The Political Discussion Thread

[Chaka-Z0]

It is the very definition of racism to measure peoplehood by race. Is it skin color, or race, that makes a people? Are the French and the Bulgarians one people because they're both white? Are the Khosa and the Zulu not different peoples? The Chinese and the Koreans?

In most countries of law (except the US obviously) the very term race is illegal or deliberately unused because of that very reason. Ethnicity is the right word to use (the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition.)

"The collection of extended bloodlines" plus common culture plus shared historical experience forges a shared identity, and that's how a people are born.

DNA testing proved that our population comes from 8000ish French settlers and their genes are present at 90% within us. Yet if you ask anybody around here, anywhere, they will tell you that they consider our culture as a mix of native/french/english or acadian, nothing specific. We are a world apart from the European culture that's been constantly forced on us.

If that doesn't make us a people apart, I don't know what does. Quebec could've been its own independent country in 1995, the vote went in favor of the NO at 50.58%, a win by 50K votes only. The gravity of our situation vs the Jews is obviously not comparable by a long shot, but the stakes are very similar.

You don't know how much of an insult it is for us to be told otherwise. A good friend of mine comes from Senegal, he moved in when he was 9 or 10. He embraced our culture, became one of us the first time we invited him over to play with us in the yard. Ask anybody, we consider him one of us, a Quebecer (or could be a jew in Womble's case) and so does he himself.

Culture is the corner stone of what a people is. US has people like Annoyed, and people like those that live in NYC. Two very different animals clashing in one country. Why do you think he's so angry when compared to, say Californians? I'm surely not giving any credence to his political views, but I can absolutely understand why he's so opposed to be compared to ''liberals''.

[aretood2]

Although I do not support the Third Reich or its abhorrent methods, I have to wonder about this, too.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/14/europ...ntl/index.html



This looks like this guy was just some military recruit (draftee?) who was ordered by the command structure of Hitler's military to do what he did. Since he wasn't allowed to refuse the orders without getting shot or otherwise punished himself, is it fair to put him on trial 70 years later?

No one in the German army was ever punished for refusing to participate in genocide. SS officers who refused weren't always punished either and none were condemned to death. A few did end up getting punished but only because their refusal was just one of many things they did that ran afoul with their commanders and Nazi law.

Edit: In fact refusals to participate in mass shootings were actually rather common. Inside the camps, if you couldn't stomach it you could ask for a transfer. Most punishments for those who didn't transfer were basically slaps on the wrist. Only a minority of those who refused got any severe punishments but as I mentioned earlier, they were usually a result of other "deviant" behavior on the part of those severely punished. The "Following orders" excuse is basically a lie. Oh wow, Nazis lying...imagine that....(note the sarcasm at the end here)

[Annoyed]

No one in the German army was ever punished for refusing to participate in genocide. SS officers who refused weren't always punished either and none were condemned to death. A few did end up getting punished but only because their refusal was just one of many things they did that ran afoul with their commanders and Nazi law.

Edit: In fact refusals to participate in mass shootings were actually rather common. Inside the camps, if you couldn't stomach it you could ask for a transfer. Most punishments for those who didn't transfer were basically slaps on the wrist. Only a minority of those who refused got any severe punishments but as I mentioned earlier, they were usually a result of other "deviant" behavior on the part of those severely punished. The "Following orders" excuse is basically a lie. Oh wow, Nazis lying...imagine that....(note the sarcasm at the end here)

There are a lot of vague statements there, such as "weren't always" and "a few did".
The guy on the bottom of the pole doesn't know what the folks upstairs will do. If someone is in legitimate fear for their own life, I'm gonna leave the decision to kill others on the orders of his commanders to him. That's a decision no one can make for another man.

And it ain't right to bring him to war crimes court 70 years later, either.

[mad_gater]

There are a lot of vague statements there, such as "weren't always" and "a few did".
The guy on the bottom of the pole doesn't know what the folks upstairs will do. If someone is in legitimate fear for their own life, I'm gonna leave the decision to kill others on the orders of his commanders to him. That's a decision no one can make for another man.

And it ain't right to bring him to war crimes court 70 years later, either.

As I recall from 20th century history classes they tried the "we were just following orders" defense at Nuremberg and it didn't work then either...mainly because most of us know that when you receive orders to do something you know is wrong you are both honor and duty bound to disregard them, even if it means putting your life on the line to do so. However it does seem as though there should've been a statute of limitations. 70 years after the fact is a long time to be put on trial for anything, including war crimes.

[Annoyed]

As I recall from 20th century history classes they tried the "we were just following orders" defense at Nuremberg and it didn't work then either...mainly because most of us know that when you receive orders to do something you know is wrong you are both honor and duty bound to disregard them, even if it means putting your life on the line to do so. However it does seem as though there should've been a statute of limitations. 70 years after the fact is a long time to be put on trial for anything, including war crimes.

If I recall, Nuremberg was mostly for officers who were willing participants and the order-givers. The guy in the article may have been an unwilling participant, a grunt or maybe draftee.

And while you are right about *should do the right thing* when ordered to commit atrocities, I think that decision should be left with the individual himself. He has to live (or die) with the consequences of his choice.

[Who Knows]

"I was only following order" has now been changed to "They made me do it, the voices in my head told me to do it"

I still have not worked out if they get locked away because they are mad, or people are only jealous because the voices don't talk to them.

But I must agree that their should be a statute of limitation on these things.

