Split from thread and merged with this one. Post #12 is the original post #1 for this thread. ~tk
Uh oh. HITLER CARD CODE DETECTED!!!

Quick everybody --- reboot!!

*reboots*

Phew. That was close. :p

Boohoo. The big bad Nazis. No, Nancy. (A) No country ever had the power to take on the whole world. Sooner or later the Nazis would have failed. (B) The clear alternative to violence would have been for Germans to not "support" Hitler in the first place. (C) The whole World War scenario was immoral, no need to discuss whether the intervention of the US was moral or not.

The Nazis nearly took over all of Europe and spread their influence to Africa, allying with the Japanese who attempted to conquer the Pacific rim they did a pretty good job of taking over the world until we started fighting bsck, plus there was things such as the Holocaust. I guess we should have ignored all that though.

What in the hell is you talking about, Ray? :lol:
The Nazis would rule the world now if Britain didn't stall them long enough until D-Day arrived.
The Holocaust would probably still be going on today, in full gear, you underestimate the evil the Nazis
brought. :)
Even though they was evil, the Nazis had genius, scientists and engineers working for them, if Britain didn't stall them, and they had time to fully and wisely implemented, the Heinkel He 343 bomber jet, Messerschmitt Me 262 fighter jet, Arado Ar 234, bomber jet.
Also not forgetting Japan's experimental jets, :Nakajima Ki-201, turbojet interceptor/attack and Nakajima Kikka, Turbojet Interceptor.
If Germany with help of Japan could had fully implemented these fighters, intercepters and bombers early in the war, like around the Battle of Britain( July, 10 1940 – 31 October 1940) and Britain was conquered; they would have won the war, no question, because the allies wouldn't have had nothing to counter that millitary air tech later.
And shroud of evil will blanket the world today.

Err, Nancy, I'm German, I know very well what happened. And seriously, Germany was already running out of resources. Not necessarily weaponry, but humans and supplies. The fact that Hitler had to sent thousands of frightened teenagers into the fight and that the troops were more than underfed does not suggest otherwise.

Besides that, I just take a short look at what happened to the oh so powerful US Army when they visited Vietnam. You really want to tell me Germans would have made it through there? Ha ha, Germans in the jungle. No way. :p

I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't try and act as morally as we possibly can. To say that we shouldn't have even gone to war against the Nazis however is well beyond the pale.

I did not say that. I said it wasn't necessary.

You haven't really thought this through have you? It wasn't necessary to act against the Nazis? If you honestly think that then you're a kook and you're dangerous.

Yes I have thought this through, did you read what I wrote? The Nazis would have been sorted out on their own. They would have never succeeded in taking over the world. NEVER. No martial attempt to do so in human history did ever succeed. You cannot just go conquer and oppress the world and expect everybody to play along. So, from a certain point of view, it wasn't necessary to take them out in order to make the regime go away. Maybe you read more into it, but I didn't say anything more.

Usually, "don't play along" is more or less synonymous with "violent uprising". There's very few revolutions that I know of that didn't involve violence. You could say that yes, there has been cases where peaceful protests have succeeded, but when it comes down to it for the vast majority of humanity, waving your hand and saying "stop" isn't going to prevent a machine gun from doing its work.

I'm also not sure what you mean by stating that no attempt at martial dominance has ever worked in history; the Roman Empire was vicious, brutal, and war mongering, yet it lasted for a 1000 years.

And certainly the Nazis might not have been able to take over the world, they might have only been able to force all of Europe under their rule. Oh, that makes everything Hitler did alright then. Y'know a lot of people may not agree with that so I've opened a poll on whether or not stopping the Nazis was necessary. Feel free to vote, I'm sure it'll be a most interesting discussion.

I did not say something else. On the other hand, to me it seems pretty much a hard task to refill the gaps when you kill like 90% of the earth's population. And it seems impossible to control the whole world when you only got a handful citizens to fill up 50 villages and 10 cities. As an example, it took 250 years alone for the Europeans to get back from nature after the black death in the 14th century. Plans to take the world are always big, but what comes next?

Yes, but did the Roman empire conquer the whole world? No. And where is the Roman empire now with all its brutality and viciousness? Gone. Mainly due to internal problems, be it military, economic, or with their populace, that made it also easier for external aggressors to defeat them.


Who said that?

Was stopping the Nazis necessary?
 

