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 far away from the argument, but it's also far more correct. Note that your framing is selectively allocating agency to the Poles and the Brits/Germans to choose in response to the German demands, just as Flynn's framing attributes agency to the American influence driving others decisions, but neither address that the Germans themselves had the agency in not only making unreasonable demands, but also the agency to not make those demands. The dictator is not an immovable fact of nature, for which there is no reasoning and agency only exists with the responder. The dictator is an agent, and has used their agency to posit the demand in the first place.
Avoiding this point- that people are resisting unreasonable German demands- is required to credibly claim that the Poles were unreasonable in not compromising to them, because there is no failure in reason or competence to resist the unreasonable. But the German Nazis were being unreasonable, and the other actors were being reasonable in resisting the unreasonable, and so re-establing the actual originating context- that the Germans were the originating actors and making unreasonable demands- is the more correct point for conveying not the argument, but the actual context the argument is trying to ignore.
Your contention relies on the Germans requests being unreasonable when you could just as easily say that they weren't. Not the least considering Poland could have been much better for it, along with all of Europe, if they had aligned themselves with Germany against communism and what National Socialists recognized as capitalism in the hands of the international jew.
My argument isn't selective about anything. I think you should step back and recognize just what narrative is being revised. Hitler could have done things differently, but the obvious case here is that so could everyone else. In the context of general WW2 narratives that shovel all blame on Hitler in particular, and to a lesser extent the Treaty of Versailles, there exists an obvious angle of blame that is never talked about lest it draw attention away from the great myths we have created out of Hitler and the holocaust.
No, it would not go better for Poland given that Germans genuinely consider Poles as subhumans.
that particular stupidity solved nothing, was mistaken and resulted in several millions of innocent people being murdered
You pro-slavery, pro-mass-murder and pro-Hitler (ok, that is redundant a bit) apologia is spectacularly stupid and evil.
Please stop telling lies. The Germans considered West-Poles to be aryans. Hitler said of slavs that they were docile so long they had food and drink.
Please engage with statements in context. This is a waste of time.
This isn't an argument and makes no sense since I have made no pro-slavery or pro-mass-murder statements.
Are you now in full scale denial? Germans proceeded to murder people who were not docile.
Only some of them, and that was only subgroup anyway. And you were eligible if you cooperated with mass-murdering nazis.
They killed British and American soldiers too. You know, because there was a war.
West-Poles, according to Nazi racial law, were aryans.
Seems like we have gone very far away from Germans considering all Poles subhumans very fast.
Are you claiming that killings in Poland were limited to soldiers? If no, how this is relevant?
There were few exceptions, which does not change things much.
No major participant in the war limited their killings to soldiers.
West-Poland was roughly half of the population. Considering how flexible the Germans were with their racial policies towards allies, like making the Japanese honorary Aryans, there's no reason to look at anti-slav rhetoric, most of which existing as war propaganda against the Soviets, as anything other than a placeholder for whatever would suit German necessity. Considering the idealism Hitler displayed towards Europe as a collection of nations, especially with regards to Britain, and to a further extent his respect towards Polish anti-communists like Pilsudski, there's no reason to assume any hardline ideological animus towards Poles from the Germans if Poland had aligned themselves with Germany rather than Britain, France and the US.
There is major difference between some incidental deaths, or killings due to disregarding civilian casualties and deliberate murder of millions - and doing it as a goal, also when it hurt war effort.
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