Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

World War II was totally unrealistic

squid314.livejournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 156 posts

Re: World War II was totally unrealistic

#121

Post by ajuc »

stcredzero wrote: post #117
brazzy wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually, those who are most enthusiastic about dividing things into "good" and "evil" are themselves extremely evil by common standards. Case in point: the Nazis, to whom the Jews were evil incarnate, and they themselves the valiant defenders of the Aryan race. Calling an action "evil" does not explain it or help prevent it - it's usually a way to express revulsion and avoid further thinking. Calling specific people…

Calling an action "evil" does not explain it or help prevent it - it's usually a way to express revulsion and avoid further thinking Okay, let me put it this way: What government hasn't done something that would cause revulsion in a bystander? None!

So you'll be OK with some country right now doing Holocaust over some minority, or will you protest that?

If you'll protest, why? And why you don't protest againist all the governments that do this all evil things?

Many things are relative, but not all. Making it seem relative is just comfy, but comfort is less important than truth.

I'll agree that every country in WWII wasn't innocent, that Jews right now are overplaying the Holocaust card, that many countries politis, unfortunately including mine, makes victims of itself, which is indignifing and stupid thing to do. But telling me Holocaust wasn't evil makes me think you wouldn't mean it repeating, and that makes me hate you a little :) (ok, I really don't believe you wouldn't mean - I think you just play the devil advocate there).

Re: World War II was totally unrealistic

#122

Post by avar »

anamax wrote: post #108
hughw wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recommend reading David Irving's Hitler's War and Churchill's War as an antidote to the Churchill hagiography. You'll be able to filter out Irving's opinions and still see another perspective on the war. One in which Chamberlain and Halifax are statesmen who might have been successful in avoiding armed conflict, but for the determined war party of Churchill. I'm not here to make that case -- just saying, there are…

> One in which Chamberlain and Halifax are statesmen who might have been successful in avoiding armed conflict, but for the determined war party of Churchill. No one disputes that it would have been possible to avoid armed conflict with Nazi Germany. The relevant question is "at what cost?" Given Hitler's ambitions, do you really think that he'd have stopped at the channel? It is reasonable to suggest that Chamberlai…

Obviously we'll never know, and we can speculate all day. But I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that yes, Germany would have calmed down eventually.

Empires have a tendency to reach their zenith and slowly recede after that. When you have occupying powers like Nazi Germany they're likely to fall apart eventually due to internal strife. The Roman Empire did, so did the Soviet Union, partly.

Had WW2 not happened we might just have had a Cold War with four actors (USA, UK, Germany, Soviet Union) instead of 2. The world might not be too different today, with Germany either toppled from within, or having had their version of the civil rights movement.

Then again they might have tried to take over the entire world. But I think it's somewhat naïve to extrapolate states at their most violent beginnings to how they might have evolved in the future.

If some hypothetical world police would have stopped the USA at its beginnings we might very well read in our history books today that if it wasn't for that, the US would have proceeded to eradicate the rest of the world's indigenous peoples. And that it would still be keeping millions of people as slaves.

In reality the fate of states is more complex than the plans of any one man. Even if he's the Führer.

Re: World War II was totally unrealistic

#123

Post by shadowsun7 »

Qz wrote: post #87
shadowsun7 wrote: post #11

"An intelligent observation of the facts of human existence will reveal to shallow-minded folk who sneer at the use of coincidence in the arts of fiction and drama that life itself is little more than a series of coincidences." -- Rafael Sabatini This article was probably meant as humour, but I can't help but notice that fiction and life are two very different things. Fiction makes sense; life very often does not.

You need to read more fiction :).

Good fiction, then. I suppose you may argue that bad fiction need not make sense.

Re: World War II was totally unrealistic

#124

Post by ojilles »

dasil003 wrote: post #90
shadowsun7 wrote: post #11

"An intelligent observation of the facts of human existence will reveal to shallow-minded folk who sneer at the use of coincidence in the arts of fiction and drama that life itself is little more than a series of coincidences." -- Rafael Sabatini This article was probably meant as humour, but I can't help but notice that fiction and life are two very different things. Fiction makes sense; life very often does not.

And what of Stephenson's Cryptonomicon?

Are you trying to argue that Fiction is sometimes not believable, are actually the reverse?

