Originally Posted by senojekips

The "truth" is simply that, and Ollies attempts at bypassing it by bringing the theories of various "experts" into the debate over what truth is, are not needed. Well,.... certainly by those of us who use our own intelligence to form our own opinions instead of just lamely accepting the reasoning of others.

Wriggle and squirm all you wish, but the truth is self evident, and it takes no brainpower to continually quote the theories of others.

"Experts"
Given a simple question, 20 experts will arrive at 30 answers none of which agree.

Given a little time and the desire to do so I can find an "expert" opinion to back up just about anything.

Where do you get your knowledge of history?

(1) No Real Experts: Since there are no experts in your opinion, and you dismiss all of their ideas and work, where do you get your facts and your theories and your understanding of history (or anything else for that matter)? Since you do not read any books, magazines or newspaper articles (those would be "experts"), how do you learn? I am assuming that you have some interest in the study of history. Or are you a tabula rasa? For the love of God, even fundamentalist Christians argue that you have to read the Bible. You must read something...although not my posts.

(2) The Truth is Self-Evident: I love your certainty about knowledge. But to hold a truth to be evident in itself without proof is the same as saying that the truth is an unverifiable proposition. Just for argument's sake, tell me why you believe that Germany planned a war of conquest against Britain. What facts? What things support your argument. If that truth is just self-evident, why are you even interested in debate? I have only heard the following: (1) Germany killed 30 million people during WWII and (2) Hitler was bad. The first point is illogical. The second point must be explained. What did Hitler do between 1933-1939 that was bad? Were these bad things justifiable reasons for declaring war? And please explain yourselves.

(3) Knowledge as Independent of Outside Sources: Well, I won't even answer anything that manifestly stupid...other than asking how you gain an understanding of historical phenomenon using your immediate senses? Please enlighten me. It would save me hours of reading.

It is rather obvious that you have nothing more than the most rudimentary education. That would be fine. I have known many incredibly intelligent and rational non-educated people in my life. People can educate themselves outside of professional institutions by reading. But the sad laughter behind your dismissal of the "experts" indicates that you are in fact ashamed of your inability to understand what I am writing. I apologize.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

Ah, well you see the truth simply isn't 'self evident' for a great deal of the time. If it were, assuming we can arrive at an absolute truth anyway, the world would be a much easier place to understand. In the current argument the truth here is dependant on your perspective, how much wider reading has been done on the subject and the ability to shift through the fog of disinformation and propoganda and detach emotion from fact. So far, yours and Del Boy's responses have been largely emotional, which given the subject matter I can fully understand and empathise with, but emotional nonetheless. Emotion rarely though has a place amongst truth.

Well, to you my friend, all I can say is that if the truth is not self evident to you, or you haven't got the wherewithal to work it out for yourself. You shouldn't be engaging in such conversations. Do you know right from wrong?

I could understand emotion being displayed, as it should when dealing with those who merely wish to distort the debate to get the answer that they desire. After all, most of the point of Ollies argument is merely to elicit an emotional result..... It is called trolling.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Ok maybe I am misreading his posts/intentions (its happened before and I have no doubt will happen again)and it is quite clear that if this is the case then both Del Boy and Spike seem to be making the same mistakes so I will ask you to explain his point in a clear and short sentence (nothing in depth just a straight forward response).
Because I have to admit that if I am interpreting him correctly I wouldn't put money on him surviving in many parts of the world.

Also on the topic of emotive responses, how does this rate?
I am not a huge fan of Churchill but I am not even close to calling him a fat racist any more than I am likely to refer to Hitler as a psychotic meglomaniac.

It's not for me to explain someone else's threads and the point they are making. Ollie has provided plenty of reading which, although a bit of work, does embellish the points he is attempting to make. I will give you these little tidbits though.

Q: Why was it that Britain and France declared war on Germany for invading Poland but not on the Soviet Union for doing the same thing?

