Now how long his ideology would have carried on with successors to his empire is another debate.
Now how long his ideology would have carried on with successors to his empire is another debate.
Actually Hitler did not want to dissolve countries, if he did that then German nationalism wouldn't work out since there are all of these other nationalities. Hitler also had no reason to bother France at all other than the construction of the Atlantic wall. Hitler can't even touch the French since they are of the Empire of Charlemagne and that would be strictly taboo. He also doesn't want to bother any other countries anyway.
Saying someone is bad is one thing but saying that they would do untold millions of other things because they are bad doesn't really make sense either. I see no reason why Hitler would enslave every nationality that wasn't German, that's not really the point of nationalism. More like the establishment of a state for every nationality and hence nationalism.
No, Hitler was doing what every smart empire does - making "vassals" out of certain areas like Czechoslovakia and the tripartite division of Poland and taking whatever he could in a massive land-grab. And Hitler had a policy of making non-Aryan Germans an equal through the usage of "Honorary Aryan" titles, but these were bestowed only amongst Germany's allies and supporters - such as Japan and the other Western European Caucasian ethnic groups.
Hitler had grander plans than simply creating another empire over territory. Like the rulers of old, he was planning the construction of a city, but unlike the rulers of old, it was to be the capital of the world. Unlike Alexander, Hitler foresaw cities being built to house pure blood Aryans while a caste system developed keeping everyone else below them. It's not quite unlike what usually happened throughout most of human history - the caste system bit.
If Hitler didn't want to dissolve countries, why did Austria, Poland, Czechoslovakia, most of France, Norway, etc get occupied, most of which dissolved?
The only argument that he was "occupying" instead of dissolving was because World War II only lasted six years and Hitler never had the time to properly annex territories into his empire. If he had won and had 20 years to consolidate his gains, Europe would look a lot different right now.
So because Hitler dislikes Jews then he also dislikes everybody?
It doesn't matter if he killed 6 million (apparently it is 4 million now) Jews, that is no proof to suggest that he wants to depopulate the world and kill everyone else. There isn't any evidence to suggest even that.
If every smart empire does things such as that then I hope there is no insinuation that Germany was a smart empire, as short lived as it was. Why shouldn't Austria be conquered, they are German and they wanted in, in fact why is austria even a country right now (but that is beyond the point so ignore that last bit). France was only occupied in the North so that the Germans could defend against an allied attack and to use as bases to combat the British. Poland and Czechoslovakia sort of enticed Germany at them as well. Norway and Denmark was occupied because of the war but I missed the part where the Germans put bullets in the heads of every Norwegian and Dane and used them as cheap labour.
There is no actual evidence that Hitler planned a super caste system especially when his ideology calls for states for every European non-minority to house them, the only exceptions were basically "Germanic territories". Sure they would all be vassal states but vassals aren't the same as actual slavery.
Saying that Hitler was bad is one thing but the epitome of pure evil? If we are going by body counts then Stalin or Mao could easily challenge for that title if not win all together.
It's because that is so easy to distinguish from other conflicts what makes it so popular to use to tell about it.
Also Hitler was not evil, he's the personification of a party, a party that was formed without him and had a lot of followers, even before he became president. This idea that Adolf Hitler is solely responsible for everything between 1930-1945 and every decision that happened (including other countries) would be the same as to blame the entire Middle-Eastern Crisis on Osama Bin Laden or George W. Bush
I think something that is severely overlooked is why World War 2 was possible. Why blame Germany for absolutely everything when the likes of Czechoslovakia and Poland are easy enough to victimize when they are on the losing end but fact is both countries were able to give Germany a casus belli. A bad person pulling strings and starting a war is certainly one choppy version of the tale, but if someone can actually invade you because you helped or gave a reason to start the war then you ed up pretty good as well. There actually was a crisis which Poland and Czechoslovakia helped start, that is why World War 2 is two sided as are all conflicts.
This thread is if there is a good side in a war; and I think this thread shows there is.
Unlike Czechoslovakia Poland under Pilsudski gave the Germans the ultimate cassus belli of asking the French for political cover to remove Hitler; but Hitler didn't know about it and such a cassus belli died with Pilsudski; which is why the Germans didn't use it. If anything it was the way the allies drew borders in granting the Czechs every inch of their medieval kingdom, and Poland's desire to avoid being in a position to be embargoed on a whim by Germany, and unwillingness to be an ally of Hitler (Hitler offered the Poles alternative ports from future taking on the Soviet Union) that enabled Hitler to spin things into be given concessions/getting Germany into war. In both cases it leaves a very clear impression of who was good and who was bad.