Re: World War II was totally unrealistic

#125

Post by JoeAltmaier »

borism wrote: post #116
jakevoytko wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, look at it this way: treaties don't blink into existence completely understood by all parties as perfectly fair without any loopholes or unnecessary concessions.

Of course leaders have enormous powers. But it was never like comrade Stalin waves and everything stops.

Hm, I guess I don't buy that at all. Stalin in particular.

Re: World War II was totally unrealistic

#126

Post by ojilles »

RyanMcGreal wrote: post #102

>Apparently we're supposed to believe that in the middle of the war the Germans attacked their allies the Russians, starting an unwinnable conflict on two fronts, just to show how sneaky and untrustworthy they could be? That's not fair. They explained it in the backstory - the Germans were short on fuel and needed full access to Caspian hydrocarbon reserves.

+1 for staying in OP's story mode :)

Re: World War II was totally unrealistic

#127

Post by ojilles »

nazgulnarsil wrote: post #35

history has been shoehorned into a narrative that fits well with the motivations of the victors. that this narrative is childish, condescending to its audience, and inaccurate is hardly surprising.

Totally depends on your frame of mind/expectations. I had a lot of fun reading that article. Nothing condescending to the audience at all.

Re: World War II was totally unrealistic

#128

Post by stcredzero »

ajuc wrote: post #121
stcredzero wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Calling an action "evil" does not explain it or help prevent it - it's usually a way to express revulsion and avoid further thinking Okay, let me put it this way: What government hasn't done something that would cause revulsion in a bystander? None!

So you'll be OK with some country right now doing Holocaust over some minority, or will you protest that? If you'll protest, why? And why you don't protest againist all the governments that do this all evil things? Many things are relative, but not all. Making it seem relative is just comfy, but comfort is less important than truth. I'll agree that every country in WWII wasn't innocent, that Jews right now are overpl…

So you'll be OK with some country right now doing Holocaust over some minority, or will you protest that?

That's definitely not okay.

If you'll protest, why? And why you don't protest against all the governments that do this all evil things?

Hell, I only have 112 useful waking hours a week. If I tried to protest over every egregious thing perpetrated by a government, that would be a full time occupation. Heck, just keeping track of those things would be.

But telling me Holocaust wasn't evil makes me think you wouldn't mean it repeating, and that makes me hate you a little

AHEM! If you read the parent comments, you'll find that I am advocating the applicability of the term evil!

Your comment is so full of putting words into other's mouths, grasping for straws, and unwarranted leaps, I don't know where to begin.

Re: World War II was totally unrealistic

#129

Post by sedachv »

stcredzero wrote: post #100
sedachv wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"And on top of that, these guys are worse or on a par for atrocities with anyone ever, real or imagined." This is a Euro-centric perspective. The Germans did not do anything different than any of the colonial powers in their own colonies. The difference with the Germans is that they decided to colonize Europe. In terms of excess mortality, the man-made British famines in India are worse. The genocide of Native Americ…

I was thinking in terms of quality, not quantity.

Technological innovations do make a big difference. I'm sure the Mongols or Ottomans would have implemented similar methods of mass execution if they had the tools. But OTOH the living conditions on European and American slaving ships actually make German death camps seem humane in comparison.

Re: World War II was totally unrealistic

#130

Post by ajuc »

stcredzero wrote: post #128
ajuc wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you'll be OK with some country right now doing Holocaust over some minority, or will you protest that? If you'll protest, why? And why you don't protest againist all the governments that do this all evil things? Many things are relative, but not all. Making it seem relative is just comfy, but comfort is less important than truth. I'll agree that every country in WWII wasn't innocent, that Jews right now are overpl…

So you'll be OK with some country right now doing Holocaust over some minority, or will you protest that? That's definitely not okay. If you'll protest, why? And why you don't protest against all the governments that do this all evil things? Hell, I only have 112 useful waking hours a week. If I tried to protest over every egregious thing perpetrated by a government, that would be a full time occupation. Heck, just k…

Ok, I'm sorry. I've overreacted to this post and somehow mixed in my mind who is replying to whom (by not reading all posts in between, my fault, should teach me to think before posting).

I've interpreted your statement that all countries did sth wrong as statement that Nazi Germany, USSR were no worse than other countries, and their deeds were nothing more evil than deeds of other countries.

Should have deleted my comment, but that way it will remind me to read whole thread before replying.

Post reply on HN