Q: Why is it that Hitler and Nazi Germany are today seen as the very essence of evil when Stalin and Stalinist Russia get off comparatively scot-free? Look at how many movies and video games depict the enemy as the 'evil Nazis'. You never, ever see enemies being depicted as the 'evil Stalinists' yet they were arguably just as bad. Possibly worse when you remember that Stalin's acts of evil were all committed with selfish interests in mind.

These are both legitimate questions and part of what Ollie is trying to address.

BTW, I'm not sure that calling someone a 'fat racist' is necessarily emotive.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Well, to you my friend, all I can say is that if the truth is not self evident to you, or you haven't got the wherewithal to work it out for yourself. You shouldn't be engaging in such conversations. Do you know right from wrong?

I know what I think is right from what is wrong. But much of it is perspective is it not?

An example: A 12 year old girl gets pregnant and wishes to have a termination as she is totally unable or ready to bring up a child. A pro-life supporter calls her a murderer for doing so, as the unborn foetus is alive and has a right to live.

Who is right?

Originally Posted by senojekips

I could understand emotion being displayed, as it should when dealing with those who merely wish to distort the debate to get the answer that they desire. After all, most of the point of Ollies argument is merely to elicit an emotional result..... It is called trolling.

No, Ollie is attempting to provoke intelligent, thought-provoking debate and backs up what he says with links from people of renown and standing. That is hardly trolling my friend. If Ollie is a troll, then he's by far the most committed and intelligent troll I've ever seen.

Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

Where do you get your knowledge of history?

(1) No Real Experts: Since there are no experts in your opinion, and you dismiss all of their ideas and work, where do you get your facts and your theories and your understanding of history (or anything else for that matter)? Since you do not read any books, magazines or newspaper articles (those would be "experts"), how do you learn? I am assuming that you have some interest in the study of history. Or are you a tabula rasa? For the love of God, even fundamentalist Christians argue that you have to read the Bible. You must read something...although not my posts.

(2) The Truth is Self-Evident: I love your certainty about knowledge. But to hold a truth to be evident in itself without proof is the same as saying that the truth is an unverifiable proposition. Just for argument's sake, tell me why you believe that Germany planned a war of conquest against Britain. What facts? What things support your argument. If that truth is just self-evident, why are you even interested in debate? I have only heard the following: (1) Germany killed 30 million people during WWII and (2) Hitler was bad. The first point is illogical. The second point must be explained. What did Hitler do between 1933-1939 that was bad? Were these bad things justifiable reasons for declaring war? And please explain yourselves.

(3) Knowledge as Independent of Outside Sources: Well, I won't even answer anything that manifestly stupid...other than asking how you gain an understanding of historical phenomenon using your immediate senses? Please enlighten me. It would save me hours of reading.

It is rather obvious that you have nothing more than the most rudimentary education. That would be fine. I have known many incredibly intelligent and rational non-educated people in my life. People can educate themselves outside of professional institutions by reading. But the sad laughter behind your dismissal of the "experts" indicates that you are in fact ashamed of your inability to understand what I am writing. I apologize.

Perhaps you would be better served by learning from life rather than your exemplary knowledge of selected excerpts from those whose reasoning best suits your argument.

I understand what you are saying perfectly, I know "big words" too, (like wheelbarrow and umbrella) which is why I cast aspersions at your high handed language and constant referrals to the quotes of "experts" your reasoning is typical of that found among "academics". You seem to have a profound understanding of "the books" but a total lack common sense and life experience. e.g. you argue against those who have lived the experience.

Doppleganger

Your questions.

Britain declared war on Germany because they received no response to their dead-line regarding Hitler's intentions. Hitlerwent a step too far, after a great many steps too far.


Just because it may be felt that Stalin was as evil as Hitler does not diminish or alter the fact of Hitler's evilness.

Thank you for answering my 6 questions. Appreciated. I will return to them when Ollie finally decides he is ready to reply to these simple questions.

Now you rascal, please don't roll a hand grenade in here regarding abortion, when this is highly charged enough already. We just don't need that, and i feel it has already been emphatically done on this forum. We want some nice calm here, so that i can pin you and Ollie down. He-he!

