Skip to comments.What really died at Auschwitz
Posted on 07/12/2013 6:41:01 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants
click here to read article
Also the other side of that old joke -
Domini Canes. ;)
Sorry, I’m missing the joke. Are you referring to a book, or something else???
Domini - Lord
Canes - Dogs
Dominicans are the ‘Hounds of the Lord’. It’s a reference to Matthew 15:17.
I believe the total was 12-14 million, with Jews being the largest single identifiable group. The fruit of the state unconstrained by free citizens.
You are correct in your assertion about the meaning of Jews being “chosen” and why.
So many seem to think that “chosen” means special, and in some ways that is true, but the preponderance of of special treatment of the Jews over the millennia has been negative
The U.S. is following the same road.
Thank you for the clarification!
So why would any Christian want to be "chosen" in the same way as Jews?
Isn't that the whole point of Christianity -- to be forgiven rather than "chosen"?
Of course, many Christians are also "chosen" and "refined" like Jews, but the whole idea is: Christ will protect Christians from God's highest standards, right?
So, if Jews are more chosen, then Christians are more forgiven.
I don't agree with that in the least, and here's why:
If you set as your standard the US Civil War of 1861-1865 -- for the "maximum military deaths" a civilization can endure and still prosper: that number is 2.2% of the population.
In the First World War, the only nations which exceeded 2.2% military deaths were France (3.5%), Germany (3.1%) and Turkey (3.6%).
Britain suffered 1.9% deaths, Russia 1% and the USA .1%.
Overall, Europe suffered 1% military deaths in the Great War -- fewer than half US deaths in the Civil War.
So European civilization was no more "dead" in 1919 than was the US in 1865.
But there was a huge difference between 1865 and 1919, and in a word, that difference was: Democrat President Woodrow Wilson.
The US Civil War ended with Unconditional Surrender of Confederates, complete US victory and quick recovery of "American Civilization's" dynamic growth.
The First World War ended according to President Wilson's idea of "peace without victory", with undefeated Germany still eager for Round Two.
So Europe did not die at the Somme, it was killed by a US President too eager to make nicey-nicey with people who truly needed to be utterly defeated and unconditionally surrender.
That took a Second World War, with another 75+ million deaths, at which point European Civilization was prostrate and no longer in control of its destiny.
Today? Well... we will never again see 1914 when the Great War began, or even 1991 when it finally, finally ended.
But there is nothing which guarantees US hegemony forever, and strong partnerships can easily allow one or the other partner to become "senior" as conditions dictate.
Our current Democrat "lead from behind" administration comes to mind...
How can you say Germany was undefeated, given that they lost their colonies, were forced into paying massive (and unaffordable) reparations, and were effectively disarmed?
I would hesitate to say that Germany was eager for round 2. Rather they were hesitant, and had to be brought to it by little steps, against lesser players.
Strong diplomacy against Hitler might have prevented war. The political class at that time (see Stanley Baldwin) was not up to it.
Thanks for that question.
In 1918 Germans themselves did not think they were defeated.
Corporal Hitler's commander (while Hitler was in the hospital recovering from a gas attack), General Ludendorf recommended his government sue for peace, but then almost immediately changed his mind, too late, wheels were in motion.
Germans were told they had not been defeated -- no foreign army had crossed a German border, no German armies had been destroyed, it was all just political, a "stab in the back" by devious civilians, especially, well, who do you think they were? THE JEWS!!!
And that was basically Hitler's stump speech beginning as early as September, 1919.
So Germans didn't feeeeeeel defeated, didn't believe they deserved any punishment, and were told to resent every imposition from the Versailles treaty.
But I personally think there was something even more basic at work.
Hitler was the ideal German imperial leader, fuhrer -- a soldier's soldier from Austria, a mesmerizing public speaker, a photographic memory, a dreamer of unlimited scope, and utterly without scruples or morals.
Hitler's WWI commander was (Lieutennant General) Eric Ludendorf, who marched beside Hitler at the 1923 Munich Beer Hall Putsch.
Ludendorf's prewar commander was none other than (Lieutennant General) Alfred von Schlieffen, creator of the "Schlieffen Plan" to invade France before Russia.
By 1914 it was actually Ludendorf's revised plan.
So there is a direct line of command from von Schlieffen to (von) Ludendorf to Hitler.
