto Rico.
i agree mostly with this. but you have to distinguish between what happened before the war and during the war - especially when the battle got more brutal on all sides. most of the atrocities committed happened from 1942-43 onward. at this time neither side had a lot of mercy for the others.
before the war germany was a dictatorship and people actively opposing the NAZI were put in labor camps (many socialists and communists) but not killed (in considerable numbers that is). no question france and britain were better in this respect (in the homeland that is). during the war active opposers were executed in germany. but the treatemnt of opposers in the UK was not much nicer during this time.
if you compare civil rights you have to compare the treatment of the collonialized people - what was done in the colonies - with what happened in germany before the war. in the colonies racial seperation, suppression, restriced education, forced labor, killing of revolting people etc. happened on a regular basis. It was most definitively totalitarian rulership in the colonies.
the treatment of jews before the war went into the critical and most destructive phase (after 1942/43) was quite comparable.
Even if you're correct... all he wanted to do was take over Central Europe, exterminate the Jews, and turn the rest of the population to slave labor. Remarkably humane!
central europe? you forget it was primarily german until 1918. hitler most definitively wanted back what germany lost in WWI (which is understandable imo). that the jews should be exterminated (Endlösung) is based on a single testimony (a writer at the wannsee conference supposedly heared this ... not a single written document from the time exists about it). so i am very sceptical about this account.
nevertheless ...no matter how many people were actually killed what happened is absolutely inexcusable!
big tex,
i don't buy everything in the mainstream teachings about WWII. after all history is written by the winners and a lot of money in forms of reparations was/is dependant on it.
i do not excuse anything of what happened - but i think it should not be exaggerated and be put into relation to what the others did when it comes to condemning one side.
It has long been accepted by credible historians that Nazi Germany was built for war from day one. Hitler outlined his plans in Mein Kampf. It was only through England and France's passivity that he was allowed to re-arm, occupy the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia.as i said above...you forget these were german territories prior to WWI and with the exception of parts of Czechoslovakia inhabited by germans. so was a large part of poland. i find it more than understandable that germany wanted these parts back.
Hitler was never interested in peaceful coexistence (ala the U.S. and Soviet Union), he was bent on creating an empire in Europe with the vast lands of Russia as his "colony".based on Mein Kampf that is possible.
As for the Holocaust, are you saying it did not happen? Are you saying Hitler was not the penultimate racist? His hatred of the Jewish people was more fanatical than his need need for conquest. In my opinion, this story is the epitome of hatred. Any other interpretation borders on racist ignorance.i am not saying it did not happen. obviously it did. and obviously hitler blamed the jews for WWII and the loss of WWI. the magnitude of the holocaust is however unclear. the 6 million are most likely a gross exaggeration (not that 2 million is a lot better but still). for instance the 6 million was based on the original number of 4 million people killed at auschwitz. this number was reduced to 1.2 million (including the death of all other detainees). the number of jews killed at auschwitz lies according to most historians somewhere between 500.000 and 900.000. Since no other sites of executions of this magnitude where ever suggested or found (facts in this matter are surprisingly rare) the 6 million would therefore have to be changed to about 2.5 to 3 million. i know still a horrendous number but 3 million more or less do matter imo. also one has to consider the circumstances and relate the actions to that of the allies. when hundreds of thousands of people together with nearly all cities (including red cross cities) are turned into rubble it is a unfortunately a logical consequence that the treatment of perceived enemies on the other side gets more brutal as well. alltogether i do not want to excuse any of this horrible ideology and what was done to jews and others (as you may know from my other posts i am a complete pacifist and hate mistreatment of people for whatever reason) but it is not quite accurate to portray germany as the manifestation of evil and the others as the pure defenders of freedom, democracy and civil rights - considering what all sides did prior and during the war.