This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It is certainly not an irrelevance. Panicking crowds are very difficult to control, the notion that thousands of people were marched in orderly fashion inside narrow entrances into bedroom-sized "gas chambers" heavily relies on the mode of deception. This follows from that fact that all the alleged "gas chambers" were claimed to have been disguised as shower rooms, and that crowds of thousands of people were routinely marched inside without resistance on the pretext of taking a shower. This is the standard mainstream historical claim. The stories of panicking or resistance are suspiciously sparse.
The reason they would care is because normally people in a crowd of thousands being led to certain death would create panic, which would create enormous problems for the operation and the means attested to. This is especially problematic given the very small camps and number of personnel attested to: thousands of prisoners being managed by a very small security force- in the Holocaust mythos it is Jewish prisoners themselves who helped trick fellow Jews to their deaths.
The same could be said of the Allies... it was Great Britain and France who declared war on Germany and demanded unconditional surrender.
The actual historical events are not counterintuitive at all: Jews were concentrated into camps due to the belief that Jews would be detrimental to the German war effort for various reasons: espionage, partisan activity, etc. The Japanese were interned in America for the same reasons, and ethnic Germans were concentrated by Churchill also. In these camps Jews were made to perform labor to assist the German war effort. High fatalities in those camps followed mostly in the final months of the war when German infrastructure collapsed due to being bombed from all sides. This is a far more intuitive story than the mythos of millions of people marched inside gas chambers that had been disguised as shower rooms.
This is a claim that you could actually prove if any sort of written orders to this effect were ever given. But they were not. Even mainstream historians admit this. You can say "Hitler wanted this" but there's simply no evidence that this was ordered by Hitler. Hitler wanted the Jews out of Europe. This is true, and there are orders to this effect. There are no "kill all the Jews" orders that have ever been found. So you run into the problem where you claim "OBVIOUSLY Hitler wanted this", even though written orders for that have never been found, whereas there is ample documentation for planning and orders for actual German policy with respect to the Jews, and those orders align with the Revisionist interpretation and not the claim that millions were exterminated inside gas chambers that had been disguised as shower rooms.
How many Jews do you believe were exterminated inside gas chambers than had been disguised as shower rooms?
Why did they declare war on Germany? Was it just out of the blue, or was there a specific reason for it?
They declared war on Germany, ostensibly, because of the German-Polish war. But in reality they declared war because they didn't want a strong Germany to upset the balance of power in Europe. If liberating Poland was their real motive in their hearts of hearts, they failed miserably and destroyed Europe in the process. But there's ample historical evidence that the British for example essentially sabotaged German/Polish negotiation which would have averted war. And that the British rejected German peace offers that included Germany evacuating from essentially all of Western Europe. Accusing just one side of being "warmongers" is absurd but that's definitely part of the myth.
Shouldn't this speculation take into account the immediate preceeding events, ie. Germany and Czechoslovakia making precisely such an agreement to avert war with Western backing and Germany then proceeding to violate that agreement in the most flagrant of manners?
Germany did not violate the Munich Agreement. The Munich Agreement is not very long you can read it for yourself if you want.
The Munich Agreement rested on the idea that the cessation of Sudetenland would be followed by no further German aggression against Czechoslovakia. It was then followed by further German aggression against Czechoslovakia.
Hacha voluntarily signed over independence. Hacha was the one who sought an audience with Hitler in Berlin, Hacha's concern was that the Benes faction were going to take over in Czechia, and they were going to start a war with Germany. It was not forced through German aggression. Nothing about the Munich Agreement stated that Hacha could not cede territory voluntarily to Hitler.
According to diplomatic memoirs and record, Hocha arrived to March 1939 negotiations because they were demanded by Germans. In the "negotiations", the Germans threatened Hocha with outright shooting war and bombing of Prague unless he surrendered without fight. that is called an "ultimatum", not negotiation.
Germans and Hungarians had the troops who proceeded with full occupation of the country within a day after the negotiations concluded, so the ultimatum was backed by force.
More damning, existing treaties had guaranteed independence of a Czhechoslovakia. Second round of negotiations on the topic of cessation of remaining independent Czechoslovakia and its annexation to Germany was a blatant aggression. The annexation was equally as voluntary as annexation of the Baltics to the U.S.S.R in 1940, which is, not at all.
Additionally and even more to the point, when we are talking about Britain and France signing the Munich Agreement - the crucial party when analyzing their further actions regarding Poland - would one even remotely assume that the events coming after the signing of Munich Agreement vis-a-vis Czechoslovakia were what they expected and hoped for?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link