Just as the title says, people can argue about Iraq and Afghanistan all they want, but what about the big one? What about stopping the efforts of Hitler and the Nazis to conquer Europe, exterminate the Jews, with them spreading the war to Africa and their allies Imperial Japan taking the war as far as America, or seeking a supernatural way to win the war and desicrating historical sites and writing Nazism into their history? Was it necessary to stop them? Why or why not?

Clearly you are. Since you are such an expert surely you would know Hitler was seeking a scientific way to win the war. He conducted the Jews to medical experiments in order to find new ways to wipe out his enemies. That the Hitler Youth and SS Gestapo where thugs were conscripted to do Hitler's dirty work were standered procedure, nothing to do with desperation. Saying that it wasn't necessary to stop the Nazis, such thoughts makes me stand by my assessment that you're a kook and you're dangerous, not to mention either too cowardly to realise that the Nazis had to be stopped and justice for the millions of those theykilled had to be served or you're in support of their efforts.

You must be kidding me. Where did I say Hitler did right? Please be so kind and give me a quote. All I said he was doomed to fail and would have failed even if we had not stopped him, hence there was not necessity in stopping him. So would you pleas calm down and try to understand what I actually am trying to say. :/

vvv
Because of an opinion? Because of a rational statement? Because I can provide a logical reasoning for my thoughts?

Nancy. Please I did in no way ever state what the Nazis did was good or the like. And just for one moment, assume the Nazis would not have been stopped, what now? Maybe the US had not dropped 2 a-bombs over Japan. Maybe Vietnam would not have happened? No Korea? No gulf conficts? None of those wars? No 9/11?

Let me tell you something - as bad as Nazis may have been - from the historic point of view - at the end of the day, it couldn't be worse than the fact that no one stopped Christian religion in the medieval times and so many died terrible deaths and suffered horrible pain in the name of any god. Or do you suggest otherwise?

I don't know why you are so obsessed with it. It wasn't a necessary thing to do as history suggests, whether it was a nice thing to do or not, or what would have happened otherwise is another question. I didn't even say it was bad to roll in and end the regime. All I said was the Nazis had no chance of achieving their goal.

You don't need to kill 90% of the population; only around 10% at most is needed and the rest will follow in fear. If you think all of them will lay down their tools and stop working for the greater good of things, then I think you're too expecting of humanity's dedication to morality.

There isn't much of a difference between conquering a continent and the world, as least as far as violence is concerned. Once you get to that point, it's more a matter of culture and tradition, which always leads to conflict sooner or later. And the fact that the Roman Empire is gone has less to do with its reliance on violence and more of the ephemeral nature of governments. It certainly lasted longer than any entirely pacifist country, at least.

You said that the whole World War was immoral, meaning that fighting against the Nazi's totalarian rule was immoral. I think that answers your question.

As for what if, have a look at what the Nazis had accomplished before we started fighting back. England was about the only free country in Europe. The Nazis had invaded Africa. Their allies Imperial Japan were taking over the Pacific Rim. You can rest assured that if we hadn't thought there would have been no Vietnam, no 9/11, because there would have been no Vietnamese or Muslims in the world, they would be under the heel of Nazi rule. Maybe that's what you want, but about six billion people in the world don't want that, not then and with the knowledge of what atrocities Hitler was behind certainly not now.

Happy now?

It WASN'T NECESSARY!
As I say again, what in the hell is you talking about? :lol:
*sigh* I don't know what to say.
Because this is ridiculous!




They had every chance of achieving their goal, if Britain was conquered early in the war, and Hitler didn't invade Russia, they would rule the world now.
Man, I don't know what in the hell, you're not seeing.

Happy now with what?

Why am I so obsessed with it? After chasing away one crazy creepy crawly I need a new chew toy. Guess who drew the short straw. Why? The following is a registered trademark of ET Warrior, copyrighted 2007.

I believe the notion that fighting against the Nazis was immoral and uncessary is open to debate.

Yes, I definitely agree with Nancy, here.

I think you're misconceiving something here Nancy. No one said the Nazis did alright, or should not have been fought back, or it was immoral to act against them. It was said that a possible Nazi empire would sooner or later have fallen down even without US intervention, not to mention the fact that conquering the whole world plus having the reliable support of the invaded nations for a longer period of time is not one of the things you do between breakfast and lunch. Not more not less.