That makes WWII simply the Great War version 2.0.
As best I can tell, Ludendorf's moments of doubt in October 1918 corresponded to Hitler's time in the hospital, and lasted only a few days.
But that was just enough to form the civilian government which immediately sued for peace.
By the time Ludendorf's courage returned and he changed his mind, it was too late, the peace-train had left, Ludendorf was sacked and Germany "stabbed in the back" by... well... the Jews!.
Certainly, "most Germans" (90%?) did not want either world war, so they had to be deceived, manipulated, tricked and lead or pushed to their slaughter.
On the other hand, those rings in their nose were pretty powerful motivators: German unity, Versailles injustices, imperial expansion("lebensraum"), fear of communists, intellectuals and, notably, the Jews.
donmeaker: "Strong diplomacy against Hitler might have prevented war."
"Strong diplomacy"..... hmmmmmmmmm...
I'm not certain what, if anything, might have realistically been done once Hitler was in power.
Immediate massive support for "moderate" opposition groups (in churches, the military, in Austria, etc.), maybe, but what was the last year of legitimate elections -- 1934?
Nobody saw then where the world would be in ten years.
"Strong diplomacy" including military force -- in the Rheinland & Czechoslovakia... who knows?
BroJoe, I thought of your post over the weekend, and while you make some good points, I have some disagreement. For a long time I’ve thought that the real men of Europe were all killed off in the Great War. The Brits died at the Somme, the French at Verdun, but the Germans took another generation and they died at Stalingrad.
I don’t think the percentage of population losses really tells the full story. Yes, the United States suffered a high percentage of population losses compared to the European powers in World War 1. But there were other differences, and most of them had to do with the vigor of the society, both before and after the war.
The American Civil War came at a time when the United States had just begun a huge expansion in terms of territorial development, industrial development and population growth, partly fueled by large immigration from Europe. That growth was the result of many factors which existed independent of the Civil War, and many historians believe the Civil War was merely one its features. However, despite the losses in the war, the United States, particularly the victorious northern part, exited the war stronger and more prosperous than it entered it. And that trend was going to continue for several more generations.
Europe entered the Great War as a prosperous, vibrant civilization, but left the first great struggle exhausted and disillusioned. It was no longer a vibrant, healthy civilization, but a sick and vulnerable one. The great nations lost their competitive edge. The main difference with the United States was in underlying conditions that were more or less independent of the war. While the United States was just beginning its rise, by 1914 Europe had already reached the zenith of its world power. It was something of a wasting asset; it could only decline relative to the rest of the world, and it was only a question of at what pace. The two wars that ripped the Continent apart didn’t cause that decline, it only accelerated it.
So a 2% loss in population in a country that has continuous 5% growth isn’t going to make much of an impact. A 2% loss in a country that isn’t growing can start a cycle of tailspin.
I never liked it. It always struck me as self-serving excuse-making BS.
But who exactly is the “self” being served? And which truths are the excuses intended to hide?
Well certainly one “self” is the new American hegimon — naturally, we eat that stuff up, uncritically, since it feeds our egos and sense of self importance.
But why so little resistance from Europeans themselves?
Well, part of the answer is easy — American help for Europe's allies came at the cost of powerful anti-imperial, anti-colonial ideology.
Sure, we pulled their chestnuts out of the fire, but at the price of severe restrictions on future chestnuts.
So Europeans adopted an attitude of disillusion and angst, while we Americans just kept right on doing what it is we do best — living our lives, building a prosperous economy.
But the real tell-tail is Germany, which certainly had as much right to “disillusionment” as anyone.
And yet within just a few years they were right back up on their feet pursuing their long-term national goals — this time with a near biblical vengeance.
Again, my point is, if great battles resulted in disillusionment or cultural death, then the US would have “died” at Gettysburg or Antietam.
Instead, what really matters is not so much the size of the battle as what exactly we say about it for years afterwards.
Really, we're talking about education and or propaganda.
Must stop for now...
Now, you know I try to be as objective as possible in historical analysis. ;-)
The trends I posted are pretty obvious. You will note that the “deaths” of the nations I pointed out specifically had the Germans dying a generation later at Stalingrad. Why? Because they lost the first war, and were punished heavily for it. Plus, German hegemony of the Continent was an already ongoing historical trend. The Kaiser interrupted it with his neurotic policies, Hitler seriously interrupted it with his psychotic ones. But today, Germany is accomplishing economically what neither of them could militarily. I knew that would happen as soon as they knocked down The Wall. The Cold War, and NATO, which in the words of Helmut Kohl, existed “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down” was only an historical pause button.
