5 ms·

>The Germans suffered virtually nothing for conducting WWII and The Holocaust. Except for the millions who died in combat or were murdered by the allied forces

>The Germans suffered virtually nothing for conducting WWII and The Holocaust. Except for the millions who died in combat or were murdered by the allied forces and the fact that we are still paying today for something we had no involvement in. Anyway, it's almost the same for the U.S. today. All the crap they've pulled in foreign countries since after WW II has no consequences for them at all. U.S. politics are directly responsible for the deaths of millions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r... Money and economics has ruled back then (decisions after WW II) and it still does now.

thriftwy 9y ago
> Money and economics has ruled back then and it still does now. Then what becomes of the story of The Holocaust? What's the take away then?
- taway_1212 9y ago
  I don't think it's actually true. Hitler had two major causes: eradication of Jews and eradication of Slavic people, and none of them were rooted in rational economics. He of course wanted to eradicate the Jews because he believed they were the cause of much of evil in the world - hard to find much rationality there. For the Slavs, it's a bit more complicated. Hitler was hugely fond of and inspired by America's colonization of the West (which required extermination of Native Americans to make room for settlers) and wanted to repeat that in Eastern Europe - murder all the Poles, Ukrainians, Bellariusians and Russians in the territories that he manages to conquest, raze all cities to the ground (hard to find economic justification for that) and then move German settlers in their place. The goal was to make Germany large and powerful enough that it could later tackle America. The joke here was that his thinking was largely antiquated at this point - in the XX century a country's military power was determined by its industrial capabilities, and not population/territory. So again, the entire genocide was motivated by one man's delusional view of the world, and not rational thinking.
  - thriftwy 9y ago
    What you're saying is hilariously true. What Hitler wanted is basically getting a huge slab of agricultural land. But as we all know, in second half of XX century both fertility and agriculture prices fell sharply, so even if he was ultimately successful Germany will have neither people to populate these territories nor economical reason to do so. The settlers will probably be leaving the area en masse towards "mainland Germany" creating "human deserts" of depopulation while being a drag economically. Even now it happens in these territories (Poland, Baltics, Ukraine) as people move west for better life.
  - expertentipp 9y ago
    Eastern lands were important for them for other reasons - they had they own "idyllic" vision of them. High officials and officers were promised as an compensation for being sent to dreaded Eastern Front a large plot of land and Poles/Ukrainians as slaves. Eastern Poland and Ukraine are among most fertile agricultural lands in Europe.
    - thriftwy 9y ago
      > Eastern Poland and Ukraine are among most fertile agricultural lands in Europe. Yet people are leaving these lands as if there was a plague. Agriculture is a few % of a healthy country's economy anyway. It won't make undesirable and undeveloped land desirable.
      - expertentipp 9y ago
        At that times agriculture looked completely different and being feudal lord was considered prestigious. Nowadays one can grow (or rather produce) food in tiny greenhouses in overcrowded Netherlands.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- yAnonymous 9y ago
  When I say "back then", I'm referring to the decisions after WW II to turn Germany back into an economic force, i.e. the topic you started.
  - taway_1212 9y ago
    I agree then, the war's aftermath was 100% rational/cynical.
taway_1212 9y ago
> Except for the millions who died in combat or were murdered by the allied forces and the fact that we are still paying today for something we had no involvement in. It's not the question of whether there were consequences, but if there were proportional/appropriate. After the war, there were talks on the highest international level of destroying all of German's industry and turning it into an agricultural-only country. That maybe would've been extreme, but what has actually happened - financial help from the USA (instead of help for Germany's victims) and the Nazis/Gestapo staff transitioning to the ruling class of the West Germany was also extreme and deeply unfair. What I ask for is just to have a minimum of respect for the victims and not say that there were murdered by "Nazis". I'm pretty sure they haven't even heard of the term back then.
- ptaipale 9y ago
  The U.S. gave substantial help to everyone in Europe, not just Germans. The Soviet occupation zone, as well as Finland and Yugoslavia, would have none of it, because U.S.S.R. was hostile to it. The largest recipients of Marshall Plan aid were the U.K. (26 %) and France (18 %), with West Germany third at 11 % of total aid amount in this plan. So claiming that financial help went to Germany instead of Germany's victims is, in my opinion, disingenuous. There were also other American aid programs besides the Marshall Plan.
  - taway_1212 9y ago
    By Germany's victims I mean for example Poles, who fought on the allied side against the Germans and were later conveniently abandoned to become a part of Stalin's empire. Poland suffered losses far beyond the material (although in this area they were still greater than France or UK's) - Germans and Soviets both had executed targeted plans to murder educated Poles (imagine large percentage of people with bachelor or higher degree being rounded up and executed - that's far bigger blow than even destruction of many cities and factories). No help was extended though. Polish elites' philosophy was that, although our country is occupied and we can no longer contribute weapons and other material goods to the war effort, we can still contribute blood (by fighting both on both Eastern and Western fronts, as well as organizing a massive military resistance in Poland). It turned out to be extremely naive on our part, as at the end we got discarded like an used tissue.