[Annoyed]

"I was only following order" has now been changed to "They made me do it, the voices in my head told me to do it"

I still have not worked out if they get locked away because they are mad, or people are only jealous because the voices don't talk to them.

But I must agree that their should be a statute of limitation on these things.

There is a big difference between following the imaginary voices in your head and following the orders of real life armed military superiors who have a perfect legal right to kill you, either immediately or after whatever passes for due process in that military.

If someone tries to defend against charges 'cause the voices in his head told him to, then it's off to Arkham Asylum with him.

On the other hand, if it is a real world superior officer ordering some grunt or draftee, then I think the decision to obey or not should be the grunt's, with no second guessing from the peanut gallery.

[Chaka-Z0]

On the other hand, if it is a real world superior officer ordering some grunt or draftee, then I think the decision to obey or not should be the grunt's, with no second guessing from the peanut gallery.

Correct, ''I was following order'' is not a valid defense.

If a soldier obeys an unlawful order, he can/will be prosecuted. An order that implies committing a crime is considered an unlawful order. The opposite is true also, if a soldier disobey a lawful order he can/will be prosecuted.

[aretood2]

There are a lot of vague statements there, such as "weren't always" and "a few did".
The guy on the bottom of the pole doesn't know what the folks upstairs will do. If someone is in legitimate fear for their own life, I'm gonna leave the decision to kill others on the orders of his commanders to him. That's a decision no one can make for another man.

And it ain't right to bring him to war crimes court 70 years later, either.

Let me be clear. It's been awhile since I read the literature on the subject so I did some quick readings of old notes. Basically, no. There were no, zero, zip, nada, cases where simply refusing to work at camps (requesting transfers) or army personal refusing to participate at all got punished. It was strictly forbidden to execute any SS officer (they were all officers) or concentration camp guard and there was no real credible threat of a guard becoming a prisoner beyond a few isolated incidents. No one was forced to be an SS officer. By the time you got your SS uniform you knew full well what you were supposed to do. I have very little sympathies for anyone depraved and barbaric enough to be an SS officer.

If any official wanted to execute an SS officer for any reason, they had to get direct written permission from Himler himself who was reluctant to give any such permissions. Don't forget that the SS wasn't an army unit, it was the enforcement arm of the Nazi party. SS officers were as loyal and ideologically pure as you could get to the Nazi Party which is exactly why they were given the task to commit murder on such a huge scale using such depraved methods as they did.

As I recall from 20th century history classes they tried the "we were just following orders" defense at Nuremberg and it didn't work then either...mainly because most of us know that when you receive orders to do something you know is wrong you are both honor and duty bound to disregard them, even if it means putting your life on the line to do so. However it does seem as though there should've been a statute of limitations. 70 years after the fact is a long time to be put on trial for anything, including war crimes.

As I mentioned above, those were mostly lies. No army, airforce, or navy officer or enlisted member ever got punished for refusing to participate. The majority of the few SS officers that refused to commit their crimes got nothing more than written up or some other slap on the wrist style punishment. A minority would get hit by their CO and the very few who had sadistic CO's got some sort of actual punishment. There are so few accounts of anything serious happening to SS officers that the very idea that they somehow feared for their own well being is ludicrous and if you believe them then (as someone else says) I have some Florida Swampland I'd love to sell you.

And once again, there are no statute of limitations for murder.

If I recall, Nuremberg was mostly for officers who were willing participants and the order-givers. The guy in the article may have been an unwilling participant, a grunt or maybe draftee.

And while you are right about *should do the right thing* when ordered to commit atrocities, I think that decision should be left with the individual himself. He has to live (or die) with the consequences of his choice.

Of which the SS was. Being an SS officer meant being ideologically pure. Genocide was one of their principle duties. One does not become an SS officer or work at the camps if one doesn't agree with the idea of the "final solution" at the very least in principle. It just so happens that some of these monsters ended up having a weak stomach. Cry me a river, what ever happened to "Personal Responsibility" or does one have to commit genocide in order to avoid it?

[Annoyed]

Correct, ''I was following order'' is not a valid defense.

If a soldier obeys an unlawful order, he can/will be prosecuted. An order that implies committing a crime is considered an unlawful order. The opposite is true also, if a soldier disobey a lawful order he can/will be prosecuted.

Maybe those rules apply under the US code of military justice or any other civilized nation. But under the 3rd Reich?

[jelgate]

Someone has been ignoring aretood's history lesson

[Chaka-Z0]

Maybe those rules apply under the US code of military justice or any other civilized nation. But under the 3rd Reich?

There is a distinction to be made between the Nazi political party and the Wehrmacht, which was the military corps.

[Coco Pops]

Someone's feelings got hurt......... Aaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwww

SNL by the way is a comedy show so surely you realize that you silly people

[Annoyed]

Someone's feelings got hurt......... Aaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwww

SNL by the way is a comedy show so surely you realize that you silly people

As far as SNL and other entertainment shows go, you're right.

But news operations are a different matter. News operations are supposed to convey the facts in an impartial manner. But the majority of them are so far biased and their bias shows so much in their coverage that they might as well be an extension of the liberal political machine. It is not the news media's role to affect events, only report them. The vast majority of alleged journalists seem to have forgotten that these days.

[jelgate]

Someone's feelings got hurt......... Aaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwww

SNL by the way is a comedy show so surely you realize that you silly people

I saw that and thought it was hilarious that he was actually threatening to sue