And as you point out, there was “education and propaganda.” The German education and propaganda during the 1920’s and 30’s was all about “betrayal,” “stab in the back” and the like. Contrast that with the education and propaganda from 1955 to at least 1980. As I know I’ve posted before, I received a degree in Germanic Languages in 1981, and read a lot of German literature and screenplays to get my degree. It really wasn’t until 1955 that the Germans began to come to grips with the legacy of the war. Adenauer had been to Moscow to secure the release of the POW’s in Soviet captivity, and the price was recognition of East Germany. The division and occupation of the country seemed permanent.
As a result, the education and propaganda to the German people from that point on centered around the discussion of two very angst-ridden questions: “How could we have let this happen?” and “Was all our suffering and sacrifice for evil?” In the moral wrestling over those two questions you find much of the present mind-set of Germany. However, those memories fade as the generation that asked them disappears. Who knows what will replace them.
As for the other countries, like Britain, France and Italy, even though they “won,” they had to win twice, and I think the general consensus is they found them Pyhrric Victories that they just would not care to repeat. So their cultures are imbued with a sense of no longer willing to struggle or sacrifice. For anything. I follow Formula 1 racing; the technology is great, the drivers skilled, but off the track when you get a bunch of European lawyers involved, it’s really quite nauseating to see how they run their business with all the under-handed deals followed by a bunch of face-saving and compromise.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
“Is that about it?”
In the Tanakah, Job, a gentile, is revered as the most righteous and deserving man of the world a the time, and perhaps all of history.
Judaism does not teach that getiles are less than Jewish people.
In contrast, Judaism teaches that the Jewish people are the least of all peoples, and were chosen as a demonstration of what HaShem can do, even with my otherwise useless and stubborn people.
“Chosen” does not mean “better.” It means “chosen.”
Eeny, meany, miny, moe . . . you’re it.
Agree with most of your comments, and also have some experience in Germany with Germans. No claim to expertise on the subject.
Let me suggest that European culture of 1914 resulted in large part from the complete defeat of Napoleon in 1815.
In 1815 the Old Order was then dead, a new order rose, prospered and dominated the world.
In1865 the American Old Order was completely defeated, a new order rose, prospered and dominated North America.
In 1919 the old order was only partially defeated, and in its place began to grow several different possible competing new orders.
From international socialism to national socialism to democratic socialism to...
They were all more or less socialists, which means at war with their own people, robbing themselves of cultural vigor, PLUS soon at war with each other, beginning in Spain.
Let me put it this way: “cultural decline” is a self inflicted wound — an autoimmune disease, where the body politic attacks itself in a basically insane effort to be rid of imaginary pathogens.
I think precisely that, rather than some post-romantic “disillusion” or angst explains Europe’s declines, cultural, political, etc.
Nah, I should know better than to stir up mess involving subjects about which I am not an expert.
I'll fold on this hand.
We can debate this endlessly, probably will, and will thoroughly enjoy it.
I see history as “continental drift.” The underlying forces push nations and peoples in various directions. There is resistance. The pressures build up against the resistance, and then you have an “earthquake,” or in the human context, war. After the war, the pressures have been spent/released, a new order settles in, and then the pressures start to build again until the next earthquake. And, in history, too, there are “fault lines.” It’s a nice analogy, but I will concede that it only goes so far.
As far as underlying pressures are concerned, there can be many of them. Migration, in part caused by climate cycles, has been one of them. Resource development, uneven technological progress, population growth/disease....the list could be endless.
In the context of 1918, the blight of socialism was already there in most societies. Some places virulent communism, some places a more quiescent socialism. But it was already there, exerting its pressures. When the “earthquake” of WW1 destroyed or discredited the existing social/political order, socialism was there to gain from it. It was kept at bay in some places better than others. However, I don’t think it would have been successful without the war and the opportunity to spread its lies (”land bread peace” comes to mind) to an exhausted population.
The two competing strains of socialism fought the next war, with the nationalists losing to the internationalists. And while we thought we were still capitalist, the forces of internationalist socialism were rotting us out from within.