There wouldn't need to be concessions if Czechoslovakia and Poland hadn't began attacking minorities. If neither of those countries had done that then Germany doesn't have an urgent casus belli. Danzig for example was willing to join Germany and Danzig had that right. Poland was very intent on the expansion of its territory at German extent. The problem is really whether Poland should give a port up and become essentially land locked. In exchange though Poland would have received recognition for the parts of West Prussia that it annexed as well as the strip from East Prussia so it wasn't a completely one sided offer. But that just proves how ed up nationalism can be and the idea of a country for every ethnicity, which is why the "solutions" after World War 1 provided more problems. Although Czechoslovakia gave Germany a casus belli I also don't see why Germany was able to annex it, even though the Czechs had previously annexed towns that were supposed to be German (as did Poland). But I can't really say that Poland is innocent as they conspired with France, refused every offer and began to rid themselves of German and Ukrainian minorities but also adopted an agressive policy against many of its neighboors.
Saints? No, but when your enemy is Stalin and Hitler in Alliance with each other you don't have to be to clearly be the good side; considering that compared to Hitler Stalin is clearly the good side. The OP asked if there is ever a good side; your own wording seems to show you know Poland and Czechoslovakia were both the good side when Hitler was making his demands; why else would you use words like "not totally innocent"?
The East Europeans (Soviets don't deserve all of the blame; the Germans were quickly identified by locals who very dearly desired to be rid of the Germans) did expel the Germans, did expel them with high brutality, and did actively make them suffer; but that was often after the war and in all cases after a long and unforgivable amount of extreme violence on the locals. The Germans were treated well before the war.
"compared to Hitler, Stalin is clearly the good side"
I disagree with that statement and I think you will find that many others will do so as well. Stalin is usually regarded as worse than Hitler and although I originally disbelieved that, I could not refute it based on any evidence.
Why did a good question end up as a 10yo debate on Hitler and Stalin? Granted they and you are cool, but come on.
The original question was whether there is a good and bad side in war. I think you can say there have been "good" sides in war, but there are many wars with no good side. The Syrian civil war is a war between various groups with various motives, but not one of them is innocent or can be considered good. That there are innocent people is not our concern. It is they who mess their lives up and must learn to take responsibility. My country has, and so has many others.
It should be clear to anyone that the Nazis had to be defeated, just like the Japanese. The various conquests (or attempts to it) of individuals with individual motives can be condemned. The many civil wars where individual groups with individual motives disrupt society can be condemned. The many wars where these motives are based on religious, racial and other imaginary motives can be condemned.
It all depends on the motive of the war. The atrocities that follow depend on the nature of the enemy. And the one fact you should always include is human behavior and natural instinct.
In 1939 when Poland was attacked however they were both in Alliance; I spoke in haste earlier and agree saying that Stalin was clearly better then Hitler is wrong; but it is very easy to call Poland the good side; Rydz Smigley would have to be pretty evil to not be the good side when up against an alliance between Hitler and Stalin.
there are not good or bad sides.
depends on the point of view, the side you´re on, etc
the world is not black or white
Imposible is Nothing.
The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.
There are no good countries or bad countries only these countries and those countries.
British bomber strategy developed on the basis that anything would be better than another four years of trench warfare, and that the bleeding edge of bomber aviation technology would ensure that nothing would stop them from delivering their payload on target.
And Frederick had a grievance against Austria, as apparently Marie Therese torpedoed his marriage plans. The fact that Silesia was an economically tempting fruit waiting to be plucked by a plucky Prussian was just icing on the cake.
Eats, shoots, and leaves.
Where are you guys getting it that I said he wanted to depopulate the entire world?
For Hitler there was a clear difference of peoples:
There were the pure-blood German Aryans, top of the gradient;
then came the other noble whites, like the French and British;
then came the "Honorary Aryans," which was basically anyone the Nazi Party said was an Aryan (Japan, for instance, even though deep down both Japan and Germany racially disliked each other, and if they did win and their empires eventually bordered each other, who knows what would have happened - there's a video game on this I believe lol).
Then came the more savage peoples (in his mindset):
These people most certainly would have been evicted from their lands, forced into slave labor to build cities for more "pure" colonists, and would have formed the bottom of the social hierarchy.
Most human societies have had this. The Greeks and Romans relied extensively on slavery to get things done. Hitler would (and maybe did) use that as justification for wanting to enslave the Slavic peoples amongst others.
Ok, I first started to read this thread on the train, but someone made a great point- this should probably be in the Ethics forum, but since it is here...
I always found it interesting that the worse most cruel endeavor of man is war, and yet is one of the most romanticized.
I do not think war can ever be moral. We certainly do try to however. War, at best, is an amoral affair. Any morality we assign to it is done to rationalize the death and destruction it causes. Don't be fooled by the facade of a noble fight, it is all about power and wealth.
The state would do anything to protect its own self- interest. It s a real coup is they convince you of their righteousness!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)