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

A Letter From Winston Churchill’s Disappointed Mother

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 97 posts

Re: A Letter From Winston Churchill’s Disappointed Mother

#71

Post by mikeash »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #69
mikeash wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“As a small child, it seemed like Hitler did good things for Germany until he went nuts” would be a perfectly reasonable thing to say. They way you put it makes it sound like she never looked at what happened later and came to an adult understanding of the situation.

Yeah, let's not put my mother on trial here. She's not participating in this discussion. She's not here to defend herself from such nastiness. I was a minor when the discussion occurred. That no doubt influenced the wording. It was a private conversation at home between mother and daughter. She had zero reason to think she needed to defend the remark as if it were a PhD thesis or testimony in a war crimes trial.

You posted it to a public forum at least twice. Here, you’re using it as a jumping off point to argue that the perception of Nazis as evil from the start is a “retcon.”

If you don’t want to discuss it, don’t post it. If you don’t want to defend it, don’t base an argument on it.

Re: A Letter From Winston Churchill’s Disappointed Mother

#72

Post by DoreenMichele »

mikeash wrote: post #71
DoreenMichele wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, let's not put my mother on trial here. She's not participating in this discussion. She's not here to defend herself from such nastiness. I was a minor when the discussion occurred. That no doubt influenced the wording. It was a private conversation at home between mother and daughter. She had zero reason to think she needed to defend the remark as if it were a PhD thesis or testimony in a war crimes trial.

You posted it to a public forum at least twice. Here, you’re using it as a jumping off point to argue that the perception of Nazis as evil from the start is a “retcon.” If you don’t want to discuss it, don’t post it. If you don’t want to defend it, don’t base an argument on it.

That's a serious mischaracterization of my point. It's also justification for being nasty to someone who isn't here.

I'm not saying I'm not accountable for choosing to make the comments I've made.

Re: A Letter From Winston Churchill’s Disappointed Mother

#73

Post by [deleted] »

nabla9 wrote: post #21
philwelch wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet, were it not for Churchill, the unprecedented horrors of Hitler may have gone completely unchecked, or else only been stopped by the even greater horrors of Stalin. Churchill was the cornerstone of Britain's continued resistance, and the primary reason they didn't sue for peace after the fall of France. Hitler would have let Britain and her empire survive had they left him unmolested; Churchill instead led th…

The western front was relatively small part of the WWII. It was the Eastern Front and the U.S material support to USSR that really decided the war. It's interesting to think what would have happened after Pearl Harbor if Britain would have not been so strongly involved. The US could have still sided with the USSR and defeated Germany. Without the Western Front the war between USSR and the US would have been more like…

[deleted]

Re: A Letter From Winston Churchill’s Disappointed Mother

#74

Post by mikeash »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #72
mikeash wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You posted it to a public forum at least twice. Here, you’re using it as a jumping off point to argue that the perception of Nazis as evil from the start is a “retcon.” If you don’t want to discuss it, don’t post it. If you don’t want to defend it, don’t base an argument on it.

That's a serious mischaracterization of my point. It's also justification for being nasty to someone who isn't here. I'm not saying I'm not accountable for choosing to make the comments I've made.

It’s a mischaracterization of your point? You said:

> A lot of people simply cannot look objectively at anything related to WW2. They know how it ultimately turned out, so they basically ret-con it as "they were pure evil from the start."

I don’t know how else to read that other than as an argument that Nazis weren’t pure evil from the start.

Re: A Letter From Winston Churchill’s Disappointed Mother

#75

Post by DoreenMichele »

mikeash wrote: post #74
DoreenMichele wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a serious mischaracterization of my point. It's also justification for being nasty to someone who isn't here. I'm not saying I'm not accountable for choosing to make the comments I've made.

It’s a mischaracterization of your point? You said: > A lot of people simply cannot look objectively at anything related to WW2. They know how it ultimately turned out, so they basically ret-con it as "they were pure evil from the start." I don’t know how else to read that other than as an argument that Nazis weren’t pure evil from the start.

Then let me suggest you just walk away from this one. Your tactics are ugly. Your understanding of my point is lacking. This isn't likely to go good places.

I plan to drop it. It's been surprisingly well received so far, by which I mean it didn't turn into a shit show. I see no reason to go there at this late stage in the discussion.

Re: A Letter From Winston Churchill’s Disappointed Mother

#76

Post by mikeash »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #75
mikeash wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a mischaracterization of your point? You said: > A lot of people simply cannot look objectively at anything related to WW2. They know how it ultimately turned out, so they basically ret-con it as "they were pure evil from the start." I don’t know how else to read that other than as an argument that Nazis weren’t pure evil from the start.

Then let me suggest you just walk away from this one. Your tactics are ugly. Your understanding of my point is lacking. This isn't likely to go good places. I plan to drop it. It's been surprisingly well received so far, by which I mean it didn't turn into a shit show. I see no reason to go there at this late stage in the discussion.

How am I supposed to read it? A retcon is going back and changing the original story. Applied to real history, it means the retcon isn’t true. If Nazis being pure evil from the start is a retcon, then that means Nazis weren’t pure evil from the start. Not so?