My limited understanding is that the German general staff was ready to kill Hitler if the Rhineland occupation led to war. There was another activity that at that time distracted world attention.
One of my considerations was if FDR had pulled the Marines from the banana republics, and sent them off (with permission of France) to throw Hitler out of the Rhineland. Hitler is assassinated, and Stalin invades Poland from the East. Liberal Germany is part of the western alliance against Stalin...
Yesterday I posted from a park bench, in the shade on a hot day, via "smart phone", which aren't all that "smart".
Today back indoors, with more resources available...
henkster: "I see history as 'continental drift.' "
Let's talk about some continents -- Europe, North America, Asia...
This site lists world GDP going all the way back to the Roman Empire.
It shows which regions dominated economically over the centuries.
If we start with the Roman Empire, Europe accounted for 17% of world GDP, Asia 73%.
By 1820, Asia was still 60% of world GDP, Western Europe 23% and the USA all of 2%.
In 1870 W. Europe first reached 33%, Asia fell to 38% and the USA rose to 9%.
By 1913 W. Europe had peaked at 33%, Asia fell to 25% and the USA rose to 19%.
After two world wars, by 1950 things had changed significantly: USA peaked at 27%. W. Europe fell to 26%, Asia fell to 17%.
Today the numbers are roughly 40% for Asia, and 20% each for Europe and the USA.
What does that all tell us?
Well, if we look at your continents, the US and Europe together today have roughly the same percent of world GDP relative to Asia as we did in 1870 -- 40% each.
Asia's long decline has been totally reversed since 1973.
W. Europe has declined from 33% in 1913 to 20% today, the USA has declined from 27% in 1950 to 20% today.
So, bottom line, it seems to me that we have a lot in common with our European cousins, and shouldn't be spending too much time triumphally gloating over their "declining civilization".
Kettle meet pot. Pot meet kettle.
It is astonishing how many plots there are alleged to have been on Hitler's life, some by generals, others by civilians, none of which succeeded.
I am at the point of discounting nearly all such talk.
Yes, Valkyrie was real, and came close to success, but others, well... not so much.
Think of a recent Hitler-lite dictator, oh, say, Saddam Hussein.
In the end, nothing but nothing could bring his own people to overthrow, much less murder him.
And consider any number of similar examples -- a Stalin or Mao, Castro -- so I think there is something deep in human psyche (fear, love, loyalty, community?) which protects dictators of a certain status.
Of course, they protect themselves, but they also depend on supporters' loyalty, and that never failed Hitler.
I'm only saying that, considering how many actual plots against Hitler failed, how might we suppose some potential plot might somehow succeed?
donmeaker: "One of my considerations was if FDR had pulled the Marines from the banana republics, and sent them off (with permission of France) to throw Hitler out of the Rhineland."
Oh, dear me... and if pigs had wings could they fly?
I would be interested to learn if there was ever any such idea mentioned, much less seriously considered.
Isn't the reality that Congress busied itself in those years passing "Neutrality Acts" forbidding the President from taking sides in any foreign disputes?
Yes, I know, President Roosevelt was among the first to recognize the danger Hitler represented.
Indeed, Roosevelt had understood in 1918 that Wilson's "Peace without victory" ideas would not end well.
But I've seen nothing to suggest that FDR thought he had the option of sending US troops into the Rhineland in 1936.
Instead, France and Britain were the First Responders for that emergency, and since they didn't, Europe's fires continued to burn.
I sure agree that the Locarno pact has Britain and France as responsible. Belgium in response to the fecklessness of Britain and France became neutral. (how well did that work out in 1914?)
FDR probably would have been impeached, or better yet, would have only served two terms. He would have been villified for saving millions of lives.
GW Bush gave 16 reasons for the invasion of Iraq. He was villified, and won reelection anyways, so he could win the war.
Obama gave away the gains, but because of the democratic framework left by Bush, the Iraqi prime minister is moving away from Iran as he seeks votes from the Sunni-Iraqis.
There sure are a lot of feedback loops, and the progress of history is anything but linear.
Aside from the zero, soap, Alcohol, the Sofa, the banana, and low taxes, what have the Muslims ever done for us?
Aside from the zero, soap, Alcohol, the Sofa, the banana, and low taxes, what have the Muslims ever done for us?
Chosen is just a different kind of special.
Along with the legitimacy of nationalism, globalism took over.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.