Doppleganger, With regard to your hypothetical questions, Like I have been saying use your own brain and work it out.

If he is the most intelligent troll you have ever seen, then that tells me a lot.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

What Ollie is doing is known as wriggling. It is not worth the paper it is written on.

If Ollie wants truth in this matter, let him answer these questions in one word.


1. Do you hold that America wanted WW11?
2. Do you hold that America was responsible for WW11?
3. Do you hold that Britain wanted WW11?
4. Do you hold that Britain was responsible for WW11?
5. Do you hold that Hitler's regime was not evil/bad?
6. Do you stick to your claim that Britain was unaware of the evil of Hitler's regime until after the outbreak of war.

Then we can see just what the precise point you wish to make is and how concerned about truth you really are. I believe you are trying to re-write history in an unworthy cause - that of the Nazi regime and not that of the German people, with whom Britain had no complaint pre-war.

This is how we can a sensible debate - go for it.


COMMAND THE FUTURE, CONQUER THE PAST.

I have explained all of these points in earlier posts. Go back and read them this time. But just for the record:

(1) It is a well-established theory that Roosevelt wanted to wage war against Hitler after the outbreak of war. Since about half of the American people were "isolationist", however, Roosevelt's hands were tied.

(2) Some historians theorize that the US bears responsibility for the outbreak of WWII. I agree. Since the Versailles system was a dominant factor leading to war, Germany being against it, and the Americans withdrew from that system and never joined the League of Nations, the Americans failed to support the post-1918 global system of collective security. That system would have contained Hitler with overwhelming military force.

(3) Churchill wanted war against Hitler. Various British politicians such as Vansittart did as well. Others like Chamberlain and Halifax did not. As far as the British people are concerned, the population was probably split into those for, those against, and those who did not care.

(4) Britain declared war on Germany. Britain officially started what became WWII. I prefer to call the period 1939-1941 a European war. Hitler's invasion of the USSR in 1941 and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor started WWII.

(5) While I am a moral relativist, I am not really qualified to answer this question. I am not a priest. I, however, personally believe that the Holocaust, the mass killing of Poles, Russians and others was "bad". But I will qualify this statement. I see no difference between Hitler's actions and Stalin's murders, or the British genocidal policies throughout the empire, or the American extirmination of the North American Natives. I, however, accept full German state responsibility for the crimes of the Nazis and the ongoing German attempts at financial restitution.

(6) I never made that claim. However, how could the British know about the Holocaust before it began? How could the Germans even start killing Poles or Russians prior to the start of war and invasion? The evil of the Nazi regime prior to 1939 was "limited" to killing, imprisoning and harrassing Germans -- whether they were Communists, Socialists, left-wing Nazis, priests, homosexuals, the handicapped or German Jews.

Your view that I am rewriting history is pure rhetorical nonsense.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Doppleganger, With regard to your hypothetical questions, Like I have been saying use your own brain and work it out.

Sorry, but a complete cop-out of an answer. A waste of a post in fact.

Originally Posted by senojekips

If he is the most intelligent troll you have ever seen, then that tells me a lot.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Doppleganger

Your questions.

Britain declared war on Germany because they received no response to their dead-line regarding Hitler's intentions. Hitlerwent a step too far, after a great many steps too far.

Who gave Britain and France the moral or political authority to decide what Hitler was doing was a step too far?

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Just because it may be felt that Stalin was as evil as Hitler does not diminish or alter the fact of Hitler's evilness.

Thank you for answering my 6 questions. Appreciated. I will return to them when Ollie finally decides he is ready to reply to these simple questions.

Nothing can diminish the evil that the Nazi regime allowed to happen. Nothing. However, that does not alter the fact that Stalin and his atrocities against mankind have largely been ignored by comparision.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Now you rascal, please don't roll a hand grenade in here regarding abortion, when this is highly charged enough already. We just don't need that, and i feel it has already been emphatically done on this forum. We want some nice calm here, so that i can pin you and Ollie down. He-he!

It was a good example of truth being a matter of perspective though was it not?