Originally Posted by Ollie Garchy

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs
Iin one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.

(sorry for all the Orwell today)

No worries Ollie, except I'm at a loss as to why you've quoted me with regards to Doublethink.

All I need is to quote you to get my facts , iam not going to accuse u of anything but your comments has nothing less than condoned nazi germany actions during ww2, if u re read your posts u may see what i mean . i have no idea what your political leanings are, u may or may not be your intention to sound "pro nazi" , i did agree with some of your points about german greivances over versailles but disagree with german rights to invade poland . Its how these forums work different people putting their different views foward but i have never heard anyone ( german or others) to condone germanys action to invade poland.

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

No worries Ollie, except I'm at a loss as to why you've quoted me with regards to Doublethink.

I only meant the idea we both seem to be referring to and wanted to cite some Orwell in the process. (Now I guess that I should try refining the idea a bit. This is hard because I am sort of confused by doublethink)

Using the excesses of the Nazi system as a reason for war, while simultaneously glossing over Soviet excesses and extending a hand of friendship, was doublethink. So was Hitler's alliance with Stalin. The destruction of Communism was a central component of Nazism. Fascism was also the sworn enemy of the Communists. This type of ideological inconsistency in pursuit of realist power principles (actually a strong case in favour of the realist school) was doublethink.

But, for me, nothing was as morally bankrupt as having the Soviets actually preside over a court and judging Germans for war crimes. In this case, however, the Germans were guilty of "crimes" and Soviet acts were either understandable acts of revenge (like killing Poles or Ukrainians) or simply "collateral damage" (oops...that rape was unintentional).

Chomsky goes to great lengths in exploring how different words are used for different political situations by different political actors. The "partisans" of WWII were therefore considered "freedom fighters" by the Allies. The Germans called them "unlawful combatants" and executed them as stipulated by international law. The anti-partisan activities of the German army were subsequently attacked as barbaric and as another example of crimes against humanity. This problem resurfaced in Vietnam or in the current American struggle against terrorists. Whereas the Mujahadeen who fought the Soviets were also called "freedom fighters", these men are now called "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "unlawful combatants" -- any negative expletive will do. CNN likes the word "fighters" to describe the Hezbollah. The Hezbollah look upon themselves as real soldiers. All of this is just semantics. What is really being said is: "our side is noble and the other is evil". Law becomes irrelevant.

"Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Bush administration in particular has suggested that those who do not meet this definition should be determined to be "unlawful combatant." It is opined that by this definition legal protection under the Geneva Conventions is not warranted. Nathaniel Berman in the Columbia Journal of Transnational Law observes that by declaring that some detainees do not merit the protections of criminal law, because of their combatant activities, and that they do not merit the protections of jus in bello due to the unlawful nature of their combat, the use of the term in current legal discourse seems "designed to put detainees beyond the reach of any law"".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

Originally Posted by ill be damed if i know

All I need is to quote you to get my facts , iam not going to accuse u of anything but your comments has nothing less than condoned nazi germany actions during ww2, if u re read your posts u may see what i mean . i have no idea what your political leanings are, u may or may not be your intention to sound "pro nazi" , i did agree with some of your points about german greivances over versailles but disagree with german rights to invade poland . Its how these forums work different people putting their different views foward but i have never heard anyone ( german or others) to condone germanys action to invade poland.

There is no real "condoning" involved. An historian's job is to answer what happened and why. We gain no insight into the origins of WWII if we work according to the bias of Allied propaganda. It is hardly surprising that German actions appear illogical or wicked if you begin the inquiry with this assumption.

"If Nazism is evil, and Nazism is German, Germans are evil"....or is it "If Germans are evil, and Nazism is German, Nazism is evil"...or is it "If both Nazism and Germans are evil, and I present a non-critical position of something German, then I am a Nazi and hence evil"...or "was I originally evil because a took a positive German perspective"? What if a positive German perspective is actually only a critical position of non-German actions? Wait a minute, I am German...so I guess that makes me a Nazi by birth, so I had better not say anything positive about Germans or be critical of non-Germans. Or is it the other way around? Ok, I guess it works this way: I am German and I am therefore a Nazi, unless I bend over backwards and prove that I do not support anything German or am critical of non-Germans, which in that case makes me a reformed German of Nazi lineage, and both evils cancel each other out. But what happens if I do not think that being a German is evil and refuse to accept that 100% of all German or even Nazi actions between 1933-1945, or in your case 1870-1990, were evil? What if I disprove of the actions of non-German states? What if I am just pointing out what happened and am only being pro-German by default? I guess I return to being de facto evil. Which in that case only means that I am absolved of my sins if I turn into a self-hating German...you know the type of jackass the British seem to loathe. Oh well. Tough for me, I guess. In that case, just call me whatever you want. I prefer the name "Ollie Garchy" or "Ollie".

Of course, "Fascist" is also one of those general epithets that someone hurls when he has nothing meaningful to say. But I think you have misunderstood my intentions.

Well it was victors hypocrisy at its best. By the same rules Stalin would have hung from a tree. The funny thing is they put Karl Donitz on trial for his unrestricted submarine warfare when the allies employed the same tactics. It is also worth noting that both France and Britian delcared war on Germany and thus STARTED the battle of France and Britian as well as North Africa. And lets not forget about the Soviet POW camps or their mass rape (not just German but other females as well) . So things are not as black and white as most people think.

This being said the Nuremburg Trials should not have even have taken place. It was a complete waste of time, money and brain drain. Most of the people who where on trial should have just been taken out and shot. It was clear that almost every bozo on trial was as guilty as sinned. It didn't take Sherlock Holmes, the hardy boys or a forensics expert to solve this so called "mystery". It was 100% assured that most of these clowns were guilty of the crimes for which they were charged.

I think that it was important for the German People to see just what had been in their name, also it gave the rest of the world a chance to see just why the war had become so important to win. Killing people is the easy part getting the peace afterwards is the difficult bit. Now in several parts of Britain those killed out of hand after some trouble are still remembered and those that helped carry out these acts are still despised hundreds of years later. Also people can still watch the films of trials and see that they are as fair as they could be in those days

Originally Posted by LeEnfield

I think that it was important for the German People to see just what had been in their name, also it gave the rest of the world a chance to see just why the war had become so important to win. Killing people is the easy part getting the peace afterwards is the difficult bit. Now in several parts of Britain those killed out of hand after some trouble are still remembered and those that helped carry out these acts are still despised hundreds of years later. Also people can still watch the films of trials and see that they are as fair as they could be in those days

I would love to see how British people see who were killed in their name. What about the empire? Was this just a noble right or was it an artificial extension of national power? Was the British domination of India a good and normal thing? Was the extirmination of the N. American Indian really necessary? We can look at the good aspects of the empire (I do), but were there bad elements? Sure. Empire's have their downpoints. Think about the Americans. Think about the Chinese. People get screwed. That is the nature of the game. Why look on the Germans as guilty of commiting crimes...these crimes were committed by all empires and all states who aspired/aspire to the same?

Ollie Garchy It has been known that governments have fallen over this in Britain