Oh, and debate me all you want Nancy, I am "invincible" :p

All of World War Two was immoral, your words. Are you going back on that now and saying that we did the right thing? If so good.

I think the war would have turned out completely different if Hitler wouldn't have attacked Russia. Fighting a two-front war is just plain stupid.

And regarding the main question here, yes I think it was necessary to stop their war campaign.

No. My words were "The whole World War scenario was immoral", and that's what it was. Innocent civilians died on all sides. Pain and suffering was caused on all sides from all sides. That's why it all was immoral. War is immoral. I did not say anything else.

Did I say US intervention was immoral? No. Did I say the Nazis should not have been stopped? No. Did I say Nazis were doing good? No. Did I wish the Nazis wouldn't have been stopped? No.


I'm not sure, it's possible I speak Swahili and don't notice.

Well, this issue is going to continue to be argue.

But war is going to continue to happen; blood is going to have to continue to be spilled to maintain peace on this rock, or any other rocks in this galaxy, in the future that we occupy.

We don't inhabit a utopia, yet. :)

Precisely, you said the whole World War scenario was immoral. That means what the Nazis did was immoral, Britain defending their country was immoral, Rommel realising Hitler's evil and defecting was evil, Normandy was evil, all of it. America tried to do the moral thing and stay out before they were attacked. Should we have just let the Nazis do as they please? Would that have been the moral thing to do?

Yes. "The whole World War scenario was immoral" meaning that US intervention was immoral. You cannot have it both ways, you cannot say that everything about the war is immoral and then claim you didn't say it.

Boah. No, Nancy. It means the WW was immoral without picking a certain party. Simply because war itself *is* immoral, regardless of which war in human history you chose, they were immoral.

Additionally it can be said that, without doubt, the Nazis did a lot of immoral things, yes. And as you might notice, it's a different sentence with a different statement.

They were defending themselves, so no.

Realising something clearly cannot be immoral/evil/whatever.

So we're now moved on from the question of morality to being evil?

Trying to keep out of an immoral war is not an immoral act.

Of course not! Don't you know how bad the Nazis were? XD

In fact, the notion to stop the Nazis was very moral. However, not killing endless numbers of innocent civilians would have been moral, too.

It stands there written in clear, understandable words. What is it that you cannot comprehend? The World Wars as a whole were immoral. P-E-R-I-O-D. There is not the slightest indication that even allows to read words like "US" or "intervention" into it.

I did not say and do not say the intervention was immoral. In fact I consider it a very moral motive if you want to end an immoral war. The bombings of cities, where innocent civilians died painful, is something I consider highly immoral, though.

Huh? I don't deny saying the World War scenario was immoral? I deny that I said anything else with it. Especially things that YOU read into it. You obviously don't even try to understand where I am coming from. You just go all "RANA RANA RANA RHUBARB RHUBARB RHUBARB" without even noticing what I tell you for the second day now. I mean, it's almost unbelievable, I say NO I DON'T SAY NAZIS DID GOOD and you keep stating that I would say this with every word I say. Why? Do you think I will give in with the time?

As an unrelated example, if a guy says he doesn't like girls that doesn't mean he has gay tendencies, it just means he doesn't like girls. Tell me, can you abstract that?

---

Hm. Okay Nancy, for the very last time I will repeat myself (and rephrase):

In case no one ever would have taken action in fighting back the Nazis, be it Russia, the UK, the US, France, whoever else, the Nazis would possibly have come much further than they were, but considering that all past empires, even if they became really large and were brutal and oppressing in nature, are gone for good, the fictive Nazi empire would be encounter the same fate sooner or later. Seeing it from that point of view, the historical point of view, one could conclude that in order to "just have the Nazis disappear" no explicit action was necessary, even if that means the Nazis would last a thousand years longer -- but I think we all agree that no one wants or ever wanted that, and we all are shiny happy dancing people today because it came otherwise, and we could send a man to the moon and debate whether the climate is changing or not. :dozey:




---

As a further note to all readers - I won't participate in this poll, as it clearly does not stand in original context to my statement from the Revisiting Moral Objectivism with Mathematical Notation thread. This poll is utterly useless and so is the (falsified) message it tries to bring across.

Also, I suggest closure of this thread, and a reopening of the other one, including a clean up starting from post #82 at least. (But not #71 m'kay ;))

Nazis did a lot of evil things, should be included in this statement.