thriftwy 9y ago

> Money and economics has ruled back then and it still does now. Then what becomes of the story of The Holocaust? What's the take away then?

taway_1212 9y ago
I don't think it's actually true. Hitler had two major causes: eradication of Jews and eradication of Slavic people, and none of them were rooted in rational economics. He of course wanted to eradicate the Jews because he believed they were the cause of much of evil in the world - hard to find much rationality there. For the Slavs, it's a bit more complicated. Hitler was hugely fond of and inspired by America's colonization of the West (which required extermination of Native Americans to make room for settlers) and wanted to repeat that in Eastern Europe - murder all the Poles, Ukrainians, Bellariusians and Russians in the territories that he manages to conquest, raze all cities to the ground (hard to find economic justification for that) and then move German settlers in their place. The goal was to make Germany large and powerful enough that it could later tackle America. The joke here was that his thinking was largely antiquated at this point - in the XX century a country's military power was determined by its industrial capabilities, and not population/territory. So again, the entire genocide was motivated by one man's delusional view of the world, and not rational thinking.
- thriftwy 9y ago
  What you're saying is hilariously true. What Hitler wanted is basically getting a huge slab of agricultural land. But as we all know, in second half of XX century both fertility and agriculture prices fell sharply, so even if he was ultimately successful Germany will have neither people to populate these territories nor economical reason to do so. The settlers will probably be leaving the area en masse towards "mainland Germany" creating "human deserts" of depopulation while being a drag economically. Even now it happens in these territories (Poland, Baltics, Ukraine) as people move west for better life.
- expertentipp 9y ago
  Eastern lands were important for them for other reasons - they had they own "idyllic" vision of them. High officials and officers were promised as an compensation for being sent to dreaded Eastern Front a large plot of land and Poles/Ukrainians as slaves. Eastern Poland and Ukraine are among most fertile agricultural lands in Europe.
  - thriftwy 9y ago
    > Eastern Poland and Ukraine are among most fertile agricultural lands in Europe. Yet people are leaving these lands as if there was a plague. Agriculture is a few % of a healthy country's economy anyway. It won't make undesirable and undeveloped land desirable.
    - expertentipp 9y ago
      At that times agriculture looked completely different and being feudal lord was considered prestigious. Nowadays one can grow (or rather produce) food in tiny greenhouses in overcrowded Netherlands.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
yAnonymous 9y ago
When I say "back then", I'm referring to the decisions after WW II to turn Germany back into an economic force, i.e. the topic you started.
- taway_1212 9y ago
  I agree then, the war's aftermath was 100% rational/cynical.

taway_1212 9y ago

> Except for the millions who died in combat or were murdered by the allied forces and the fact that we are still paying today for something we had no involvement in. It's not the question of whether there were consequences, but if there were proportional/appropriate. After the war, there were talks on the highest international level of destroying all of German's industry and turning it into an agricultural-only country. That maybe would've been extreme, but what has actually happened - financial help from the USA (instead of help for Germany's victims) and the Nazis/Gestapo staff transitioning to the ruling class of the West Germany was also extreme and deeply unfair. What I ask for is just to have a minimum of respect for the victims and not say that there were murdered by "Nazis". I'm pretty sure they haven't even heard of the term back then.

ptaipale 9y ago
The U.S. gave substantial help to everyone in Europe, not just Germans. The Soviet occupation zone, as well as Finland and Yugoslavia, would have none of it, because U.S.S.R. was hostile to it. The largest recipients of Marshall Plan aid were the U.K. (26 %) and France (18 %), with West Germany third at 11 % of total aid amount in this plan. So claiming that financial help went to Germany instead of Germany's victims is, in my opinion, disingenuous. There were also other American aid programs besides the Marshall Plan.
- taway_1212 9y ago
  By Germany's victims I mean for example Poles, who fought on the allied side against the Germans and were later conveniently abandoned to become a part of Stalin's empire. Poland suffered losses far beyond the material (although in this area they were still greater than France or UK's) - Germans and Soviets both had executed targeted plans to murder educated Poles (imagine large percentage of people with bachelor or higher degree being rounded up and executed - that's far bigger blow than even destruction of many cities and factories). No help was extended though. Polish elites' philosophy was that, although our country is occupied and we can no longer contribute weapons and other material goods to the war effort, we can still contribute blood (by fighting both on both Eastern and Western fronts, as well as organizing a massive military resistance in Poland). It turned out to be extremely naive on our part, as at the end we got discarded like an used tissue.