I don’t want to walk away from pointing out that Nazis were, in fact, as bad as everyone thinks and were that way from the start. The fact that it’s been well received just adds further motivation to point this out.

Re: A Letter From Winston Churchill’s Disappointed Mother

#77

Post by reitanqild »

gammateam wrote: post #35
tomohawk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1943 - the British were in engaged in a multifront war against Germany, Italy, and Japan with their very survival in doubt. Then, Japan cut off a major food supply to Bengal. Blaming this all on Churchill is a bit much.

Backing Poland was a choice in the 1930s. Just like not backing the Ukraine was a choice in the 2010s. There were applicable treaties. It was a choice, and now all your friends are dead.

> Backing Poland was a choice in the 1930s.

Not backing Poland has to be blamed on the guy before Churchill though?

Re: A Letter From Winston Churchill’s Disappointed Mother

#78

Post by akarma »

mikeash wrote: post #67
DoreenMichele wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is not apology for Nazis. FYI: My initial comment was well into the negatives for a time. A lot of people simply cannot look objectively at anything related to WW2. They know how it ultimately turned out, so they basically ret-con it as "they were pure evil from the start." The problem is such mental models foster convenient explanations and justifications, not solutions for making sure such things don't happe…

How is “Hitler was doing good things for the country” not apology for Nazis? It’s not even subtle! Nazis being evil from the start isn’t a retcon. Just look at their internal party purges, or how the Enabling Act got passed.

Half my family grew up in the Soviet Union and tend to love Putin, so, though not the above commenter, I can definitely answer this if you're willing to take an analogy.

Yes, a leader can be corrupt and dictatorial, and yes, they can strong-arm many people. To somebody with strong morals and heavily deontological beliefs, they can look at that leader and say "How could anyone support such a person?". The answer is to look at a concept like Maslow's hierarchy of needs [1] and realize that the supporters are likely pursuing an entirely different stage of needs than you. When your kids are hungry and you have to work from sun-up until sun-down to keep the family fed, and somebody makes it easier for you and your family to survive and maybe even have extra money at the end of the week, none of the moral ideologies against corruption or dictatorship really matter to you. That's why Russians give Putin such a high approval rating; they don't deny that he's corrupt, they just don't care, because their lives have improved.

The same can be said of hopeful Trump supporters to a lesser extent, in fact, and linked is a fantastic analysis on that topic (the most fair and analytical one I've read) [2].

My point is: the above poster's mother wasn't apologizing for Nazis. She was likely saying that, as far as she could tell at that point in time, similar to my Russian family, her family's life had improved. I don't see how that becomes false in light of future events.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

[2] http://inference-review.com/article/trump-and-the-trumpists

Re: A Letter From Winston Churchill’s Disappointed Mother

#79

Post by olivermarks »

watwut wrote: post #64
DoreenMichele wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it is not apology for Nazis. FYI: My initial comment was well into the negatives for a time. A lot of people simply cannot look objectively at anything related to WW2. They know how it ultimately turned out, so they basically ret-con it as "they were pure evil from the start." The problem is such mental models foster convenient explanations and justifications, not solutions for making sure such things don't happe…

Nazi were violent from the start. If you read any detailed history book about what Nazi actually did and how they came to power pretty from around when Hitler joined, you find them being violent and hateful. They were not only violent group around, that is absolutely true. But they were pretty bad even if you ignore Holocaust itself.

The victors always write the history, but only a few wealthy people actually 'win' a war.

'You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake'. Jeannette Rankin

Re: A Letter From Winston Churchill’s Disappointed Mother

#80

Post by olivermarks »

watwut wrote: post #63
DoreenMichele wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mother is German. She once said to me something like "Hitler was doing good things for the country -- until he went nuts." I brought that up on a forum. It isn't justification for Nazi atrocities. It is insight into how the people on the ground suffering hardship saw him in his early years. He was perceived to be a good leader doing good things for the people, at least at first. But, hey, my previous comment is al…

Hitler followed the same politics beginning to end. His failed putch was a preview of how he treated enemies once he got into power. Also, economic only explanation ignores how much militarized Germany was, how much lost itself was impossible to stomach to them leading to "Jews stab us in back" myth. There is whole lot more.to it then just suffering economy. Hitler support was not.among poorest either, it was among a…

most of the German army (80%) was horse drawn and they also used bicycles extensively. They developed some impressive technology which they showcased for the blitzkreig propaganda but in reality it was clueless farmworkers given a belt with 'in God we trust' and uniform and ordered to march into Poland etc. Most of the perceptions of WWII, including the holocaust, have been shaped by post war US media.

As an example the term 'holocaust' was widely publicized by ABC TV for their miniseries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_(miniseries) Prior to that the term 'holocaust' was used to describe the Armenian genocide and you can still find Armenians who are deeply offended by this.

This is not a defense of the Nazi party - I grew up in Coventry UK, one of the most heavily bombed cities in England in WWII (my mother was there under the kitchen table) - this is an attempt to address the reality that in 2018 we are largely influenced by the media in our perceptions of a war that was more than a generation ago, and that politicians were as labile and devious then as they are now, on both sides.

Post reply on HN