People die in war, some people can't accuse every soldier, pilot and sailer who fought in that war as immoral, innocent blood is going to be spilled; it's just going to happen.
Evil must be stop by any means necessary, well people in the world would have to just continue to argue this.
Logicians seem to don't factor in evil; only positive right and negative wrong, in terms of morality.
Logicians seem to believe that evil don't exist, since some people consider evil supernatural; so not subject to explanation according to natural laws; not physical or material and can't be tested by science, as the skeptics of evil would argue.

Evil can use the philosophy of morality, to make their evil seem positive good from their perspective.
Like the Nazis did with their murdering of the Jews, ethnic minorities, mentally ill and homosexuals, in the death camps.
Evil can make evil seem good.

People must be aware of this!

My my Ray, you sound upset. What's wrong? It might be advisable to be careful, the way you're bouncing off the walls you could have a heart attack or anything.

Perhaps what you are trying to say is that as immoral as it is there are times war is necessary, such as fighting against tyranny, opression, prosecution and, in the case of the Jews, annihilation. There is still the matter of whether or not fighting the Nazis was necessary. You maintain that it wasn't, as all evil empires eventually die out. It might take a thousand years but they will eventually fall. Unfortunatly for you and Nazi Germany the world couldn't take that chance. We could have acted and saved most of Europe from the Nazis, you yourself say how bad they were, and stopped their future plans which included speeding up their plans for genocide and destruction rather than conquer. Or we could have thought it unnecessary to act and see how many years, decades or even centuries it would have taken for the goose stepping, sieg heiling mass murderers to fall.

Now, with you screaming for this thread to be closed, TK is cut because he feels I derailed his thread. Perhaps he would like to return the favor. May I suggest home decorating?

Ooookaaay. "Bouncing off the walls" was exactly what I thought with you jumping like a spumous fury on my "necessity" statement. You couldn't take for but one second someone could seriously think Germany could have been defeated without your oh so glorious country. :rolleyes:

There are like thousand posts regarding that issue.

o___________°;; Nancy, is that you?

Fortunately for me and my country. The hell, who wants the Nazis around? I don't.

Maybe that's a topic for another thread, how "effective" or "useful" it is to destroy everything and kill everybody around when you actually have plans to conquer the world. Until then my opinion is it's a stupid idea.

What a luck no one did, huh?

Aww, we have someone here who hates America do we? Maybe the war could have been won without America. I wouldn't know. What I do know is that it was very necesary to stop the Nazis. You said yourself that you don't want to live under their rule. Well that's what you could be facing if it was decided it wasn't necessary to act, especially if it can take a thousand years for an evil empire to fall.

A lot of people in this world would want Nazis around, especially the neo-Nazis, how stupid they are, the real Nazis, wouldn't give a damn about them, they would be slaves or perish in the death camps, if the Nazis was still around, now.

Nancy, why should I hate the US? I did not say such thing. I merely mocked your national pride.

I also never said that back then it was ever up for disposition whether or not acting was necessary. Clearly everybody with some sense for humanity would deem it necessary to stop the Nazis. But everybody with some sense for humanity would also deem it very unnecessary to drop a-bombs over densely populated cities.

But you deem it unnecessary, you've said several times now that it was unnecessary. Or are you just upset that your country was America's bitch? Is that what it is? Anti Americanism at work? Another crybaby who cannot stand the fact we are the greatest country in the world.

Yes, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing was unecepetable, and nuclear bombs in war is unecepetable, because that can lead to extinction of our species.

:dozey: You don't get it. It's just a hypothetical point of view, according to what human history teaches us.

Haha, "anti Americanism at work". You crack me up. The US surely did some great things. With the help of some great German personalities. ^^

Listen, if you (in person) would stop being so self centred and all self loving you might notice that I am by no means a person that would ever state such ignorant stuff like country A > country B. Comparing dicks is for chumps. :¬:

And for the record, America is not a country. It's a continent. And the fact that you continuously keep pointing out how cool your country is makes me wonder if you are possibly the "crybaby" that is afraid that someone might not notice the "fact" of "America being the greatest country". XD

The fact much of the world is jealous of America and what she stands for is enough to convince me of her greatness. I don't need to rub people's faces in it, but seeing how people react when I do is fun.

Nancy Allen consider yourself WARNED for flamebaiting. Tone it down and stick to the debate.